Intel Arc B770 vs NVIDIA RTX 2000 Mobile Ada Generation Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains no direct benchmark scores for either the Intel Arc B770 or the NVIDIA RTX 2000 Mobile Ada Generation. Both entries show an average benchmark score of zero and an empty head-to-head benchmark array. The percentile versus all GPUs is identical for both at 50, which places them in the same relative position across the entire database population. This absence of measured data does not prevent a useful comparison, because the recorded hardware specifications provide the basis for projecting relative performance across several workload classes.

The clearest raw compute advantage belongs to the Intel Arc B770. Its FP32 throughput is recorded at 19.66 TFLOPS, while the NVIDIA RTX 2000 Mobile Ada Generation is listed at 12.99 TFLOPS. That represents a 51.3% higher FP32 figure for the Intel part. In FP16 workloads, the gap widens further: the Arc B770 reaches 39.32 TFLOPS with a 2:1 ratio, whereas the NVIDIA part delivers 12.99 TFLOPS with a 1:1 ratio. The Intel GPU therefore offers roughly three times the FP16 throughput on paper. These differences point to a substantial raw compute lead for the Arc B770 in shader-heavy and compute-oriented tasks.

Texture and pixel processing follow the same pattern. The Arc B770 records 256 texture mapping units and a texture rate of 614.4 GTexel/s. The NVIDIA RTX 2000 Mobile Ada Generation has 96 TMUs and a texture rate of 203.0 GTexel/s. The Intel GPU is about three times faster in texture throughput. Pixel rate shows 307.2 GPixel/s for the Arc B770 versus 101.5 GPixel/s for the NVIDIA part, again a near three-to-one ratio. Rasterization-heavy workloads, such as traditional rendering pipelines with heavy fill-rate demands, should strongly favor the Intel GPU based on these figures.

Memory bandwidth is another major differentiator. The Arc B770 uses a 256-bit bus with 16 GB of GDDR6 and delivers 512.0 GB/s. The NVIDIA RTX 2000 Mobile Ada Generation uses a 128-bit bus with 8 GB of GDDR6 and delivers 256.0 GB/s. The Intel part offers double the memory capacity and exactly double the bandwidth. For workloads that scale with memory capacity, such as large texture sets, high-resolution framebuffers, or data-intensive compute, the Arc B770 has a clear structural advantage.

Ray tracing hardware also differs. The Arc B770 has 32 ray tracing cores, while the NVIDIA RTX 2000 Mobile Ada Generation has 24. Both support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, so API-level feature parity is present. The higher ray tracing core count on the Intel part suggests a potential advantage in ray-traced scenes, though architectural efficiency differences cannot be quantified from the recorded data alone.

The NVIDIA part does hold one meaningful advantage in the tensor core category. The RTX 2000 Mobile Ada Generation is listed with 96 tensor cores, while the Arc B770 has no tensor core entry in the database. This indicates that the NVIDIA GPU has dedicated hardware for tensor operations, which the Intel part lacks. Any AI inference or machine learning workload that relies on tensor cores would favor the NVIDIA GPU, assuming software support aligns with the hardware capability.

The Verdict

The recorded data supports a split verdict. For desktop-oriented, high-throughput workloads, the Intel Arc B770 is the stronger part on paper. It leads in FP32 compute, FP16 compute, texture rate, pixel rate, memory capacity, memory bandwidth, and ray tracing core count. The 225 W TDP and dual-slot design reflect a part built to sustain heavy continuous load. The 550 W suggested PSU and dual power connectors (1x 6-pin plus 1x 8-pin) indicate that this is a power-hungry component intended for a full desktop build.

The NVIDIA RTX 2000 Mobile Ada Generation is positioned for an entirely different use case. Its 50 W TDP, IGP slot width, no power connectors, and portable-device-dependent display outputs mark it as a mobile or compact embedded part. Its 18,900 million transistors on a 159 mm² die give it a transistor density of 118.9M per mm², which is a far denser implementation than the Arc B770's 368 mm² die with unknown transistor count. The NVIDIA part also has the only tensor core hardware in this comparison, with 96 tensor cores recorded.

Neither part currently shows measured benchmark scores in the database. The verdict is therefore based on specification-derived capability, not observed performance. The data indicates the Arc B770 should be chosen for maximum raw rendering and compute throughput in a desktop context. The RTX 2000 Mobile Ada Generation should be chosen where power efficiency, compact form factor, and tensor core acceleration matter more than raw throughput.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Arc B770 wins in scenarios that demand high sustained throughput. Its 512.0 GB/s memory bandwidth and 16 GB capacity handle large working sets. Its 614.4 GTexel/s texture rate and 307.2 GPixel/s pixel rate suggest strong performance in high-resolution rasterization. The 19.66 TFLOPS FP32 and 39.32 TFLOPS FP16 figures point to general-purpose compute tasks such as simulation, rendering, and scientific workloads. The 32 ray tracing cores give it an edge in ray-traced rendering workloads that scale with core count. The PCIe 4.0 x16 interface matches a standard desktop motherboard. The 1x HDMI 2.1a and 3x DisplayPort 2.1 outputs support multi-monitor desktop configurations.

The NVIDIA RTX 2000 Mobile Ada Generation wins in power-constrained and space-constrained environments. Its 50 W TDP is a fraction of the Arc B770's 225 W TDP. The IGP slot width and absence of power connectors mean it can be integrated into compact systems where the dual-slot, 6-pin plus 8-pin Arc B770 cannot fit. The 96 tensor cores provide dedicated AI acceleration hardware that the Arc B770 lacks entirely. The 8 GB memory and 256.0 GB/s bandwidth, while half the Intel figures, are sufficient for mobile workloads that prioritize efficiency over peak throughput. The 2115 MHz boost clock on the NVIDIA part is close to the Arc B770's 2400 MHz boost, despite the massive TDP difference, indicating strong clock efficiency per watt.

The transistor density data also tells a story. The NVIDIA part packs 118.9M transistors per mm², while the Arc B770's density is not recorded. The RTX 2000 Mobile Ada Generation achieves its performance with a much smaller die (159 mm² versus 368 mm²), which typically correlates with lower manufacturing cost per unit and better thermal behavior. The Arc B770's larger die suggests a design focused on raw capability rather than efficiency.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher FP32 compute throughput?

A: The Intel Arc B770 is recorded at 19.66 TFLOPS FP32, while the NVIDIA RTX 2000 Mobile Ada Generation is at 12.99 TFLOPS. The Intel part is about 51% higher.

Q: How do the memory systems compare?

A: The Arc B770 has 16 GB of GDDR6 on a 256-bit bus with 512.0 GB/s bandwidth. The RTX 2000 Mobile Ada Generation has 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus with 256.0 GB/s bandwidth. The Intel part has double the capacity and double the bandwidth.

Q: Does either GPU have tensor core support?

A: Only the NVIDIA RTX 2000 Mobile Ada Generation is listed with 96 tensor cores. The Intel Arc B770 has no tensor core entry in the database.

Q: What are the power requirements?

A: The Arc B770 has a 225 W TDP, requires a 550 W suggested PSU, uses a dual-slot design, and needs a 1x 6-pin plus 1x 8-pin power connector. The RTX 2000 Mobile Ada Generation has a 50 W TDP, uses an IGP slot width, and has no power connectors.

Q: Which GPU supports more display outputs?

A: The Arc B770 lists 1x HDMI 2.1a and 3x DisplayPort 2.1 outputs. The RTX 2000 Mobile Ada Generation lists "Portable Device Dependent" outputs, meaning the display connectivity depends on the host device.

Q: What are the release dates?

A: The Intel Arc B770 has a release date of 2025-12-31, while the NVIDIA RTX 2000 Mobile Ada Generation was released on 2023-03-20.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs use entirely different architectures with different design goals. The Intel Arc B770 is built on the Xe2-HPG architecture with the BMG-G31 chip, part of the Battlemage (Arc 7) generation. Its predecessor is listed as Alchemist. The NVIDIA RTX 2000 Mobile Ada Generation uses the Ada Lovelace architecture with the AD107 chip, belonging to the Ada-MW generation. Its predecessor is Ampere-MW and its successor is Blackwell-MW.

Both use a 5 nm process from TSMC, so the manufacturing node is identical. The die sizes differ substantially: the Arc B770 measures 368 mm², while the AD107 chip measures 159 mm². The NVIDIA part has a recorded transistor count of 18,900 million and a density of 118.9M per mm². The Arc B770's transistor count is unknown, so density cannot be computed.

The Arc B770 uses 4096 shading units, 256 TMUs, 128 ROPs, and 32 ray tracing cores. The RTX 2000 Mobile Ada Generation uses 3072 shading units, 96 TMUs, 48 ROPs, 24 ray tracing cores, and 96 tensor cores. The Intel GPU has more of every unit type except tensor cores, which are absent from its recorded specification. The NVIDIA GPU's tensor core count is its sole architectural advantage in unit counts.

Clock behavior differs as well. The Arc B770 has a base clock of 2100 MHz and a boost clock of 2400 MHz. The RTX 2000 Mobile Ada Generation has a base clock of 1635 MHz and a boost clock of 2115 MHz. The Intel part runs at higher clocks at both ends, but it also consumes 225 W versus 50 W.

The memory architecture differs in more than just capacity. The Arc B770 uses a 256-bit bus with memory clocked at 2000 MHz and 16 Gbps effective, yielding 512.0 GB/s. The RTX 2000 Mobile Ada Generation uses a 128-bit bus with the same 2000 MHz clock and 16 Gbps effective rate, yielding 256.0 GB/s. Both use GDDR6 memory, but the wider bus on the Intel part doubles bandwidth.

Specification Differences

The following fields differ between the two entries:

• Chip: Intel BMG-G31 versus NVIDIA AD107
• Architecture: Xe2-HPG versus Ada Lovelace
• Generation: Battlemage (Arc 7) versus Ada-MW
• Transistors: unknown versus 18,900 million
• Die size: 368 mm² versus 159 mm²
• Transistor density: not recorded versus 118.9M per mm²
• Base clock: 2100 MHz versus 1635 MHz
• Boost clock: 2400 MHz versus 2115 MHz
• Memory size: 16 GB versus 8 GB
• Memory bus width: 256 bit versus 128 bit
• Memory bandwidth: 512.0 GB/s versus 256.0 GB/s
• Shading units: 4096 versus 3072
• TMUs: 256 versus 96
• ROPs: 128 versus 48
• Ray tracing cores: 32 versus 24
• Tensor cores: not listed versus 96
• Pixel rate: 307.2 GPixel/s versus 101.5 GPixel/s
• Texture rate: 614.4 GTexel/s versus 203.0 GTexel/s
• FP32: 19.66 TFLOPS versus 12.99 TFLOPS
• FP16: 39.32 TFLOPS (2:1) versus 12.99 TFLOPS (1:1)
• TDP: 225 W versus 50 W
• Slot width: Dual-slot versus IGP
• Power connectors: 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin versus None
• Suggested PSU: 550 W versus not listed
• Display outputs: 1x HDMI 2.1a, 3x DisplayPort 2.1 versus Portable Device Dependent
• Release date: 2025-12-31 versus 2023-03-20
• Predecessor: Alchemist versus Ampere-MW
• Successor: not listed versus Blackwell-MW
• Production status: not listed versus Active

The two GPUs share the same process node (5 nm from TSMC), the same memory type (GDDR6), the same memory clock (2000 MHz, 16 Gbps effective), the same bus interface (PCIe 4.0 x16), and identical API support for DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4.