Intel Arc Graphics 4 Xe Mobile vs NVIDIA B300 SXM6 AC Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data contains only one benchmark result for the NVIDIA B300 SXM6 AC, while the Intel Arc Graphics 4 Xe Mobile has no benchmark entries in the database. This makes a direct head-to-head comparison impossible. However, the B300's single score can still be positioned against its nearest rivals to understand its standing.

The NVIDIA B300 SXM6 AC delivers a Geekbench OpenCL score of 369,831. This places it 7% ahead of the NVIDIA B200, which records 345,482. The gap widens when compared to the NVIDIA H200 NVL, which scores 334,891, a 10.4% delta. Against the AMD Instinct MI300X at 317,994, the B300 leads by 16.3%. The largest margin in the recorded set is against the NVIDIA L40S, where the B300 is 25% ahead of a 295,763 score.

The Intel Arc Graphics 4 Xe Mobile has no benchmark scores in the database, so its percentile standing of 50 versus the B300's 100 cannot be validated through a direct test. The absence of head-to-head benchmark entries means any comparison between these two units relies entirely on their specification sheets.

Architecture Differences

The two units come from opposing design philosophies. The Intel Arc Graphics 4 Xe Mobile uses a 3 nm process node fabricated by Intel, built on the Xe3-LPG architecture with the Panther Lake chip. It belongs to the Arc Graphics-M (Panther Lake) generation. The NVIDIA B300 SXM6 AC uses a 5 nm node fabricated by TSMC, built on the Blackwell Ultra architecture with the GB110 chip, and belongs to the Server Blackwell (Bxx) generation.

The transistor counts differ drastically. The B300 contains 208,000 million transistors on a 1628 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 127.8M per mm². The Intel part lists its transistor count and die size as unknown. The B300 includes a 288 GB HBM3e memory subsystem with an 8192-bit bus and 8.19 TB/s bandwidth. The Intel part uses system shared memory with a system dependent bandwidth.

Compute resources scale accordingly. The B300 has 18,944 shading units, 592 TMUs, 24 ROPs, and 592 tensor cores. The Intel part has 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, 16 ROPs, and 4 ray tracing cores. The B300 lists no ray tracing core count, while the Intel part lists no tensor core count. FP32 throughput shows the B300 at 76.99 TFLOPS versus 2.355 TFLOPS for the Intel part. FP16 also diverges: the B300 runs at 76.99 TFLOPS with a 1:1 ratio, while the Intel part delivers 4.710 TFLOPS with a 2:1 ratio.

Clock behavior differs. The B300 has a 1665 MHz base clock and a 2032 MHz boost clock. The Intel part has a 300 MHz base and a 2300 MHz boost. Memory clocks are listed as 2000 MHz with 8 Gbps effective for the B300, while the Intel part uses system shared memory.

Power envelopes are in separate classes. The B300 has a 1100 W TDP with a 1500 W suggested PSU and an SXM Module slot width. The Intel part has a 25 W TDP, an IGP slot width, and no power connectors. The B300 connects via PCIe 6.0 x16 and has no display outputs. The Intel part uses an IGP bus interface and its display outputs are portable device dependent.

API support also separates them. 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, which aligns with its server orientation.

FAQ

Q: Which unit has a higher boost clock?

A: The Intel Arc Graphics 4 Xe Mobile boosts to 2300 MHz, which is higher than the NVIDIA B300 SXM6 AC's 2032 MHz boost clock.

Q: How much memory bandwidth does the B300 provide?

A: The NVIDIA B300 SXM6 AC provides 8.19 TB/s bandwidth through 288 GB of HBM3e memory on an 8192-bit bus. The Intel part uses system shared memory with system dependent bandwidth.

Q: What is the FP32 throughput difference between the two?

A: The B300 delivers 76.99 TFLOPS FP32, while the Intel part delivers 2.355 TFLOPS. This gives the B300 roughly 32 times the FP32 throughput, though the exact ratio is not stated in the database.

Q: Does the Intel part support modern graphics APIs?

A: Yes, the Intel Arc Graphics 4 Xe Mobile supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The B300 lists N/A for all three APIs.

Q: What is the production status of both units?

A: Both are listed as Active. The Intel part was released on 2026-01-26, and the B300 was released on 2025-09-10.

Q: How does the B300 compare to its nearest rival, the NVIDIA B200?

A: The B300 scores 369,831 in Geekbench OpenCL, which is 7% higher than the B200's 345,482.

Specification Differences

| Field | Intel Arc Graphics 4 Xe Mobile | NVIDIA B300 SXM6 AC |

| --- | --- | --- |

| Chip | Panther Lake | GB110 |

| Architecture | Xe3-LPG | Blackwell Ultra |

| Generation | Arc Graphics-M (Panther Lake) | Server Blackwell (Bxx) |

| Process Node | 3 nm | 5 nm |

| Foundry | Intel | TSMC |

| Transistors | unknown | 208,000 million |

| Die Size | unknown | 1628 mm² |

| Transistor Density | null | 127.8M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 300 MHz | 1665 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 2300 MHz | 2032 MHz |

| Memory Size | System Shared | 288 GB |

| Memory Type | System Shared | HBM3e |

| Memory Bus Width | System Shared | 8192 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | System Dependent | 8.19 TB/s |

| Shading Units | 512 | 18944 |

| TMUs | 32 | 592 |

| ROPs | 16 | 24 |

| RT Cores | 4 | null |

| Tensor Cores | null | 592 |

| Pixel Rate | 36.80 GPixel/s | 48.77 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 73.60 GTexel/s | 1,202.9 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 2.355 TFLOPS | 76.99 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | 4.710 TFLOPS (2:1) | 76.99 TFLOPS (1:1) |

| TDP | 25 W | 1100 W |

| Slot Width | IGP | SXM Module |

| Power Connectors | None | null |

| Suggested PSU | null | 1500 W |

| Bus Interface | IGP | PCIe 6.0 x16 |

| Display Outputs | Portable Device Dependent | No outputs |

| DirectX | 12 Ultimate (12_2) | N/A |

| OpenGL | 4.6 | N/A |

| Vulkan | 1.4 | N/A |

| Release Date | 2026-01-26 | 2025-09-10 |

| Predecessor | null | Server Hopper |

| Successor | null | Server Rubin |

| Percentile | 50 | 100 |

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Arc Graphics 4 Xe Mobile wins on process technology, using a 3 nm node versus the B300's 5 nm node. It also has a higher boost clock at 2300 MHz versus 2032 MHz. Its 25 W TDP makes it suitable for integrated graphics use in portable devices, with display outputs described as portable device dependent. It supports a full set of graphics APIs including DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, which the B300 lacks entirely. Its 4 ray tracing cores provide hardware ray tracing capability, a feature the B300 does not list.

The NVIDIA B300 SXM6 AC wins on raw compute across nearly every measurable metric. Its 76.99 TFLOPS FP32 is far ahead of 2.355 TFLOPS. Its 288 GB HBM3e memory with 8.19 TB/s bandwidth dwarfs the system shared memory of the Intel part. The B300 has 18,944 shading units versus 512, 592 TMUs versus 32, and 24 ROPs versus 16. Its 592 tensor cores enable AI workloads, while the Intel part has none listed. The B300 also has a higher pixel rate at 48.77 GPixel/s versus 36.80 GPixel/s and a much higher texture rate at 1,202.9 GTexel/s versus 73.60 GTexel/s. Its 100th percentile standing versus the Intel part's 50th percentile reflects the B300's dominance in the database. The B300 also holds a 7% lead over the NVIDIA B200, a 10.4% lead over the H200 NVL, a 16.3% lead over the AMD Instinct MI300X, and a 25% lead over the L40S.

The Verdict

The data shows two devices built for entirely different purposes. The Intel Arc Graphics 4 Xe Mobile is an integrated graphics solution with a 25 W TDP, a 3 nm process, and a boost clock of 2300 MHz. It offers graphics API support, ray tracing cores, and portable device dependent outputs, making it suited for mobile or compact systems where power draw and physical integration matter.

The NVIDIA B300 SXM6 AC is a server-class module with a 1100 W TDP, a 1500 W suggested PSU, and an SXM Module slot width. Its 288 GB HBM3e memory, 592 tensor cores, and 76.99 TFLOPS FP32 throughput position it for high-performance compute and AI workloads. Its lack of display outputs and N/A graphics API support confirm it is not intended for graphics rendering.

The benchmark data only covers the B300, and it demonstrates clear superiority in compute performance. The Intel part's lack of benchmark entries means its real-world performance cannot be assessed from the database. The choice between these two depends on the workload context: the Intel part serves integrated graphics needs in portable devices, while the B300 serves server racks requiring maximum compute density. The recorded data does not suggest any scenario where the Intel part would outperform the B300 in raw compute, but the two do not compete in the same product category.