Intel Arc B770 vs NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 Ti SUPER AD102 Comparison

Intel Arc B770 and NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 Ti SUPER AD102 occupy different corners of the current GPU landscape. The B770 is a new Battlemage part from Intel, while the AD102 is an end-of-life Ada Lovelace design. The recorded data shows a clear distinction in raw performance, but the B770 counters with a unique feature set and efficiency profile. This analysis breaks down the benchmark results, architectural choices, and specifications to determine where each card stands.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains no direct head-to-head benchmark results for these two cards, so the comparison relies on the single recorded score for the RTX 4070 Ti SUPER AD102 and the architectural specs of the B770. The RTX 4070 Ti SUPER AD102 posts a 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 6269.5, which rounds to an average of 6270. Its nearest rivals in the database are the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5070 Ti SUPER with an identical average score of 6270 (0% delta), the AMD FirePro W600 at 6223 (0.8% higher for the AD102), and the NVIDIA Quadro K620 at 6282 (-0.2% delta). This places the AD102 in a tight performance cluster.

The Intel Arc B770 does not have a recorded benchmark score, and its percentile vs all GPUs is 50, which is a mid-pack standing. In contrast, the RTX 4070 Ti SUPER AD102 sits at the 36th percentile, meaning it outperforms more than half of all recorded GPUs in the database. Without a direct score for the B770, the primary numerical comparison comes from theoretical peak throughput. The AD102 delivers 44.10 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, which is more than double the B770's 19.66 TFLOPS. Similarly, the AD102's texture rate of 689.0 GTexel/s exceeds the B770's 614.4 GTexel/s, though the gap narrows considerably. The AD102 also leads in memory bandwidth with 672.3 GB/s versus 512.0 GB/s for the B770.

Pixel rate is one area where the B770 takes a clear lead. The Intel card outputs 307.2 GPixel/s compared to the AD102's 250.6 GPixel/s, a difference of nearly 23%. This suggests the B770's 128 ROPs are more effective at filling frames than the AD102's 96 ROPs, which could benefit games with heavy pixel shading or high resolutions. The absence of B770 benchmark data means these theoretical figures stand as the only measurable comparison points.

Where Each One Wins

The RTX 4070 Ti SUPER AD102 wins decisively in compute-heavy workloads. Its FP32 throughput of 44.10 TFLOPS is a 124% advantage over the B770's 19.66 TFLOPS, making it the stronger choice for raw number-crunching tasks like scientific simulation or large-scale rendering. The AD102 also has a 1:1 FP16 ratio at 44.10 TFLOPS, whereas the B770's FP16 runs at 39.32 TFLOPS with a 2:1 ratio. This means the NVIDIA card sustains full precision across both data types, while the Intel card halves its FP16 rate relative to FP32. The AD102's 264 tensor cores and 66 RT cores provide dedicated hardware for AI acceleration and ray tracing, where the B770 offers only 32 RT cores and no tensor core count is listed.

The Intel Arc B770 wins on memory capacity parity and pixel throughput. Both cards feature 16 GB of VRAM, but the B770 uses GDDR6 while the AD102 uses faster GDDR6X. The B770's higher pixel rate of 307.2 GPixel/s indicates it can process more pixels per second, which is beneficial for rasterization at high frame rates. The B770 also has a lower TDP of 225 W versus the AD102's 285 W, making it more power-efficient on paper. For users who prioritize pixel-dense workloads or lower power draw, the B770 holds an edge.

In terms of physical design, the B770 is a dual-slot card with two power connectors (1x 6-pin and 1x 8-pin), while the AD102 is a triple-slot card with a single 16-pin connector. The B770's suggested PSU is 550 W, lower than the AD102's 600 W requirement. This makes the B770 easier to integrate into existing systems with smaller power supplies.

Architecture Differences

The Intel Arc B770 uses the BMG-G31 chip built on TSMC's 5 nm process, part of the Xe2-HPG architecture in the Battlemage (Arc 7) generation. Its die size is 368 mm², and transistor count is listed as unknown. The AD102 uses the same 5 nm TSMC node but packs 76,300 million transistors into a 609 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 125.3M per mm². This represents a major difference in scale: the AD102 has roughly 2.06 times the die area and a far higher transistor budget.

The B770 features 4096 shading units, 256 TMUs, and 128 ROPs, along with 32 RT cores. The AD102 has 8448 shading units, 264 TMUs, and 96 ROPs, with 66 RT cores and 264 tensor cores. The AD102's shading unit count is more than double the B770's, which explains its massive FP32 lead. However, the B770's higher ROP count (128 vs 96) allows it to exceed the AD102 in pixel rate despite fewer shaders.

Memory architecture differs in type and bandwidth. The B770 uses 16 GB of GDDR6 on a 256-bit bus, delivering 512.0 GB/s. The AD102 uses 16 GB of GDDR6X on the same 256-bit bus, achieving 672.3 GB/s. The B770's memory clock is 2000 MHz (16 Gbps effective), while the AD102 runs at 1313 MHz (21 Gbps effective). The GDDR6X standard provides a 31% bandwidth advantage for the AD102.

Display outputs also differ. The B770 offers 1x HDMI 2.1a and 3x DisplayPort 2.1, supporting newer display standards. The AD102 provides 1x HDMI 2.1 and 3x DisplayPort 1.4a, which is the older DisplayPort version. This gives the B770 a future-proofing edge for high-refresh-rate monitors with DisplayPort 2.1 connectivity.

The AD102 has a launch MSRP of 799 USD, while the B770 has no listed MSRP. The AD102 is end-of-life with a successor in the GeForce 50 series, while the B770 is a new release from December 2025 with a predecessor in Alchemist.

FAQ

Q: Which card has higher raw compute performance?

A: The RTX 4070 Ti SUPER AD102 delivers 44.10 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, more than double the B770's 19.66 TFLOPS. This makes the AD102 the clear leader for compute-heavy tasks.

Q: Does the Intel Arc B770 have any performance advantage?

A: Yes, the B770's pixel rate of 307.2 GPixel/s exceeds the AD102's 250.6 GPixel/s, indicating faster pixel fill rates. This could translate to better performance in pixel-bound scenarios like high-resolution rasterization.

Q: What are the memory bandwidth differences?

A: The AD102 has 672.3 GB/s bandwidth from 16 GB of GDDR6X, while the B770 has 512.0 GB/s from 16 GB of GDDR6. The AD102's bandwidth is 31% higher.

Q: How do the power requirements compare?

A: The B770 has a TDP of 225 W with a suggested PSU of 550 W, while the AD102 has a TDP of 285 W and a suggested PSU of 600 W. The B770 is more power-efficient and easier to accommodate.

Q: Which card supports newer display outputs?

A: The B770 supports DisplayPort 2.1, while the AD102 uses DisplayPort 1.4a. The B770 also includes HDMI 2.1a, whereas the AD102 has HDMI 2.1.

Q: What is the physical size difference?

A: The AD102 measures 310 mm in length, 140 mm in height, and 61 mm in width, spanning three slots. The B770 is a dual-slot card with no listed dimensions, making it potentially more compact.

Specification Differences

The two cards diverge on several key specifications:

• Shading Units: B770 has 4096, AD102 has 8448
• ROPs: B770 has 128, AD102 has 96
• RT Cores: B770 has 32, AD102 has 66
• Tensor Cores: B770 has none listed, AD102 has 264
• FP32 Performance: B770 has 19.66 TFLOPS, AD102 has 44.10 TFLOPS
• FP16 Performance: B770 has 39.32 TFLOPS (2:1), AD102 has 44.10 TFLOPS (1:1)
• Memory Type: B770 uses GDDR6, AD102 uses GDDR6X
• Memory Bandwidth: B770 has 512.0 GB/s, AD102 has 672.3 GB/s
• TDP: B770 has 225 W, AD102 has 285 W
• Slot Width: B770 is dual-slot, AD102 is triple-slot
• Power Connectors: B770 uses 1x 6-pin and 1x 8-pin, AD102 uses 1x 16-pin
• Suggested PSU: B770 requires 550 W, AD102 requires 600 W
• Display Outputs: B770 has DisplayPort 2.1, AD102 has DisplayPort 1.4a
• Die Size: B770 is 368 mm², AD102 is 609 mm²
• Transistors: B770 is unknown, AD102 has 76,300 million
• Production Status: B770 is not listed, AD102 is end-of-life

The Verdict

The data points to a straightforward split. The RTX 4070 Ti SUPER AD102 is the performance leader in almost every measured category: FP32 throughput, FP16 throughput, memory bandwidth, texture rate, and core counts. Its 44.10 TFLOPS FP32 and 672.3 GB/s bandwidth make it a robust choice for compute and high-end gaming, and its 264 tensor cores add AI acceleration that the B770 cannot match. The AD102's 36th percentile standing, despite being end-of-life, confirms it remains competitive against newer parts.

The Intel Arc B770 is the efficiency pick. Its 225 W TDP, dual-slot design, and lower PSU requirement make it easier to install and run. Its 307.2 GPixel/s pixel rate outperforms the AD102, and its DisplayPort 2.1 support offers modern connectivity. The B770's 16 GB memory matches the AD102, though with slower GDDR6. Its 50th percentile and lack of benchmark scores indicate it is not a top-tier performer, but it is a capable option for pixel-bound workloads.

Users who need maximum compute performance, ray tracing, or AI features should select the RTX 4070 Ti SUPER AD102. Users who prioritize power efficiency, modern display outputs, or pixel fill rates should consider the Intel Arc B770. The AD102's end-of-life status and higher power draw are trade-offs, but its performance data is unambiguous.