Intel Arc Graphics 112EU Mobile vs NVIDIA B200 SXM6 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded database contains no direct head-to-head benchmark results for the Intel Arc Graphics 112EU Mobile and the NVIDIA B200 SXM6. Both entries have empty benchmark arrays, zero average benchmark scores, and identical percentile rankings at the 50th percentile versus all GPUs. The wins counters for each product are also zero, meaning the statistical comparison framework registers no direct victories for either part.

The absence of measured results is not surprising given the fundamental positioning of these two products. The Intel Arc Graphics 112EU Mobile is an integrated graphics processor embedded within a Meteor Lake mobile processor, designed for portable devices. The NVIDIA B200 SXM6 is a server-class accelerator module intended for datacenter deployment. The two parts do not share a common test environment, driver stack, or application workload profile in the database. Consequently, the numerical comparison must rely on the specification-level data recorded for each product.

The raw compute metrics show a decisive scaling difference. The Intel part delivers 3.942 TFLOPS of FP32 throughput, while the NVIDIA part delivers 69.34 TFLOPS. That represents a 17.6x advantage for the B200 SXM6 in single-precision floating-point work. The FP16 comparison is similarly lopsided: the Intel Arc delivers 7.885 TFLOPS using a 2:1 rate, while the B200 delivers 69.34 TFLOPS at a 1:1 rate. The NVIDIA accelerator maintains the same throughput for both FP32 and FP16, whereas the Intel part halves its FP16 rate relative to its FP32 figure, an architectural difference that matters for mixed-precision workloads.

Texture throughput follows the same pattern. The Intel Arc Graphics 112EU Mobile reaches 123.2 GTexel/s, while the B200 SXM6 reaches 1,083.4 GTexel/s, an 8.8x gap. Pixel rate is the one metric where the Intel part pulls ahead: 52.80 GPixel/s versus 43.92 GPixel/s for the B200. That advantage stems from the Intel part having 24 ROPs at a 2200 MHz boost clock, while the B200 also has 24 ROPs but a lower 1830 MHz boost clock. The pixel-rate difference is 1.2x in favor of the integrated GPU, a narrow margin that reflects the unusual combination of a server compute chip with minimal rasterization hardware.

Memory bandwidth shows the largest absolute disparity. The Intel Arc uses system-shared memory with bandwidth described as system dependent, meaning the database records no fixed figure. The B200 SXM6 carries 180 GB of HBM3e across an 8192-bit bus, delivering 8.19 TB/s of bandwidth. That bandwidth figure is effectively unbounded relative to the shared-memory Intel solution, and it directly supports the B200's large compute throughput.

The clock behavior also differs markedly. The Intel part runs at a 300 MHz base clock and boosts to 2200 MHz. The B200 runs at a 120 MHz base clock and boosts to 1830 MHz. The Intel part has a 2.7x higher base clock and a 1.2x higher boost clock, but the NVIDIA part compensates with 21.1x more shading units (18,944 versus 896) and 10.6x more texture mapping units (592 versus 56). The B200 also fields 592 tensor cores, a resource class entirely absent from the Intel Arc specification. The Intel part has no recorded tensor core count, a structural difference that limits its applicability to AI inference and training workloads.

Both products sit at the 50th percentile versus all GPUs in the database, a parity that reflects the absence of performance data rather than any meaningful equivalence in capability. The recorded average benchmark score for both is 0, confirming that neither part has accumulated measured results in the database's benchmark suite.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher FP32 compute throughput?

A: The NVIDIA B200 SXM6 delivers 69.34 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, which is 17.6x higher than the 3.942 TFLOPS recorded for the Intel Arc Graphics 112EU Mobile.

Q: Does the Intel Arc Graphics 112EU Mobile have any performance advantage over the B200 SXM6?

A: Yes, in pixel fill rate. The Intel part reaches 52.80 GPixel/s, while the B200 SXM6 reaches 43.92 GPixel/s. Both parts have 24 ROPs, but the Intel GPU's higher 2200 MHz boost clock drives the advantage.

Q: What memory configuration does the B200 SXM6 use?

A: The B200 SXM6 uses 180 GB of HBM3e memory on an 8192-bit bus, with 8.19 TB/s of bandwidth and a memory clock of 2000 MHz (8 Gbps effective).

Q: What memory does the Intel Arc Graphics 112EU Mobile use?

A: The Intel Arc Graphics 112EU Mobile uses system-shared memory with a system-shared type and bus width. Its bandwidth is recorded as system dependent, and its memory clock is also listed as system shared.

Q: Which product includes tensor cores?

A: The NVIDIA B200 SXM6 includes 592 tensor cores. The Intel Arc Graphics 112EU Mobile has no recorded tensor core count in the database.

Q: What are the process nodes for each product?

A: The Intel Arc Graphics 112EU Mobile is fabricated on Intel's 10 nm process. The NVIDIA B200 SXM6 is fabricated on TSMC's 5 nm process.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Arc Graphics 112EU Mobile wins in scenarios where rasterization output rate and integrated form factor matter. Its 52.80 GPixel/s pixel rate exceeds the B200's 43.92 GPixel/s, a rare metric where a mobile integrated GPU outperforms a server accelerator. The Intel part also carries a higher boost clock at 2200 MHz versus 1830 MHz, and it operates at a 65 W TDP compared to the B200's 1000 W. The Intel GPU is an IGP with a Ring Bus interface and portable-device-dependent display outputs, meaning it can drive displays directly in mobile systems. Its API support includes DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, making it functional in conventional graphics and compute environments. The Intel part uses system-shared memory, which eliminates the need for dedicated VRAM allocation and simplifies mobile system design.

The NVIDIA B200 SXM6 wins in essentially every throughput-oriented category. Its 69.34 TFLOPS FP32 and 69.34 TFLOPS FP16 performance place it in a different performance class than the Intel part's 3.942 TFLOPS FP32 and 7.885 TFLOPS FP16. The 1:1 FP16 ratio on the B200 means it does not lose precision throughput when switching from FP32, whereas the Intel part's 2:1 ratio halves its FP16 rate. The B200's 1,083.4 GTexel/s texture rate is 8.8x the Intel part's 123.2 GTexel/s. Its 8.19 TB/s memory bandwidth, delivered through 180 GB of HBM3e, is the defining resource for large-scale data movement. The 592 tensor cores give the B200 a hardware path for matrix operations that the Intel part lacks entirely. The B200 also uses a PCIe 6.0 x16 bus interface, providing a high-bandwidth host connection for server platforms, and it has a 1400 W suggested PSU requirement that reflects its datacenter power envelope.

The B200 wins decisively for AI training, large-scale inference, scientific computing, and any workload that can saturate 8.19 TB/s of memory bandwidth. The Intel Arc wins for lightweight mobile graphics, display output, and power-constrained embedded scenarios where a 65 W integrated solution suffices.

Specification Differences

The two products differ across nearly every recorded specification field.

The Intel Arc Graphics 112EU Mobile uses the Meteor Lake chip with the Xe-LPG architecture, produced on Intel's 10 nm process. The NVIDIA B200 SXM6 uses the GB100 chip with the Blackwell architecture, produced on TSMC's 5 nm process. The Intel part has no recorded transistor count, die size, or transistor density. The B200 has 208,000 million transistors on a 1628 mm² die, with a transistor density of 127.8M per mm².

Clock speeds differ substantially. The Intel GPU runs at 300 MHz base and 2200 MHz boost. The B200 runs at 120 MHz base and 1830 MHz boost. The Intel memory clock is listed as system shared; the B200 memory clock is 2000 MHz with 8 Gbps effective.

Memory configurations are fundamentally different. The Intel part uses system-shared memory in all fields: size, type, bus width, and bandwidth (system dependent). The B200 uses 180 GB of HBM3e on an 8192-bit bus with 8.19 TB/s bandwidth.

Compute unit counts differ by an order of magnitude. The Intel part has 896 shading units, 56 TMUs, and 24 ROPs. The B200 has 18,944 shading units, 592 TMUs, and 24 ROPs. The Intel part has no recorded tensor cores; the B200 has 592 tensor cores. Neither part records RT core counts.

Power and form factor differ sharply. The Intel part has a 65 W TDP and an IGP slot width. The B200 has a 1000 W TDP, an SXM Module slot width, and a 1400 W suggested PSU. The Intel part uses a Ring Bus interface; the B200 uses PCIe 6.0 x16. The Intel part has portable-device-dependent display outputs; the B200 has no outputs.

API support also diverges. The Intel part supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The B200 records N/A for DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan.

Production status is Active for both. The Intel part released on 2023-12-13 and lists HD Graphics-M as its predecessor. The B200 released on 2024-10-31, lists Server Hopper as its predecessor, and Server Rubin as its successor. The B200 has a launch MSRP of 34,999 USD; the Intel part has no recorded launch MSRP. The B200 also has no recorded dimensions, and the Intel part likewise has no length, height, or width values.

Architecture Differences

The architectural split between the two products is categorical. The Intel Arc Graphics 112EU Mobile belongs to the Arc Graphics-M generation under the Meteor Lake chip family, using the Xe-LPG architecture. The NVIDIA B200 SXM6 belongs to the Server Blackwell generation under the GB100 chip family, using the Blackwell architecture.

The Intel architecture targets integrated graphics in mobile processors. Its Xe-LPG design uses a Ring Bus interface, system-shared memory, and portable-device-dependent display outputs. The 10 nm process from Intel Foundry supports 896 shading units, 56 TMUs, and 24 ROPs. The 2:1 FP16 ratio indicates a consumer-oriented compute path where half-precision throughput is a secondary consideration. The absence of tensor cores and RT cores in the record means the architecture does not expose dedicated matrix or ray-tracing hardware in the database.

The NVIDIA architecture targets server acceleration. The Blackwell design on TSMC's 5 nm process integrates 18,944 shading units, 592 TMUs, 24 ROPs, and 592 tensor cores. The 1:1 FP16 ratio means the part sustains full throughput on both FP32 and FP16, a design choice that favors AI and scientific workloads. The 180 GB HBM3e stack on an 8192-bit bus provides 8.19 TB/s of bandwidth, a memory subsystem engineered for massive parallel data flow rather than display output. The SXM Module form factor, PCIe 6.0 x16 interface, and absence of display outputs confirm a compute-only design.

The transistor budget reflects the architectural distance. The B200's 208,000 million transistors on a 1628 mm² die represent a server-scale investment in compute resources. The Intel part records no transistor count, but its 10 nm process and integrated design imply a far smaller allocation. The B200's 127.8M per mm² transistor density also indicates a dense, high-complexity layout. The Intel part's 65 W TDP versus the B200's 1000 W TDP further separates the two architectures: one is constrained by mobile thermal envelopes, the other by datacenter power delivery.

The API records reinforce the architectural split. The Intel part exposes a full graphics API stack (DirectX 12, OpenGL 4.6, Vulkan 1.4), meaning the architecture supports traditional rendering pipelines. The B200 records N/A for all three APIs, indicating the architecture does not prioritize or expose conventional graphics APIs. This is consistent with a server accelerator that offloads compute through CUDA-style or vendor-specific paths rather than graphics drivers. The pixel-rate comparison, where the Intel part edges ahead at 52.80 GPixel/s versus 43.92 GPixel/s, reflects the same divide: the Intel architecture retains rasterization hardware, while the B200 allocates its silicon to tensor and shading throughput.

Both products are marked Active in production status. The Intel part's predecessor is HD Graphics-M, placing it in a lineage of mobile integrated graphics. The B200's predecessor is Server Hopper, placing it in a lineage of datacenter compute accelerators. The B200's successor is Server Rubin, indicating a planned next generation. The Intel part records no successor. These lineage markers confirm that the two architectures serve separate product families with no overlap in design goals, target workloads, or deployment environments.