Intel Arc G3 vs NVIDIA B300 Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Arc G3 and NVIDIA B300 occupy entirely different performance domains. The B300 dominates raw compute throughput by an overwhelming margin. Its FP32 output reaches 76.99 TFLOPS, which is 12.5 times the Arc G3's 6.144 TFLOPS. In FP16 workloads, the gap becomes astronomical: the B300 delivers 1,231.8 TFLOPS compared to 12.29 TFLOPS on the Arc G3, a 100-fold difference. Texture rate follows the same pattern, with the B300 at 1,202.9 GTexel/s versus 96.00 GTexel/s on the Intel part.

The Arc G3 wins in efficiency and integration. Its 25 W TDP allows operation as an IGP with no power connectors, while the B300 demands a 1400 W TDP and an 1800 W suggested PSU. The Arc G3 also provides display outputs, though the exact configuration depends on the portable device. The B300 has no display outputs at all. For pixel throughput, the two are nearly identical: 48.00 GPixel/s on the Arc G3 versus 48.77 GPixel/s on the B300. This near-parity in pixel rate suggests the Intel part is architected for graphics output, while the NVIDIA part channels its resources into compute.

Architecture Differences

The Intel Arc G3 uses the Panther Lake chip built on Xe3-LPG architecture, fabricated on Intel's 3 nm process. It belongs to the Arc Graphics-M generation for Panther Lake, released on May 31, 2026. The B300 uses the GB110 chip with Blackwell Ultra architecture, built on TSMC's 5 nm process, and belongs to the Server Blackwell generation. Its release date is September 10, 2025, making it the earlier product. The B300's predecessor is listed as Server Hopper, and its successor is Server Rubin. The Arc G3 has no recorded predecessor or successor.

Transistor counts differ drastically. The B300 integrates 104,000 million transistors. The Arc G3's transistor count is unknown. The B300's die size is not recorded, and neither is the Arc G3's die size. Shader resources show the B300's compute focus: 18,944 shading units, 592 TMUs, and 592 tensor cores. The Arc G3 has 1,280 shading units, 40 TMUs, and 20 ROPs. The B300 has only 24 ROPs, barely more than the Arc G3's 20, which explains the similar pixel rates. The Arc G3 includes 10 RT cores for ray tracing; the B300's RT core count is not listed. The B300 uses its 592 tensor cores for the FP16 throughput advantage, while the Arc G3 has no tensor core data.

Memory architecture could not be more different. The Arc G3 uses system shared memory, with the type, bus width, and bandwidth all listed as system dependent. The B300 has 144 GB of HBM3e on a 4096-bit bus, delivering 4.10 TB/s of bandwidth. Clock behavior also diverges: the Arc G3 boosts to 2400 MHz from a 300 MHz base, while the B300 runs at a 1665 MHz base and 2032 MHz boost. The B300's memory clock is 2000 MHz with 8 Gbps effective speed.

API support differs in coverage. The Arc G3 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The B300 lists no API support. The Arc G3 connects through an IGP bus interface and uses no power connectors. The B300 is an SXM Module using PCIe 5.0 x16.

The Verdict

The data points to two separate product categories with no meaningful overlap. The NVIDIA B300 is a server compute accelerator with massive FP32, FP16, and memory bandwidth resources, designed for workloads that scale across thousands of cores and terabytes of memory bandwidth. Its 76.99 TFLOPS FP32 and 1,231.8 TFLOPS FP16 figures place it in a class the Arc G3 cannot approach. The 4.10 TB/s memory bandwidth and 144 GB capacity further separate it from the Arc G3's system-shared memory.

The Intel Arc G3 is an integrated graphics solution for portable devices. Its 25 W TDP, IGP bus interface, and lack of power connectors confirm this role. The display outputs, though device-dependent, indicate it handles graphics presentation. The B300 has no display outputs, reinforcing its compute-only purpose. The Arc G3's 12.29 TFLOPS FP16 and 6.144 TFLOPS FP32 are adequate for integrated graphics work, but they do not compete with server-class parts.

The pixel rate parity is the only area of statistical closeness. The Arc G3's 48.00 GPixel/s versus the B300's 48.77 GPixel/s shows both parts move pixels at similar rates, but for different reasons: the Arc G3 through dedicated graphics ROPs, the B300 through a small ROP count attached to a massive compute array. Users with compute-heavy server workloads should look to the B300. Users needing integrated graphics in a portable device should look to the Arc G3. The two do not compete for the same tasks.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher FP32 performance?

A: The NVIDIA B300 has 76.99 TFLOPS FP32, which is 12.5 times the Intel Arc G3's 6.144 TFLOPS.

Q: How do the memory configurations compare?

A: The B300 has 144 GB of HBM3e on a 4096-bit bus with 4.10 TB/s bandwidth. The Arc G3 uses system shared memory, with size, type, bus width, and bandwidth all system dependent.

Q: What is the power requirement difference?

A: The Arc G3 has a 25 W TDP and requires no power connectors. The B300 has a 1400 W TDP and a suggested PSU of 1800 W.

Q: Do both GPUs support the same APIs?

A: No. The Arc G3 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The B300 has no API support listed.

Q: Which GPU has ray tracing cores?

A: The Arc G3 has 10 RT cores. The B300's RT core count is not listed.

Q: What form factors do these use?

A: The Arc G3 is an IGP with a slot width of IGP and a PCIe bus interface of IGP. The B300 is an SXM Module using PCIe 5.0 x16.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows no direct head-to-head benchmark entries. Instead, the specification sheet provides the comparative basis. The B300's FP32 result of 76.99 TFLOPS dwarfs the Arc G3's 6.144 TFLOPS, a 12.5-fold advantage. In FP16, the B300's 1,231.8 TFLOPS versus 12.29 TFLOPS represents a 100.2-fold lead. Texture rate favors the B300 at 1,202.9 GTexel/s against 96.00 GTexel/s, a 12.5-fold difference. These three metrics define the B300's compute dominance.

The Arc G3 counters with power efficiency. Its 25 W TDP is 1/56th of the B300's 1400 W. The Arc G3 requires no power connectors and no suggested PSU, while the B300 lists an 1800 W suggested PSU. Pixel rate is nearly even: the Arc G3 manages 48.00 GPixel/s, the B300 48.77 GPixel/s, a 1.6% difference. The Arc G3's boost clock of 2400 MHz exceeds the B300's 2032 MHz boost. The Arc G3's base clock of 300 MHz is far below the B300's 1665 MHz base, reflecting their different operating profiles.

Shader and texture resources show the B300's scale: 18,944 shading units versus 1,280, 592 TMUs versus 40, and 592 tensor cores versus none recorded. The Arc G3's 20 ROPs nearly match the B300's 24 ROPs, again confirming pixel throughput parity. The B300's 104,000 million transistors and 144 GB HBM3e memory represent a server-class investment in compute and capacity, whereas the Arc G3 relies on shared system memory with no dedicated pool.

Specification Differences

The following fields differ between the two parts:

• Chip: Intel Arc G3 uses Panther Lake; NVIDIA B300 uses GB110
• Architecture: Xe3-LPG versus Blackwell Ultra
• Generation: Arc Graphics-M (Panther Lake) versus Server Blackwell (Bxx)
• Process node: 3 nm (Intel) versus 5 nm (TSMC)
• Foundry: Intel versus TSMC
• Transistors: unknown versus 104,000 million
• Base clock: 300 MHz versus 1665 MHz
• Boost clock: 2400 MHz versus 2032 MHz
• Memory clock: System Shared versus 2000 MHz (8 Gbps effective)
• Memory size: System Shared versus 144 GB
• Memory type: System Shared versus HBM3e
• Memory bus width: System Shared versus 4096 bit
• Memory bandwidth: System Dependent versus 4.10 TB/s
• Shading units: 1280 versus 18944
• TMUs: 40 versus 592
• ROPs: 20 versus 24
• RT cores: 10 versus not listed
• Tensor cores: not listed versus 592
• Pixel rate: 48.00 GPixel/s versus 48.77 GPixel/s
• Texture rate: 96.00 GTexel/s versus 1,202.9 GTexel/s
• FP32: 6.144 TFLOPS versus 76.99 TFLOPS
• FP16: 12.29 TFLOPS (2:1) versus 1,231.8 TFLOPS (16:1)
• TDP: 25 W versus 1400 W
• Slot width: IGP versus SXM Module
• Power connectors: None versus not listed
• Suggested PSU: not listed versus 1800 W
• Bus interface: IGP versus PCIe 5.0 x16
• Display outputs: Portable Device Dependent versus No outputs
• DirectX: 12 Ultimate (12_2) versus not listed
• OpenGL: 4.6 versus not listed
• Vulkan: 1.4 versus not listed
• Release date: May 31, 2026 versus September 10, 2025
• Predecessor: not listed versus Server Hopper
• Successor: not listed versus Server Rubin