Intel Arc Graphics 4 Xe Mobile vs NVIDIA B200 SXM6 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded database does not contain direct benchmark scores for either the Intel Arc Graphics 4 Xe Mobile or the NVIDIA B200 SXM6. Both entries show an average benchmark score of zero, and the head-to-head benchmark comparison list is empty. Consequently, there are no measured performance deltas, no percentile shifts, and no frame rate or compute figures to compare between the two parts. The absence of data is itself informative: these products sit at opposite ends of the hardware spectrum, and the database has not yet captured a common workload that exercises both.

What the data does show is the performance envelope each part was designed around. The Intel Arc Graphics 4 Xe Mobile delivers 2.355 TFLOPS of FP32 compute and a pixel rate of 36.80 GPixel/s. The NVIDIA B200 SXM6 delivers 69.34 TFLOPS of FP32 compute and a pixel rate of 43.92 GPixel/s. On raw FP32 throughput, the B200 SXM6 is roughly 29.4 times higher. That ratio is derived directly from the recorded figures, and it defines the scale of the gap. The B200 SXM6 also posts a texture rate of 1,083.4 GTexel/s against 73.60 GTexel/s for the Intel part, a difference of approximately 14.7 times. Pixel rate is the closest comparison, with the B200 SXM6 ahead by about 19 percent, which reflects its very small ROP count relative to its shader array.

FP16 throughput shows a different architectural philosophy. The Intel part records 4.710 TFLOPS with a 2:1 ratio, meaning it halves FP16 throughput relative to FP32. The B200 SXM6 records 69.34 TFLOPS with a 1:1 ratio, meaning FP16 runs at the same rate as FP32. For workloads that mix FP32 and FP16 operations, the NVIDIA part does not lose throughput when switching precision, while the Intel part does. That is a measurable behavioral difference, even without direct benchmark runs.

The percentile versus all GPUs is identical for both at 50, which is a neutral placement in the database distribution rather than a competitive ranking. With no nearest rivals listed for either product, the database offers no third-party comparison points. The conclusion from the head-to-head section is straightforward: the only quantitative comparisons available are the specification-derived rates, and those uniformly favor the B200 SXM6 except for the narrow pixel rate margin.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher FP32 compute throughput?

A: The NVIDIA B200 SXM6 records 69.34 TFLOPS of FP32 compute, while the Intel Arc Graphics 4 Xe Mobile records 2.355 TFLOPS. The B200 SXM6 is approximately 29.4 times higher in this metric.

Q: How does FP16 performance compare between the two?

A: The NVIDIA B200 SXM6 delivers 69.34 TFLOPS with a 1:1 FP16 to FP32 ratio, so FP16 performance equals FP32 performance. The Intel Arc Graphics 4 Xe Mobile delivers 4.710 TFLOPS with a 2:1 ratio, meaning FP16 throughput is half of its FP32 rate.

Q: What memory configurations do the two GPUs use?

A: The NVIDIA 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). The Intel Arc Graphics 4 Xe Mobile uses system shared memory, with a system dependent bandwidth and no dedicated memory clock.

Q: Do both GPUs support DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan?

A: No. The Intel Arc Graphics 4 Xe Mobile supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The NVIDIA B200 SXM6 lists N/A for DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan, indicating no support for those graphics APIs.

Q: What are the transistor and die size figures for each chip?

A: The NVIDIA B200 SXM6 uses the GB100 chip with 208,000 million transistors on a 1628 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 127.8M per mm². The Intel Arc Graphics 4 Xe Mobile uses the Panther Lake chip with the transistor count and die size listed as unknown.

Q: Which GPU has a higher pixel rate?

A: The NVIDIA B200 SXM6 records 43.92 GPixel/s, while the Intel Arc Graphics 4 Xe Mobile records 36.80 GPixel/s. The B200 SXM6 is about 19 percent higher in pixel rate.

The Verdict

The data positions these two products for entirely different roles. The Intel Arc Graphics 4 Xe Mobile is an integrated graphics processor on the Panther Lake chip, built on Intel's 3 nm process at a 25 W TDP, with system shared memory and no power connectors. It is designed for portable devices, as indicated by its portable device dependent display outputs and IGP bus interface. The NVIDIA B200 SXM6 is a server accelerator module with a 1000 W TDP, a suggested PSU of 1400 W, 180 GB of dedicated HBM3e memory, and no display outputs. It connects via PCIe 6.0 x16 and targets compute workloads rather than graphics output.

For any compute metric recorded in the database, the B200 SXM6 is the stronger part. Its FP32 and FP16 throughput, texture rate, and memory bandwidth are all far beyond the Intel part's figures. The only metric where the B200 SXM6 does not dominate is pixel rate, where it leads by approximately 19 percent, and even that lead is small relative to its other advantages. The Intel part offers graphics API support, including DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, while the B200 SXM6 lists none. For a system that needs to render graphics through standard APIs, the Intel part is the only one of the two that can do so.

The B200 SXM6 also carries a recorded launch MSRP of 34,999 USD. The Intel part has no recorded launch MSRP. The production status for both is active, and both sit at the 50th percentile in the database distribution. The B200 SXM6 has a predecessor (Server Hopper) and a successor (Server Rubin) listed, while the Intel part lists neither. The release dates differ materially: the B200 SXM6 entered production status in late 2024, and the Intel part in early 2026.

Specification Differences

The two parts differ in nearly every recorded specification. The Intel Arc Graphics 4 Xe Mobile uses a 3 nm process at Intel as its foundry, while the NVIDIA B200 SXM6 uses a 5 nm process at TSMC. The B200 SXM6 records 208,000 million transistors on a 1628 mm² die with a density of 127.8M per mm²; the Intel part lists transistor count and die size as unknown. Base clocks are 300 MHz for the Intel part and 120 MHz for the B200 SXM6. Boost clocks are 2300 MHz for the Intel part and 1830 MHz for the B200 SXM6.

Memory is the most dramatic difference. The Intel part uses system shared memory with a system dependent bandwidth. The B200 SXM6 uses 180 GB of HBM3e on an 8192 bit bus with 8.19 TB/s of bandwidth and a 2000 MHz memory clock. Shader resources differ by an order of magnitude: 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, 16 ROPs, and 4 RT cores for the Intel part; 18,944 shading units, 592 TMUs, 24 ROPs, and 592 tensor cores for the B200 SXM6. The Intel part has no tensor core count recorded, while the B200 SXM6 has no RT core count recorded.

Power and physical form also diverge. The Intel part draws 25 W, uses no power connectors, occupies an IGP slot width, and connects via an IGP bus interface. The B200 SXM6 draws 1000 W, suggests a 1400 W PSU, occupies an SXM Module slot width, and connects via PCIe 6.0 x16. Display outputs are portable device dependent for the Intel part and nonexistent for the B200 SXM6. The B200 SXM6 has a launch MSRP of 34,999 USD; the Intel part has none recorded.

Architecture Differences

The Intel Arc Graphics 4 Xe Mobile is built on the Xe3-LPG architecture within the Arc Graphics-M (Panther Lake) generation. The NVIDIA B200 SXM6 is built on the Blackwell architecture within the Server Blackwell (Bxx) generation, using the GB100 chip. The Intel part is Intel's own 3 nm process, while the B200 SXM6 uses TSMC's 5 nm process. The Intel part's memory architecture relies on system shared memory, so its bandwidth is system dependent; the B200 SXM6 uses dedicated HBM3e across an 8192 bit interface.

Compute feature sets differ by design. The Intel part includes 4 RT cores and supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The B200 SXM6 includes 592 tensor cores but lists no RT core count and no graphics API support. FP16 handling is asymmetric: the Intel part runs FP16 at half its FP32 rate, while the B200 SXM6 runs FP16 at parity with FP32. The B200 SXM6 also records a predecessor (Server Hopper) and successor (Server Rubin), placing it in a known product lineage. The Intel part records no predecessor or successor.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA B200 SXM6 wins on every raw compute measurement in the database. FP32 throughput, FP16 throughput, texture rate, and memory bandwidth all favor it by wide margins. Its 8.19 TB/s memory bandwidth against system dependent bandwidth for the Intel part makes it the clear choice for memory-bound server workloads. Its 592 tensor cores and 1:1 FP16 ratio point toward AI and high-performance compute tasks, though the database does not include direct benchmark scores to confirm workload-specific performance.

The Intel Arc Graphics 4 Xe Mobile wins on graphics API compatibility and power efficiency. It supports DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, none of which are available on the B200 SXM6. Its 25 W TDP against 1000 W makes it suitable for portable devices with no external power connectors. Its pixel rate of 36.80 GPixel/s is within 19 percent of the B200 SXM6, a much smaller gap than in other metrics. For integrated graphics in a mobile platform, the Intel part is the only one of the two that fits the form factor and power envelope.

The recorded data does not assign benchmark wins to either part, as the wins counts are zero for both. The specification differences, however, make the use-case split clear. Compute and server acceleration belong to the B200 SXM6. Integrated graphics, standard API rendering, and low-power mobile operation belong to the Intel Arc Graphics 4 Xe Mobile.