Intel Arc Graphics 48EU Mobile vs NVIDIA B200 SXM6 Comparison

Intel Arc Graphics 48EU Mobile and NVIDIA B200 SXM6 occupy opposite ends of the hardware spectrum. The database records show two active products with no direct head-to-head benchmark entries, meaning the comparison relies entirely on their recorded specifications and architectural traits. The Intel part is an integrated graphics solution from the Meteor Lake generation, while the NVIDIA part is a server-class accelerator built on the Blackwell architecture. Their percentiles against all GPUs are identical at 50, but that parity masks a massive gulf in raw capability, power envelope, and intended deployment.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded benchmark data contains no direct comparison entries between the Intel Arc Graphics 48EU Mobile and the NVIDIA B200 SXM6. There are zero wins recorded for either side in a head-to-head context. This absence of measured performance numbers means the analysis must rely on the specification sheets and the derived rates provided in the database.

The most striking numerical gap appears in FP32 throughput. The Intel part delivers 1,382.4 GFLOPS, while the NVIDIA part reaches 69.34 TFLOPS. Converting to a common unit, the B200 SXM6 offers roughly 50 times the single-precision floating-point performance. The FP16 comparison is similar, with Intel listing 2.765 TFLOPS using a 2:1 ratio, while NVIDIA provides 69.34 TFLOPS at a 1:1 ratio. The NVIDIA accelerator does not rely on a packed or reduced-rate path for FP16, so its throughput is identical to its FP32 figure.

Texture and pixel rates follow the same trend. The Intel GPU manages 43.20 GTexel/s and 14.40 GPixel/s. The NVIDIA B200 SXM6 reaches 1,083.4 GTexel/s and 43.92 GPixel/s. That is a 25-fold advantage in texture fill rate and a 3-fold advantage in pixel throughput. The pixel rate gap is smaller because the NVIDIA part has only 24 ROPs, a low count for a server accelerator, whereas the Intel part has 8 ROPs. Neither product targets rasterization-heavy workloads as a primary function, but the numbers still quantify the scale difference.

Memory bandwidth is another chasm. The Intel GPU shares system memory, and the database lists bandwidth as "System Dependent," so no fixed figure exists. The NVIDIA part has 8.19 TB/s from 180 GB of HBM3e across an 8192-bit bus. Without a fixed number for Intel, the comparison is qualitative, but the recorded NVIDIA bandwidth is an order of magnitude beyond what any shared system memory configuration could reasonably provide.

Clock speeds tell a different story. The Intel base clock is 300 MHz with a boost of 1800 MHz. The NVIDIA base clock is 120 MHz with a boost of 1830 MHz. The boost clocks are nearly identical, which suggests that the performance gap comes from the sheer number of execution units, not from frequency advantages. The Intel part has 384 shading units, 24 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. The NVIDIA part has 18,944 shading units, 592 TMUs, 24 ROPs, and 592 tensor cores. The NVIDIA GPU packs roughly 49 times the shader count.

Architecture Differences

The Intel Arc Graphics 48EU Mobile uses the Xe-LPG architecture on a 10 nm process node fabricated by Intel. It is part of the Meteor Lake generation and belongs to the Arc Graphics-M product line. The chip integrates graphics directly into a mobile processor package, with the bus interface listed as Ring Bus and the slot width as IGP. The memory interface is entirely system-shared, meaning there is no dedicated VRAM, no fixed bus width, and no independent bandwidth figure.

The NVIDIA B200 SXM6 uses the Blackwell architecture on a 5 nm process node from TSMC. The chip is designated GB100 and contains 208,000 million transistors on a 1628 mm² die. The transistor density is 127.8M per mm². This is a discrete server module with an SXM form factor, a PCIe 6.0 x16 interface, and no display outputs. The memory subsystem is dedicated HBM3e, totaling 180 GB with an 8192-bit bus and 8.19 TB/s bandwidth.

The process node difference is notable. Intel's 10 nm node is a mature process for integrated parts, while TSMC's 5 nm node enables the extreme transistor count of the B200. The transistor count alone, 208,000 million versus no recorded figure for the Intel part, demonstrates the scale of design investment. The Intel GPU has no listed transistor count, die size, or density, so that comparison cannot be quantified.

API support separates the two as well. The Intel part supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The NVIDIA part lists N/A for DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan. That makes sense for a server accelerator aimed at compute and AI workloads rather than graphics rendering. The Intel part, despite being a mobile integrated GPU, has full graphics API coverage.

Power and cooling are another divergence. The Intel GPU has a TDP of 28 W and requires no power connectors because it is an IGP. The NVIDIA module has a TDP of 1000 W and a suggested PSU of 1400 W. The 1000 W figure is the highest recorded in this comparison and reflects the B200's role as a high-density compute accelerator.

Release dates differ by roughly ten months. The Intel part launched on December 13, 2023, while the NVIDIA part launched on October 31, 2024. The Intel product's predecessor is listed as HD Graphics-M with no successor. The NVIDIA product's predecessor is Server Hopper and its successor is Server Rubin.

FAQ

Q: What is the primary role of each product based on the recorded data?

A: The Intel Arc Graphics 48EU Mobile is an integrated GPU (IGP) with a Ring Bus interface and portable-device-dependent display outputs, designed for mobile systems. The NVIDIA B200 SXM6 is a server module with no display outputs, an SXM slot width, and a PCIe 6.0 x16 interface, aimed at server compute workloads.

Q: How do their memory configurations differ?

A: The Intel GPU uses system-shared memory with a system-dependent bandwidth, meaning it has no dedicated VRAM. The NVIDIA B200 SXM6 has 180 GB of HBM3e memory with an 8192-bit bus and a fixed bandwidth of 8.19 TB/s.

Q: Which product has higher boost clock speed?

A: The Intel part boosts to 1800 MHz, while the NVIDIA part boosts to 1830 MHz. The NVIDIA module has a 30 MHz higher boost clock, but the Intel part has a higher base clock at 300 MHz versus 120 MHz.

Q: Does the NVIDIA B200 SXM6 support graphics APIs?

A: The database lists DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan as N/A for the NVIDIA B200 SXM6. The Intel Arc Graphics 48EU Mobile supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4.

Q: What is the transistor count of each chip?

A: The NVIDIA B200 SXM6 has 208,000 million transistors on a 1628 mm² die. The Intel Arc Graphics 48EU Mobile has no transistor count recorded in the database.

Q: When did each product launch?

A: The Intel Arc Graphics 48EU Mobile launched on December 13, 2023. The NVIDIA B200 SXM6 launched on October 31, 2024.

The Verdict

The data supports a clear split in intended use cases. The Intel Arc Graphics 48EU Mobile is a low-power integrated solution with a 28 W TDP, system-shared memory, and full graphics API support. It is suited for portable devices where power draw is constrained and display output is required. Its performance ceiling is defined by 384 shading units and a 1,382.4 GFLOPS FP32 rate, which is adequate for basic graphics tasks but far from compute-heavy workloads.

The NVIDIA B200 SXM6 is a high-power server accelerator with a 1000 W TDP and a suggested PSU of 1400 W. It has no display outputs, no graphics API support, and a memory system built for massive bandwidth. Its 18,944 shading units and 592 tensor cores deliver 69.34 TFLOPS in both FP32 and FP16, and its 8.19 TB/s bandwidth is designed for data-intensive server operations. The launch MSRP is 34,999 USD, which positions it as a professional data-center component.

The percentile ranking of 50 for both products is misleading. It reflects each product's standing within its own peer group, not a direct performance comparison. The Intel part is an integrated mobile GPU, and the B200 is a server module. Their identical percentile scores do not imply equal capability.

For a system requiring graphics output, API compatibility, and low power draw, the Intel part is the only option with relevant features. For a server environment requiring massive compute throughput, tensor cores, and high-bandwidth memory, the NVIDIA part is the only option that matches those requirements.

Specification Differences

The following fields differ between the two products, based on the recorded data:

• Chip: Intel uses Meteor Lake; NVIDIA uses GB100.
• Architecture: Intel uses Xe-LPG; NVIDIA uses Blackwell.
• Generation: Intel lists Arc Graphics-M (Meteor Lake); NVIDIA lists Server Blackwell (Bxx).
• Process Node: Intel uses 10 nm; NVIDIA uses 5 nm.
• Foundry: Intel fabricates its own chip; NVIDIA uses TSMC.
• Transistors: Intel has no recorded figure; NVIDIA has 208,000 million.
• Die Size: Intel has no recorded figure; NVIDIA has 1628 mm².
• Transistor Density: Intel has no recorded figure; NVIDIA has 127.8M / mm².
• Base Clock: Intel is 300 MHz; NVIDIA is 120 MHz.
• Boost Clock: Intel is 1800 MHz; NVIDIA is 1830 MHz.
• Memory Size: Intel is System Shared; NVIDIA is 180 GB.
• Memory Type: Intel is System Shared; NVIDIA is HBM3e.
• Memory Bus Width: Intel is System Shared; NVIDIA is 8192 bit.
• Memory Bandwidth: Intel is System Dependent; NVIDIA is 8.19 TB/s.
• Shading Units: Intel has 384; NVIDIA has 18,944.
• TMUs: Intel has 24; NVIDIA has 592.
• ROPs: Intel has 8; NVIDIA has 24.
• Tensor Cores: Intel has none recorded; NVIDIA has 592.
• Pixel Rate: Intel is 14.40 GPixel/s; NVIDIA is 43.92 GPixel/s.
• Texture Rate: Intel is 43.20 GTexel/s; NVIDIA is 1,083.4 GTexel/s.
• FP32: Intel is 1,382.4 GFLOPS; NVIDIA is 69.34 TFLOPS.
• FP16: Intel is 2.765 TFLOPS (2:1); NVIDIA is 69.34 TFLOPS (1:1).
• TDP: Intel is 28 W; NVIDIA is 1000 W.
• Slot Width: Intel is IGP; NVIDIA is SXM Module.
• Suggested PSU: Intel has none recorded; NVIDIA is 1400 W.
• Bus Interface: Intel is Ring Bus; NVIDIA is PCIe 6.0 x16.
• Display Outputs: Intel is Portable Device Dependent; NVIDIA is No outputs.
• DirectX: Intel is 12 (12_1); NVIDIA is N/A.
• OpenGL: Intel is 4.6; NVIDIA is N/A.
• Vulkan: Intel is 1.4; NVIDIA is N/A.
• Release Date: Intel is 2023-12-13; NVIDIA is 2024-10-31.
• Predecessor: Intel is HD Graphics-M; NVIDIA is Server Hopper.
• Successor: Intel has none recorded; NVIDIA is Server Rubin.
• Launch MSRP: Intel has no recorded price; NVIDIA is 34,999 USD.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Arc Graphics 48EU Mobile wins in any scenario that requires display output. Its portable-device-dependent display outputs are the only video signal path in this comparison. It also wins on power efficiency, with a 28 W TDP versus the NVIDIA module's 1000 W, a difference of 972 W. The integrated form factor eliminates the need for a separate power connector or a suggested PSU rating. The Intel part also wins on graphics API support, offering DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, while the NVIDIA part lists N/A for all three.

The Intel part also has a higher base clock at 300 MHz versus 120 MHz, which may benefit low-load scenarios where sustained frequency matters more than peak throughput. Its system-shared memory model is simpler for mobile designs, as there is no dedicated VRAM to manage.

The NVIDIA B200 SXM6 wins on raw compute metrics across every measured rate. It has roughly 49 times the shading units, 25 times the texture rate, and 50 times the FP32 throughput. The FP16 output at 69.34 TFLOPS is 25 times the Intel part's 2.765 TFLOPS. The B200 also wins on memory capacity with 180 GB of HBM3e, on bus width with 8192 bits, and on bandwidth with 8.19 TB/s. The 592 tensor cores give it a dedicated path for AI and machine learning workloads that the Intel part cannot match.

The B200 wins on transistor count and die size, with 208,000 million transistors on a 1628 mm² die, figures that have no recorded equivalent for the Intel part. Its boost clock is 30 MHz higher, and its pixel rate is 3 times higher. The B200 also has a higher ROP count at 24 versus 8, and a higher TMU count at 592 versus 24.

The data indicates that each product wins in its own domain. The Intel part serves mobile integrated graphics needs. The NVIDIA part serves server-scale compute and AI training. The recorded specifications leave no ambiguity about which product belongs in which environment.