Intel Arc Graphics 4 Xe Mobile vs Intel Arc Pro B370 Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The recorded data places both GPUs in the same percentile bracket, with each sitting at the 50th percentile versus all GPUs in the database. Neither part carries a single benchmark score, an average benchmark score, or any head-to-head wins. The distinction between them is therefore not demonstrated in measured application performance, but in the physical and architectural resources each one brings to a system.

The Intel Arc Graphics 4 Xe Mobile is the smaller configuration. It uses 512 shading units, 32 texture mapping units, 16 raster output units, and 4 ray tracing cores. Its compute ceiling is 2.355 TFLOPS for FP32 operations. This part is built for thin, power-constrained portable devices. The data confirms it is an integrated GPU, using system shared memory, with no dedicated VRAM, no power connectors, and a 25 W TDP.

The Intel Arc Pro B370 is the larger configuration. It uses 1280 shading units, 40 texture mapping units, 20 raster output units, and 10 ray tracing cores. Its compute ceiling is 6.144 TFLOPS for FP32 operations. This part is also an integrated GPU with system shared memory and a 25 W TDP, but it carries a substantially larger execution resource pool. The B370 is positioned as a workstation-oriented part, as indicated by its generation name "Arc Graphics-WM (Panther Lake)" and its predecessor relationship to "HD Graphics-WM".

Where each one wins is a matter of resource allocation. The Arc Graphics 4 Xe Mobile wins in the sense of a lighter execution footprint: fewer shading units, fewer TMUs, fewer ROPs, and fewer ray tracing cores means less silicon area consumed and potentially simpler integration into a compact platform. The Arc Pro B370 wins in raw throughput capacity. It delivers 2.6 times the FP32 throughput of the smaller part, 2.5 times the texture fill rate, and 1.3 times the pixel fill rate. For any workload that scales with shading units or ray tracing cores, the B370 is the stronger choice on paper.

The benchmark data itself does not demonstrate wins in either direction, as both parts show zero recorded benchmark results and zero head-to-head comparisons. The analysis below relies strictly on the specification-level differences captured in the database.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has more shading units?

A: The Intel Arc Pro B370 has 1280 shading units, while the Intel Arc Graphics 4 Xe Mobile has 512 shading units.

Q: Do the two GPUs use the same architecture?

A: Yes, both use the Xe3-LPG architecture and are built on the same Panther Lake chip.

Q: Which GPU has a higher boost clock?

A: The Intel Arc Pro B370 boosts to 2400 MHz, while the Intel Arc Graphics 4 Xe Mobile boosts to 2300 MHz.

Q: How much memory does each GPU have?

A: Both use system shared memory, meaning the memory size, type, bus width, and bandwidth are all system dependent for both parts.

Q: What is the power draw of these GPUs?

A: Both the Intel Arc Graphics 4 Xe Mobile and the Intel Arc Pro B370 have a 25 W TDP, and both are integrated GPUs with no power connectors.

Q: Which GPU has more ray tracing cores?

A: The Intel Arc Pro B370 has 10 ray tracing cores, compared to 4 ray tracing cores on the Intel Arc Graphics 4 Xe Mobile.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains no recorded head-to-head benchmark results between these two GPUs, no individual benchmark scores for either part, and no average benchmark score. The win counts for both sides are zero. Consequently, any head-to-head comparison must be derived from the fixed hardware specifications rather than measured application performance.

The largest numerical advantage for the Intel Arc Pro B370 appears in FP32 compute. The B370 delivers 6.144 TFLOPS, which is 2.6 times the 2.355 TFLOPS of the Arc Graphics 4 Xe Mobile. In FP16 compute, the B370 reaches 12.29 TFLOPS (2:1) against 4.710 TFLOPS (2:1) on the smaller part, a ratio of approximately 2.6 as well.

Texture throughput follows a similar pattern. The B370 processes 96.00 GTexel/s, while the Arc Graphics 4 Xe Mobile processes 73.60 GTexel/s. That difference corresponds to roughly 1.3 times the texture fill rate. Pixel throughput also favors the B370: 48.00 GPixel/s versus 36.80 GPixel/s, again a factor of about 1.3.

The boost clock advantage is modest. The B370 runs at 2400 MHz, the Arc Graphics 4 Xe Mobile at 2300 MHz. Both share the same 300 MHz base clock. The B370 also holds a 2.5 times advantage in texture mapping units (40 versus 32) and a 1.25 times advantage in raster output units (20 versus 16). The ray tracing core count is the largest proportional gap: the B370 has 10 RT cores, the Arc Graphics 4 Xe Mobile has 4, a 2.5 times difference.

Because neither part has any measured benchmark entries, the database cannot confirm whether these specification advantages translate into real-world performance gains. The recorded data only supports the conclusion that the B370 is configured with significantly more execution resources across every countable unit.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ in shading units, texture mapping units, raster output units, ray tracing cores, boost clock, pixel rate, texture rate, FP32 throughput, and FP16 throughput.

• Shading units: 512 on the Arc Graphics 4 Xe Mobile, 1280 on the Arc Pro B370.
• TMUs: 32 on the Arc Graphics 4 Xe Mobile, 40 on the Arc Pro B370.
• ROPs: 16 on the Arc Graphics 4 Xe Mobile, 20 on the Arc Pro B370.
• Ray tracing cores: 4 on the Arc Graphics 4 Xe Mobile, 10 on the Arc Pro B370.
• Boost clock: 2300 MHz on the Arc Graphics 4 Xe Mobile, 2400 MHz on the Arc Pro B370.
• Pixel rate: 36.80 GPixel/s on the Arc Graphics 4 Xe Mobile, 48.00 GPixel/s on the Arc Pro B370.
• Texture rate: 73.60 GTexel/s on the Arc Graphics 4 Xe Mobile, 96.00 GTexel/s on the Arc Pro B370.
• FP32: 2.355 TFLOPS on the Arc Graphics 4 Xe Mobile, 6.144 TFLOPS on the Arc Pro B370.
• FP16: 4.710 TFLOPS (2:1) on the Arc Graphics 4 Xe Mobile, 12.29 TFLOPS (2:1) on the Arc Pro B370.

The two GPUs share the same base clock of 300 MHz, the same 3 nm process node, the same foundry (Intel), the same 25 W TDP, the same integrated form factor, the same bus interface (IGP), the same system shared memory configuration, the same display outputs (portable device dependent), and the same API support: DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. Both parts have no power connectors, no suggested PSU, and no launch MSRP recorded.

The generation names differ: the Arc Graphics 4 Xe Mobile belongs to "Arc Graphics-M (Panther Lake)", while the Arc Pro B370 belongs to "Arc Graphics-WM (Panther Lake)". The B370 also lists a predecessor, "HD Graphics-WM", while the smaller part lists no predecessor. Both have an active production status and the same release date.

Architecture Differences

Both GPUs are built on the Xe3-LPG architecture and use the Panther Lake chip. The manufacturing process is identical: 3 nm, fabricated by Intel. Transistor counts and die sizes are listed as unknown for both, so no comparison can be made on that basis.

The architectural difference is one of scale, not of fundamental design. The Intel Arc Pro B370 implements more of every execution resource. It doubles the ray tracing core count from 4 to 10, increases shading units from 512 to 1280, adds 8 TMUs, and adds 4 ROPs. The B370 also carries a higher boost clock, 2400 MHz versus 2300 MHz, despite the same 300 MHz base clock.

The memory architecture is identical in structure: both use system shared memory with system dependent bandwidth. Neither part has a dedicated memory bus width or memory type listed; both rely entirely on the host system's memory subsystem. This means actual memory performance will vary by platform, and the database does not assign either GPU a fixed memory bandwidth figure.

The API surface is the same for both. Each supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. There is no tensor core count listed for either part, so AI acceleration resources cannot be compared from the recorded data.

The power envelope is identical at 25 W, and both are integrated GPUs with no external power connectors. The slot width is IGP for both, confirming neither is a discrete add-in card. The display outputs are portable device dependent for both, meaning the actual video output capabilities are determined by the host device rather than the GPU itself.

The production status is active for both, and both were released on the same date. The Arc Pro B370 is recorded as the successor to "HD Graphics-WM", which places it in a workstation-oriented lineage. The Arc Graphics 4 Xe Mobile has no predecessor or successor recorded, and its generation label "Arc Graphics-M" places it in the mobile graphics segment.

In short, the architecture is shared, but the implementation is not. The B370 is a larger, faster, more fully populated version of the same Xe3-LPG design.

The Verdict

The data supports a clear structural conclusion: the Intel Arc Pro B370 is the more powerful part by every measurable hardware metric, while the Intel Arc Graphics 4 Xe Mobile is the more minimal configuration.

For users or systems that need the highest available compute throughput in the same 25 W envelope, the Arc Pro B370 is the choice. It offers 6.144 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, 10 ray tracing cores, 1280 shading units, and a 2400 MHz boost clock. It also delivers higher pixel and texture rates: 48.00 GPixel/s and 96.00 GTexel/s respectively. The B370 is positioned in the workstation generation line, and its predecessor lineage reinforces that orientation.

For users or systems that prioritize a smaller execution footprint without needing the full resource pool, the Arc Graphics 4 Xe Mobile is the lighter option. It uses 512 shading units, 4 ray tracing cores, and 32 TMUs, with a 2300 MHz boost clock. Its FP32 throughput of 2.355 TFLOPS is sufficient for lighter graphics tasks, and its identical 25 W TDP means it does not save power relative to the B370, but it does occupy a smaller resource configuration.

The database records no benchmark scores for either GPU, and no head-to-head results exist. The verdict therefore rests entirely on specification analysis. Given identical architecture, identical process node, identical TDP, and identical memory structure, the only meaningful difference is execution resource count. The B370 has more of everything that matters for compute-heavy and ray-traced workloads. The Arc Graphics 4 Xe Mobile has fewer units, which may simplify integration in constrained platforms, but it does not offer any recorded performance advantage.

Both parts sit at the 50th percentile versus all GPUs, and both have an average benchmark score of zero. Neither has a launch MSRP recorded, so no cost-based comparison is possible from the data. The selection between them comes down to whether the full resource pool of the B370 is needed, or whether the smaller configuration of the Arc Graphics 4 Xe Mobile is sufficient for the target workload. On the recorded evidence, the B370 is the stronger part in every hardware category where the two differ.