Intel Arc Graphics 2 Xe Mobile vs NVIDIA B300 SXM6 AC Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded database contains no direct head-to-head benchmark results between the Intel Arc Graphics 2 Xe Mobile and the NVIDIA B300 SXM6 AC. The Intel part has no benchmark entries, while the NVIDIA part has a single OpenCL result. That score, 369,831 in Geekbench OpenCL, places the B300 at the 100th percentile of all GPUs in the database. The Intel Arc Graphics 2 Xe Mobile sits at the 50th percentile, but with no measured benchmark score, direct numerical comparison is impossible.

What the data does show is the B300's position against its nearest rivals. The B300 leads the NVIDIA B200 by 7%, scoring 369,831 versus 345,482. It is 10.4% ahead of the NVIDIA H200 NVL, which records 334,891. Against the AMD Instinct MI300X, the margin widens to 16.3%, with that part scoring 317,994. The NVIDIA L40S trails by 25%, posting 295,763. These deltas indicate a clear performance hierarchy within the server segment, with the B300 at the top of the recorded field.

For the Intel mobile part, the absence of benchmark data means its performance can only be inferred from its architectural specifications. The shading unit count of 256, along with a boost clock of 2500 MHz, yields a theoretical FP32 throughput of 1,280.0 GFLOPS. The NVIDIA part, by contrast, delivers 76.99 TFLOPS FP32, which is approximately 60 times higher on paper. The pixel rate difference is similarly large: 20.00 GPixel/s for the Intel part versus 48.77 GPixel/s for the B300. Texture rate shows 40.00 GTexel/s for Intel versus 1,202.9 GTexel/s for NVIDIA.

The B300's memory subsystem is a major factor in its benchmark dominance. With 288 GB of HBM3e on an 8192-bit bus, bandwidth reaches 8.19 TB/s. The Intel part uses system shared memory, with bandwidth listed as system dependent. This architectural gap explains why the B300 achieves a 100th percentile ranking while the Intel part, despite being functional, has no recorded score to validate its 50th percentile placement.

Architecture Differences

The two processors target entirely different segments, and their architectures reflect that split. Intel's chip, codenamed Wildcat Lake, uses the Xe3-LPG architecture and belongs to the Arc Graphics-M generation. It is built on a 3 nm process at Intel's own foundry. The NVIDIA B300 uses the GB110 chip with Blackwell Ultra architecture, manufactured by TSMC on a 5 nm process. The B300 packs 208,000 million transistors on a 1628 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 127.8 million per square millimeter. The Intel part's transistor count and die size are listed as unknown.

Compute resources differ by orders of magnitude. The Intel part has 256 shading units, 16 texture mapping units, and 8 raster output units. It also includes 2 ray tracing cores. The B300 has 18,944 shading units, 592 TMUs, and 24 ROPs. It does not list dedicated ray tracing cores but instead provides 592 tensor cores. The Intel part has no tensor core field recorded.

Clock behavior diverges sharply. Intel's base clock is 300 MHz with a boost of 2500 MHz, a wide dynamic range typical of low-power integrated graphics. The B300 runs at a base of 1665 MHz and boosts to 2032 MHz, a much narrower range. Memory clocks also differ: Intel uses system shared memory with no dedicated clock, while the B300 uses 2000 MHz with 8 Gbps effective data rate.

API support marks another boundary. The Intel part supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The B300 lists N/A for DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan, reflecting its server orientation with no display outputs. The B300's bus interface is PCIe 6.0 x16, while the Intel part uses an integrated graphics processor (IGP) bus interface with no external power connectors.

Form factor and power draw underscore the different design philosophies. The Intel part is an IGP with a 25 W TDP, slot width listed as IGP, and no power connectors. The B300 is an SXM module with a 1100 W TDP and a suggested PSU of 1500 W. The Intel part's display outputs are portable device dependent, while the B300 has no outputs at all.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Arc Graphics 2 Xe Mobile wins in scenarios requiring low power and integration. Its 25 W TDP fits within a mobile device's thermal envelope. The system shared memory architecture means no dedicated VRAM allocation is needed, simplifying system design. The 3 nm process node suggests efficient transistor scaling for its class. With DirectX 12 Ultimate support, it can handle modern graphics APIs in a portable context. Its 2 ray tracing cores provide hardware acceleration for ray-traced effects, a feature absent from the B300's recorded specification.

The NVIDIA B300 SXM6 AC wins in every compute-heavy scenario. The 76.99 TFLOPS FP32 throughput, 8.19 TB/s memory bandwidth, and 288 GB capacity make it suitable for large-scale data center workloads. The 592 tensor cores enable matrix operations for AI training and inference. The 100th percentile ranking confirms its dominance in the database's measured results. Its 7% lead over the B200 and 10.4% lead over the H200 NVL show it is not merely top-tier but meaningfully ahead of the nearest alternatives.

The B300 also wins on raw throughput metrics. Its 48.77 GPixel/s pixel rate and 1,202.9 GTexel/s texture rate dwarf the Intel part's 20.00 GPixel/s and 40.00 GTexel/s. The FP16 performance tells a similar story: the B300 delivers 76.99 TFLOPS at 1:1 ratio, while the Intel part manages 2.560 TFLOPS at 2:1 ratio. The B300's 8192-bit memory bus and 8.19 TB/s bandwidth are in a different class from the system dependent bandwidth of the Intel part.

The Intel part wins on portability and power efficiency. No external power connector means it draws from the host platform. The 300 MHz base clock allows deep idle states, while the 2500 MHz boost provides burst performance when needed. The B300, by contrast, requires a 1500 W suggested PSU and an SXM module slot, which is a server-only form factor.

Specification Differences

The two parts differ in nearly every recorded specification. Process node: Intel uses 3 nm, NVIDIA uses 5 nm. Foundry: Intel versus TSMC. Transistors: unknown for Intel, 208,000 million for NVIDIA. Die size: unknown versus 1628 mm². Transistor density: not listed versus 127.8M per mm².

Clocks: Intel base 300 MHz, boost 2500 MHz; NVIDIA base 1665 MHz, boost 2032 MHz. Memory clock: Intel system shared, NVIDIA 2000 MHz 8 Gbps effective. Memory size: Intel system shared, NVIDIA 288 GB. Memory type: Intel system shared, NVIDIA HBM3e. Bus width: Intel system shared, NVIDIA 8192 bit. Bandwidth: Intel system dependent, NVIDIA 8.19 TB/s.

Compute units: Intel 256 shading units, 16 TMUs, 8 ROPs, 2 RT cores; NVIDIA 18,944 shading units, 592 TMUs, 24 ROPs, no RT cores listed, 592 tensor cores. Throughput: Intel 20.00 GPixel/s, 40.00 GTexel/s, 1,280.0 GFLOPS FP32, 2.560 TFLOPS FP16; NVIDIA 48.77 GPixel/s, 1,202.9 GTexel/s, 76.99 TFLOPS FP32, 76.99 TFLOPS FP16.

TDP: 25 W versus 1100 W. Slot width: IGP versus SXM Module. Power connectors: none versus not listed. Suggested PSU: not listed versus 1500 W. Bus interface: IGP versus PCIe 6.0 x16. Display outputs: portable device dependent versus no outputs. API support: Intel has DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, Vulkan 1.4; NVIDIA lists N/A for all three.

Release dates: Intel released 2026-04-15, NVIDIA released 2025-09-10. Predecessors: Intel HD Graphics-M, NVIDIA Server Hopper. Successors: Intel none listed, NVIDIA Server Rubin. Production status: both active.

FAQ

Q: What is the FP32 performance difference between the two parts?

A: The Intel Arc Graphics 2 Xe Mobile delivers 1,280.0 GFLOPS FP32, while the NVIDIA B300 SXM6 AC delivers 76.99 TFLOPS. The B300's FP32 throughput is roughly 60 times higher.

Q: How does memory bandwidth compare?

A: The Intel part uses system shared memory with bandwidth listed as system dependent. The B300 has 288 GB of HBM3e on an 8192-bit bus, providing 8.19 TB/s of bandwidth.

Q: Which part supports ray tracing?

A: The Intel part includes 2 ray tracing cores. The NVIDIA B300 does not list a ray tracing core count in the database.

Q: What are the power requirements for each?

A: The Intel part has a 25 W TDP and requires no external power connectors. The B300 has a 1100 W TDP and a suggested PSU of 1500 W.

Q: What is the B300's benchmark score and how does it compare to rivals?

A: The B300 scores 369,831 in Geekbench OpenCL, placing at the 100th percentile. It is 7% ahead of the NVIDIA B200, 10.4% ahead of the NVIDIA H200 NVL, 16.3% ahead of the AMD Instinct MI300X, and 25% ahead of the NVIDIA L40S.

Q: Do these parts support the same graphics APIs?

A: No. The Intel part supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The B300 lists N/A for DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan, consistent with its server role and lack of display outputs.