Intel Arc G3 Extreme vs NVIDIA H100 CNX Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded database contains no direct head-to-head benchmark results for the Intel Arc G3 Extreme and the NVIDIA H100 CNX. Both products hold a 50th percentile ranking versus all GPUs, and neither has an average benchmark score recorded. The absence of comparative measurements means the two accelerators cannot be ranked by empirical performance tests in this dataset.

The Intel Arc G3 Extreme delivers 7.680 TFLOPS of FP32 compute and 15.36 TFLOPS of FP16 compute using a 2:1 ratio. The NVIDIA H100 CNX delivers 53.84 TFLOPS of FP32 compute and 215.4 TFLOPS of FP16 compute using a 4:1 ratio. In raw throughput, the H100 CNX provides approximately 7 times the FP32 output and approximately 14 times the FP16 output of the Arc G3 Extreme. These figures come directly from the recorded specifications rather than from executed benchmarks.

Pixel throughput differs in favor of the Intel part. The Arc G3 Extreme reaches 60.00 GPixel/s, while the H100 CNX reaches 44.28 GPixel/s. Texture throughput favors NVIDIA, with the H100 CNX delivering 841.3 GTexel/s compared to 120.0 GTexel/s for the Intel part. The shading unit count also diverges sharply: the Arc G3 Extreme has 1,536 shading units, while the H100 CNX has 14,592 shading units.

Memory bandwidth shows the largest absolute gap. The H100 CNX uses 80 GB of HBM2e memory on a 5120-bit bus, providing 2.04 TB/s of bandwidth. The Arc G3 Extreme relies on system shared memory, with bandwidth described as system dependent. No fixed bandwidth number exists for the Intel part in the database.

Clock behavior favors the Intel part. The Arc G3 Extreme has a base clock of 300 MHz and a boost clock of 2500 MHz. The H100 CNX has a base clock of 690 MHz and a boost clock of 1845 MHz. The Intel part's boost clock runs 655 MHz higher than the NVIDIA part's boost clock, though the NVIDIA part starts from a higher base.

Power draw strongly favors the Intel part. The Arc G3 Extreme has a TDP of 80 W, while the H100 CNX has a TDP of 350 W. The NVIDIA accelerator also requires an 8-pin EPS power connector and carries a suggested PSU of 750 W. The Intel part needs no power connectors and has no suggested PSU listed.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Arc G3 Extreme wins in pixel fill rate, delivering 60.00 GPixel/s versus 44.28 GPixel/s for the H100 CNX. This advantage suggests the integrated part can handle fill-limited workloads, such as rasterization stages that depend on output pixel throughput, more quickly than the server accelerator. The Arc G3 Extreme also wins in clock frequency, with a 2500 MHz boost clock versus 1845 MHz for the H100 CNX. The higher boost clock contributes to the pixel rate advantage despite the far smaller shading unit count.

The Intel part wins decisively in power efficiency parameters. Its 80 W TDP is 270 W lower than the H100 CNX's 350 W TDP. It requires no power connectors, fits an IGP slot width, and uses the system's shared memory rather than dedicated HBM. The database lists no suggested PSU for the Intel part, while the NVIDIA part lists a 750 W suggested PSU. For systems constrained by power delivery or physical space, the recorded data clearly favors the integrated Intel solution.

The NVIDIA H100 CNX wins in every compute throughput category recorded. FP32 output reaches 53.84 TFLOPS, which is 46.16 TFLOPS higher than the Intel part. FP16 output reaches 215.4 TFLOPS, which is 200.04 TFLOPS higher. Texture rate reaches 841.3 GTexel/s, which is 721.3 GTexel/s higher. Shading units number 14,592, which is 13,056 more than the Intel part. The H100 CNX also has 456 tensor cores, while the Intel part has no tensor core count recorded.

The NVIDIA part wins in memory capacity and bandwidth. It carries 80 GB of dedicated HBM2e memory with 2.04 TB/s bandwidth. The Intel part uses system shared memory with system dependent bandwidth, meaning its performance scales with the host platform's memory subsystem rather than a fixed specification. The H100 CNX's memory bus is 5120 bits wide, while the Intel part's bus width is system shared.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different manufacturers, foundries, and process nodes. Intel builds the Arc G3 Extreme on a 3 nm process at Intel, using the Panther Lake chip with the Xe3-LPG architecture. NVIDIA builds the H100 CNX on a 5 nm process at TSMC, using the GH100 chip with the Hopper architecture. The Intel part belongs to the Arc Graphics-M (Panther Lake) generation, while the NVIDIA part belongs to the Server Hopper (Hxx) generation.

Transistor counts and die sizes differ substantially. The H100 CNX contains 80,000 million transistors on an 814 mm² die, with a transistor density of 98.3M per mm². The Intel part has unknown transistor and die size figures in the database. The NVIDIA die is a large monolithic server design, while the Intel part is an integrated graphics processor with no separate die size recorded.

The Intel part includes 12 ray tracing cores and supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The NVIDIA part has no ray tracing core count recorded and no API support listed for DirectX, OpenGL, or Vulkan. This reflects the different target roles: the Intel part is positioned as a graphics-capable integrated solution, while the NVIDIA part is a compute-oriented server accelerator with no display outputs.

Display output capability also separates the two. The Intel part lists display outputs as portable device dependent, meaning it can drive displays when the host device provides them. The NVIDIA part lists no outputs, indicating it is not designed for direct display connection.

Physical design differs by slot and interface. The Intel part is an IGP with an IGP bus interface, meaning it integrates into the host processor package. The NVIDIA part is a dual-slot card measuring 267 mm in length and 111 mm in height, using a PCIe 5.0 x16 bus interface. The NVIDIA card uses an 8-pin EPS power connector, while the Intel IGP uses none.

Memory architecture diverges completely. The Intel part uses system shared memory with no dedicated VRAM, while the NVIDIA part uses 80 GB of HBM2e on a 5120-bit bus. The NVIDIA memory clock runs at 1593 MHz with 3.2 Gbps effective data rate, while the Intel memory clock is labeled system shared.

Release timing also differs. The Intel Arc G3 Extreme has a release date of 2026-05-31, while the NVIDIA H100 CNX has a release date of 2023-03-20. The NVIDIA part lists Server Ada as its predecessor and Server Blackwell as its successor. The Intel part lists no predecessor or successor.

The Verdict

The recorded data separates these two products by role rather than by direct competition. The NVIDIA H100 CNX is a dedicated server accelerator with 80 GB of HBM2e memory, 456 tensor cores, and FP32 throughput of 53.84 TFLOPS. The Intel Arc G3 Extreme is an integrated graphics processor with 1,536 shading units, 12 ray tracing cores, and FP32 throughput of 7.680 TFLOPS. The database records no head-to-head benchmark results, so any performance ranking must rely on the specification deltas.

For compute-heavy server workloads that depend on FP16 tensor throughput, the H100 CNX is the clear choice. Its 215.4 TFLOPS of FP16 output with a 4:1 ratio and 456 tensor cores dominate the Intel part's 15.36 TFLOPS with a 2:1 ratio. The H100 CNX also provides 2.04 TB/s of memory bandwidth from 80 GB of HBM2e, which suits large data movement patterns. The Intel part's system shared memory cannot match this dedicated bandwidth.

For graphics-oriented tasks in a portable device, the Intel Arc G3 Extreme offers relevant capabilities. It supports DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, has 12 ray tracing cores, and delivers a higher pixel rate of 60.00 GPixel/s. Its 80 W TDP requires no external power connectors and no separate PSU suggestion, making it suitable for integrated designs. The H100 CNX has no display outputs and no graphics API support recorded.

The power envelope alone may decide many deployments. The H100 CNX demands 350 W, an 8-pin EPS connector, a 750 W suggested PSU, and a dual-slot card with 267 mm length. The Arc G3 Extreme uses 80 W, no connectors, no PSU suggestion, and fits an IGP slot. Systems with strict power budgets or space constraints will favor the Intel part.

The data shows no overlap in target usage. The H100 CNX exists for high-throughput server compute, while the Arc G3 Extreme exists for integrated graphics in portable devices. Neither product appears in the other's primary domain. The 50th percentile ranking for both parts indicates median standing in the overall GPU database, but this percentile does not reflect a head-to-head comparison.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher FP32 performance?

A: The NVIDIA H100 CNX delivers 53.84 TFLOPS of FP32 output, while the Intel Arc G3 Extreme delivers 7.680 TFLOPS. The NVIDIA part is approximately 7 times higher in this metric.

Q: Which GPU has higher FP16 performance?

A: The NVIDIA H100 CNX delivers 215.4 TFLOPS of FP16 output with a 4:1 ratio. The Intel Arc G3 Extreme delivers 15.36 TFLOPS with a 2:1 ratio. The NVIDIA part is approximately 14 times higher.

Q: Which GPU supports ray tracing?

A: The Intel Arc G3 Extreme includes 12 ray tracing cores and supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2). The NVIDIA H100 CNX has no ray tracing core count recorded.

Q: What memory configurations do the two GPUs use?

A: The NVIDIA H100 CNX uses 80 GB of HBM2e memory on a 5120-bit bus with 2.04 TB/s bandwidth. The Intel Arc G3 Extreme uses system shared memory with system dependent bandwidth.

Q: What are the power requirements?

A: The Intel Arc G3 Extreme has an 80 W TDP and requires no power connectors. The NVIDIA H100 CNX has a 350 W TDP, requires an 8-pin EPS connector, and lists a 750 W suggested PSU.

Q: Do both GPUs have display outputs?

A: No. The Intel Arc G3 Extreme lists display outputs as portable device dependent. The NVIDIA H100 CNX lists no outputs.

Q: What are the release dates?

A: The Intel Arc G3 Extreme has a release date of 2026-05-31. The NVIDIA H100 CNX has a release date of 2023-03-20.