Intel Arc B770 vs NVIDIA RTX PRO 4000 Blackwell Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The recorded data splits these two cards into clearly different roles. The Intel Arc B770 has no benchmark entries in the database, meaning its performance profile must be derived from its architectural specifications rather than measured results. The NVIDIA RTX PRO 4000 Blackwell, by contrast, has a full suite of nine recorded benchmark scores, placing it at the 72nd percentile of all GPUs in the database. That percentile rank puts it ahead of roughly three-quarters of the field, a strong showing for a workstation-oriented card.

The Arc B770 wins on raw pixel throughput. Its pixel rate of 307.2 GPixel/s is 55.7% higher than the RTX PRO 4000's 197.3 GPixel/s, a decisive margin for rasterization-heavy workloads that fill large framebuffers. The Intel card also leads in texture rate at 614.4 GTexel/s versus 575.4 GTexel/s, a 6.8% advantage. These two metrics indicate the Arc B770 is built to push fill-rate-bound scenes harder than its NVIDIA counterpart.

The RTX PRO 4000 Blackwell wins on compute throughput and memory bandwidth. Its FP32 performance of 36.83 TFLOPS is 87.3% higher than the Arc B770's 19.66 TFLOPS, a massive gap for general-purpose compute. Memory bandwidth favors NVIDIA as well: 672.0 GB/s versus 512.0 GB/s, a 31.3% advantage, driven by GDDR7 memory on a 192-bit bus versus GDDR6 on a 256-bit bus. The NVIDIA card also carries 24 GB of memory versus 16 GB, a 50% capacity increase.

The use-case split is therefore straightforward. The Arc B770 targets fill-rate-heavy rendering where pixel and texture throughput dominate. The RTX PRO 4000 targets compute-heavy pro workloads where FP32 throughput, memory capacity, and bandwidth matter most. The benchmark data confirms NVIDIA's dominance in the latter category, while the Intel card's specification sheet suggests its strength lies in the former.

Architecture Differences

The two cards come from different architectural lineages. The Intel Arc B770 uses the BMG-G31 chip built on Xe2-HPG architecture, part of the Battlemage (Arc 7) generation. The NVIDIA RTX PRO 4000 Blackwell uses the GB203 chip on Blackwell 2.0 architecture, part of the Blackwell PRO W (x000) generation. Both are fabricated by TSMC on a 5 nm process, but their transistor budgets differ sharply.

The NVIDIA chip packs 45,600 million transistors on a 378 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 120.6 million per mm². The Intel chip's transistor count is unknown in the database, but its die size is 368 mm², slightly smaller than the NVIDIA die. The RTX PRO 4000's higher transistor count supports its much larger execution resource pool: 8,960 shading units versus 4,096, 280 tensor cores versus none listed for Intel, and 70 RT cores versus 32.

The memory subsystems diverge completely. The Arc B770 uses 16 GB of GDDR6 on a 256-bit bus, while the RTX PRO 4000 uses 24 GB of GDDR7 on a 192-bit bus. Despite the narrower bus, the NVIDIA card achieves higher bandwidth thanks to GDDR7's faster effective data rate of 28 Gbps versus 16 Gbps. Clock behavior differs as well: the Intel card runs a base clock of 2100 MHz and boosts to 2400 MHz, while the NVIDIA card starts at a much lower 1230 MHz base but reaches 2055 MHz boost. The Intel card's higher clocks partially compensate for its fewer cores, but not enough to close the FP32 gap.

Power and physical design favor NVIDIA. The RTX PRO 4000 draws 140 W TDP and fits in a single slot, while the Arc B770 draws 225 W and requires dual-slot width. The NVIDIA card uses one 16-pin connector and suggests a 300 W PSU; the Intel card uses a 6-pin plus an 8-pin connector and suggests a 550 W PSU. The NVIDIA card also uses PCIe 5.0 x16 versus PCIe 4.0 x16 for Intel, though the Intel card's display outputs include one HDMI 2.1a alongside three DisplayPort 2.1, while NVIDIA offers four DisplayPort 2.1b.

The Intel card's FP16 rate of 39.32 TFLOPS at 2:1 ratio is higher than its FP32 rate, indicating a split-precision design. The NVIDIA card runs FP16 at 36.83 TFLOPS with a 1:1 ratio, meaning it does not double FP16 throughput relative to FP32. This is a notable architectural difference for workloads that mix precision levels.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The RTX PRO 4000 Blackwell is the only card in this comparison with benchmark scores recorded in the database. Its nine scores span multiple test suites, with the strongest result being 194,168 in Geekbench Vulkan, a compute-oriented test that reflects its large shader count and tensor core array. The 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 4,648 represents modern rasterization performance at high geometric complexity.

PassMark results show a spread across DirectX versions. The G3D score of 28,427 and GPU Compute score of 14,805 indicate strong overall performance, while the DirectX 12 score of 97 is notably low compared to DirectX 11 at 276 and DirectX 10 at 173. The DirectX 9 score of 354 is the highest among the DirectX tests, suggesting legacy API performance remains solid. The G2D score of 1,265 reflects 2D desktop acceleration.

The nearest rivals in the database provide context for the RTX PRO 4000's standing. The AMD Radeon RX 6700 XT scores 27,425 on average, just 1.1% below the NVIDIA card. The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 Mobile scores 27,435, also 1.1% lower. The RTX 3090 scores 27,565, 1.6% lower, meaning the RTX PRO 4000 slightly trails a flagship desktop card from the previous generation. The RTX A4000 scores 26,683, placing the RTX PRO 4000 1.7% ahead of its immediate workstation predecessor.

The Arc B770 has no recorded benchmark scores, so direct head-to-head numbers cannot be stated. The specification comparison, however, indicates where the Intel card would compete: its FP32 throughput of 19.66 TFLOPS is roughly 53% of the RTX PRO 4000's 36.83 TFLOPS, while its pixel rate is 155.7% of NVIDIA's. In memory, the Intel card's 512.0 GB/s bandwidth is 76.2% of NVIDIA's 672.0 GB/s, and its 16 GB capacity is two-thirds of NVIDIA's 24 GB.

FAQ

Q: Which card has higher FP32 compute performance?

A: The NVIDIA RTX PRO 4000 Blackwell delivers 36.83 TFLOPS FP32, which is 87.3% higher than the Intel Arc B770's 19.66 TFLOPS.

Q: How does memory bandwidth compare between the two cards?

A: The RTX PRO 4000 achieves 672.0 GB/s with GDDR7 memory on a 192-bit bus, while the Arc B770 reaches 512.0 GB/s with GDDR6 on a 256-bit bus. NVIDIA's bandwidth is 31.3% higher.

Q: What is the pixel fill rate difference?

A: The Arc B770 outputs 307.2 GPixel/s, which is 55.7% higher than the RTX PRO 4000's 197.3 GPixel/s. Intel leads in this metric.

Q: How does the RTX PRO 4000 compare to the RTX A4000?

A: The RTX PRO 4000's average benchmark score of 27,135 is 1.7% higher than the RTX A4000's 26,683, per the nearest rivals data.

Q: Which card has more memory?

A: The RTX PRO 4000 has 24 GB of GDDR7, while the Arc B770 has 16 GB of GDDR6. NVIDIA offers 50% more capacity.

Q: What are the power requirements?

A: The RTX PRO 4000 has a 140 W TDP and suggests a 300 W PSU. The Arc B770 has a 225 W TDP and suggests a 550 W PSU.

The Verdict

The data points to the RTX PRO 4000 Blackwell as the stronger all-around card for compute-centric workloads. Its 72nd percentile ranking among all GPUs, combined with an average benchmark score of 27,135, confirms it as a high-performing workstation option. The 87.3% FP32 advantage, 31.3% bandwidth advantage, and 50% memory capacity advantage give it decisive leads in the metrics most relevant to professional rendering, simulation, and AI-adjacent tasks. Its nearest rivals list shows it trading blows with the RX 6700 XT and RTX 4070 Mobile within 1.1%, while sitting 1.6% behind the RTX 3090, a card with far higher power draw. The single-slot design and 140 W TDP make it an efficient choice for dense workstation builds.

The Arc B770 wins the fill-rate battle. Its 55.7% higher pixel rate and 6.8% higher texture rate indicate a card designed for rasterization-heavy scenes where geometry and pixel shading dominate. The 225 W TDP and dual-slot footprint suggest it needs more power and space to achieve those rates. Its unknown transistor count and lack of benchmark scores in the database leave its real-world performance unverified, but the specification sheet shows a clear strength in fill-rate-bound workloads.

For a user prioritizing compute throughput, memory capacity, and bandwidth, the RTX PRO 4000 Blackwell is the data-backed choice. For a user focused on pixel and texture fill rates, the Arc B770 offers the higher raw numbers. The RTX PRO 4000's benchmark presence and percentile ranking give it a verified performance baseline, while the Arc B770's case rests entirely on its specification sheet. The recorded data therefore favors NVIDIA for general-purpose and professional workloads, with Intel's card carving a narrower niche in fill-rate-sensitive rendering.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Arc B770 | NVIDIA RTX PRO 4000 Blackwell |

|---|---|---|

| Chip | BMG-G31 | GB203 |

| Architecture | Xe2-HPG | Blackwell 2.0 |

| Process Node | 5 nm (TSMC) | 5 nm (TSMC) |

| Transistors | Unknown | 45,600 million |

| Die Size | 368 mm² | 378 mm² |

| Base Clock | 2100 MHz | 1230 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 2400 MHz | 2055 MHz |

| Memory Size | 16 GB | 24 GB |

| Memory Type | GDDR6 | GDDR7 |

| Memory Bus Width | 256 bit | 192 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 512.0 GB/s | 672.0 GB/s |

| Memory Clock | 2000 MHz, 16 Gbps effective | 1750 MHz, 28 Gbps effective |

| Shading Units | 4096 | 8960 |

| TMUs | 256 | 280 |

| ROPs | 128 | 96 |

| RT Cores | 32 | 70 |

| Tensor Cores | None listed | 280 |

| Pixel Rate | 307.2 GPixel/s | 197.3 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 614.4 GTexel/s | 575.4 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 19.66 TFLOPS | 36.83 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | 39.32 TFLOPS (2:1) | 36.83 TFLOPS (1:1) |

| TDP | 225 W | 140 W |

| Slot Width | Dual-slot | Single-slot |

| Power Connectors | 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin | 1x 16-pin |

| Suggested PSU | 550 W | 300 W |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 4.0 x16 | PCIe 5.0 x16 |

| Display Outputs | 1x HDMI 2.1a, 3x DisplayPort 2.1 | 4x DisplayPort 2.1b |

| DirectX | 12 Ultimate (12_2) | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |

| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |

| Vulkan | 1.4 | 1.4 |