Intel Arc G3 Extreme vs Intel Arc Pro B370 Comparison

The Intel Arc G3 Extreme and Intel Arc Pro B370 are both integrated graphics solutions built on Intel's Panther Lake chip and Xe3-LPG architecture, but they are positioned differently within the database. The G3 Extreme is configured for higher compute throughput, while the Pro B370 is tuned for significantly lower power consumption. Both share the same 3 nm process node and are fabricated by Intel, yet their performance ceilings and target use cases diverge based on the recorded specifications.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database does not contain any recorded benchmark scores for either the Intel Arc G3 Extreme or the Intel Arc Pro B370. As a result, the head-to-head comparison relies entirely on the theoretical peak rates and compute figures derived from their respective core configurations. The most decisive advantage belongs to the Intel Arc G3 Extreme, which delivers 7.680 TFLOPS of FP32 compute compared to the Intel Arc Pro B370's 6.144 TFLOPS. This represents a 25% lead in raw single-precision throughput for the G3 Extreme. The same proportional difference appears in FP16 performance, where the G3 Extreme reaches 15.36 TFLOPS (2:1) versus the Pro B370's 12.29 TFLOPS (2:1), again a 25% gap.

The shading unit count drives this difference. The G3 Extreme packs 1536 shading units, while the Pro B370 has 1280, a 20% increase in shader hardware. Texture and pixel processing follow the same pattern. The G3 Extreme achieves 120.0 GTexel/s of texture fill rate, while the Pro B370 manages 96.00 GTexel/s, a 25% advantage. Pixel throughput shows the G3 Extreme at 60.00 GPixel/s versus the Pro B370's 48.00 GPixel/s, also a 25% lead. The G3 Extreme's boost clock of 2500 MHz exceeds the Pro B370's 2400 MHz, providing an additional 4% frequency advantage that contributes to these higher fill rates.

Ray tracing hardware is another differentiator. The G3 Extreme includes 12 RT cores, while the Pro B370 has 10 RT cores, a 20% increase for the former. This suggests a proportionally higher ray tracing workload capability, though no specific benchmark scores confirm real-world scaling. The G3 Extreme also carries more texture mapping units (48 versus 40) and more raster operation processors (24 versus 20), reinforcing its raw throughput lead across all fixed-function stages.

The Intel Arc Pro B370 counters with a far lower thermal design point. It is rated at 25 W, compared to the G3 Extreme's 80 W. This is a 55 W difference, meaning the Pro B370 consumes 69% less power than the G3 Extreme based on TDP figures. For thermally constrained mobile or compact platforms, this efficiency gap is significant, even though it comes with a 20% reduction in shading units and a 25% reduction in FP32 compute.

Neither part has an average benchmark score in the database, and both sit at the 50th percentile among all GPUs in the database's distribution. The wins tally for each in head-to-head benchmarks is zero because no direct benchmark entries exist. All comparative statements must therefore be derived from the specification data, which consistently favors the G3 Extreme in performance metrics and the Pro B370 in power efficiency.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Arc G3 Extreme wins in every compute-oriented comparison available in the database. Its 1536 shading units, 48 TMUs, 24 ROPs, and 12 RT cores position it as the more capable part for graphics-intensive workloads that rely on parallel processing. The 7.680 TFLOPS FP32 figure and 60.00 GPixel/s pixel rate indicate a stronger candidate for rendering tasks that demand high fill rates and shader complexity. The higher boost clock of 2500 MHz also supports bursty workloads where transient performance matters.

The Intel Arc Pro B370 wins in power efficiency. Its 25 W TDP is 55 W lower than the G3 Extreme's 80 W, making it the appropriate choice for systems where thermal headroom and battery life take priority over peak throughput. The Pro B370 still delivers 6.144 TFLOPS of FP32 compute and 48.00 GPixel/s of pixel fill rate, which is not a trivial amount of performance, but it does so at a fraction of the power envelope. The 1280 shading units and 10 RT cores are sufficient for mainstream tasks, while the lower clock speed of 2400 MHz reduces energy draw.

The use-case split is therefore clear. The G3 Extreme suits scenarios where maximum integrated graphics performance is the goal, such as gaming on a high-resolution display or compute-assisted applications that leverage FP16 throughput. The Pro B370 suits scenarios where sustained operation under low power is mandatory, such as thin-and-light laptops or professional mobile workstations where thermal limits are strict. Neither part can be called a general-purpose winner across all metrics; the database shows a trade-off between raw capability and power draw.

For memory, both parts use system shared memory with system dependent bandwidth, so there is no dedicated memory advantage for either. The bus interface is IGP for both, meaning they rely on the host processor's memory subsystem. This makes the compute and power differences the primary deciding factors between the two.

The Verdict

Based solely on the recorded data, the Intel Arc G3 Extreme is the faster part in absolute terms. It leads by 25% in FP32 TFLOPS, FP16 TFLOPS, texture fill rate, and pixel fill rate. It also has 20% more shading units and 20% more RT cores. Any workload that is compute-bound will see a measurable advantage from the G3 Extreme's configuration.

The Intel Arc Pro B370 is the more efficient part. Its 25 W TDP is 69% lower than the G3 Extreme's 80 W, which is a substantial reduction in power draw. For systems that cannot accommodate an 80 W integrated GPU, the Pro B370 is the only viable option between these two. The performance difference is real but not overwhelming: the Pro B370 retains 80% of the shading units and 80% of the FP32 throughput of the G3 Extreme, so it is not a weak performer, merely a scaled-down one.

The database shows no benchmark scores for either part, and both have the same 50th percentile ranking among all GPUs. This means the relative standing is neutral in the absence of empirical test results. The specification differences are the only available evidence, and they point to a straightforward conclusion: choose the G3 Extreme for maximum integrated performance, choose the Pro B370 for minimum power consumption. The release dates differ, with the Pro B370 arriving earlier at the end of January 2026, while the G3 Extreme is dated for the end of May 2026, but this does not affect their performance characteristics.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher FP32 compute performance?

A: The Intel Arc G3 Extreme, with 7.680 TFLOPS, is 25% higher than the Intel Arc Pro B370's 6.144 TFLOPS.

Q: How do the shading unit counts compare?

A: The G3 Extreme has 1536 shading units, while the Pro B370 has 1280, giving the G3 Extreme a 20% advantage.

Q: What is the power draw difference between the two?

A: The G3 Extreme is rated at 80 W, while the Pro B370 is rated at 25 W, a 55 W difference that favors the Pro B370 for low-power systems.

Q: Do both GPUs support the same DirectX version?

A: Yes, both support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), along with OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4.

Q: Are there any benchmark scores recorded for these GPUs?

A: No, the database has no benchmark entries for either GPU, and both have an average benchmark score of zero.

Q: Which GPU has more ray tracing cores?

A: The G3 Extreme has 12 RT cores, compared to 10 RT cores on the Pro B370, a 20% increase.

Architecture Differences

Both GPUs are built on the same Panther Lake chip and use the Xe3-LPG architecture, with a 3 nm process node from Intel. The generation labels differ: the G3 Extreme belongs to Arc Graphics-M (Panther Lake), while the Pro B370 belongs to Arc Graphics-WM (Panther Lake). This naming distinction reflects their intended positioning, with the M suffix indicating a mobile-oriented graphics variant and the WM suffix indicating a workstation-mobile variant, though the underlying architecture is identical.

The core counts are the primary architectural difference. The G3 Extreme uses 1536 shading units, 48 texture mapping units, 24 raster operation processors, and 12 ray tracing cores. The Pro B370 uses 1280 shading units, 40 texture mapping units, 20 raster operation processors, and 10 ray tracing cores. These are proportional reductions, with the Pro B370 retaining exactly two-thirds of the TMU and ROP counts relative to the shading unit difference. Neither GPU has tensor cores listed in the database.

The clock strategy also differs. Both have the same 300 MHz base clock, but the boost clock is 2500 MHz on the G3 Extreme and 2400 MHz on the Pro B370. The G3 Extreme's higher boost frequency contributes to its higher pixel rate of 60.00 GPixel/s versus 48.00 GPixel/s, and its texture rate of 120.0 GTexel/s versus 96.00 GTexel/s. The FP16 performance is listed as 2:1 ratio for both, meaning the FP16 throughput is exactly double the FP32 throughput in each case.

The production status is Active for both, and the Pro B370 has a recorded predecessor in the HD Graphics-WM, while the G3 Extreme has no predecessor listed. Neither has a successor recorded. The slot width is IGP for both, and neither uses external power connectors, consistent with their integrated nature.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ in several specification fields. The most substantial difference is the TDP: 80 W for the G3 Extreme versus 25 W for the Pro B370. This is the largest numerical gap in the entire comparison. The boost clock differs by 100 MHz, with the G3 Extreme at 2500 MHz and the Pro B370 at 2400 MHz. The base clock is identical at 300 MHz for both.

The shading units differ by 256, with the G3 Extreme at 1536 and the Pro B370 at 1280. The TMUs differ by 8 (48 versus 40), and the ROPs differ by 4 (24 versus 20). The RT cores differ by 2 (12 versus 10). The pixel rate differs by 12.00 GPixel/s (60.00 versus 48.00), and the texture rate differs by 24.0 GTexel/s (120.0 versus 96.00). The FP32 compute differs by 1.536 TFLOPS (7.680 versus 6.144), and the FP16 compute differs by 3.07 TFLOPS (15.36 versus 12.29).

The memory specifications are identical: both use System Shared memory, type, and bus width, with System Dependent bandwidth. The display outputs are also identical, listed as Portable Device Dependent for both. The API support is the same across DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan. The release dates differ, with the Pro B370 dated 2026-01-26 and the G3 Extreme dated 2026-05-31. The Pro B370 has a predecessor (HD Graphics-WM), while the G3 Extreme does not. Neither has a launch MSRP recorded in the database.