Intel Arc Pro B370 vs Intel Arc Pro B50 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Intel Arc Pro B370 and Intel Arc Pro B50 sit in different tiers of Intel's professional graphics lineup, and the recorded data shows a clear split in their performance profiles. The B50, built on the Battlemage architecture, delivers substantially higher raw compute throughput. Its FP32 performance reaches 10.65 TFLOPS, which is 73% higher than the B370's 6.144 TFLOPS. In FP16 workloads, the B50 reaches 21.30 TFLOPS (2:1) compared to 12.29 TFLOPS (2:1) on the B370, a 73% advantage in both precision formats.

Texture processing shows an even larger gap. The B50's 128 texture mapping units operate at a texture rate of 332.8 GTexel/s, while the B370's 40 TMUs deliver 96.00 GTexel/s. That represents a 247% advantage for the B50, making it markedly stronger in texture-heavy rendering scenarios. Pixel throughput tells a different story: the B370 produces 48.00 GPixel/s versus 41.60 GPixel/s on the B50, a 15% lead for the B370 despite its lower overall compute capacity. This stems from the B370's 20 ROPs compared to 16 ROPs on the B50.

The B50's benchmark scores in the database confirm its positioning. Its 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 1604 indicates strong modern API performance. PassMark G3D results show 12553, while GPU compute reaches 6037. The B370 has no recorded benchmark scores in the database, so direct numerical comparisons rely on the architectural specifications listed above.

The B50 sits at the 17th percentile among all GPUs in the database, with an average benchmark score of 2660. Its nearest rivals include the NVIDIA GeForce GT 1030 at 2662 (0.1% higher), the NVIDIA Quadro K1100M at 2664 (0.2% higher), the NVIDIA GeForce GT 440 at 2645 (0.6% lower), and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5070 SUPER at 2690 (1.1% higher). These tight deltas place the B50 in a competitive bracket where small score differences separate adjacent products. The B370's 50th percentile ranking reflects its position as an integrated solution, though without benchmark scores the percentile alone carries limited comparative weight.

Where Each One Wins

The B50 wins decisively in compute-heavy and texture-intensive workloads. Its 2048 shading units, 128 TMUs, and 16 RT cores provide the hardware foundation for substantial parallel processing. The FP32 output of 10.65 TFLOPS positions it for professional 3D rendering, simulation, and GPU-accelerated compute tasks. The 16 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 128-bit bus delivers 224.0 GB/s of bandwidth, which supports larger datasets and more complex scenes than the B370's system-shared memory configuration.

The B370 wins in pixel throughput and power efficiency. Its 48.00 GPixel/s fill rate exceeds the B50's 41.60 GPixel/s, which benefits 2D compositing, desktop rendering, and resolution-intensive output tasks. The 25 W TDP stands well below the B50's 70 W, making the B370 suitable for compact systems where thermal and power budgets are constrained. Its integrated form factor (IGP slot width, no power connectors) means it draws entirely from the host platform, whereas the B50 requires a dual-slot add-in card footprint despite also lacking external power connectors.

Memory architecture favors the B50 strongly. Dedicated GDDR6 with fixed bandwidth provides predictable performance, while the B370 relies on system memory with bandwidth described as "System Dependent." This makes the B370's memory performance variable based on the host system's capabilities. The B50's 16 GB capacity also exceeds what integrated graphics typically access, enabling larger texture pools and geometry buffers.

The B50's PCIe 5.0 x8 interface offers higher bandwidth potential than the B370's integrated bus connection. This matters for data transfer between CPU and GPU, particularly in professional workflows that stream large datasets. The B50's 4x mini-DisplayPort 2.1 outputs provide dedicated display connectivity, while the B370's outputs are "Portable Device Dependent," tying its display capabilities to the host device.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different architectural generations and process nodes. The B370 uses the Xe3-LPG architecture on Intel's Panther Lake chip, fabricated on a 3 nm process at Intel's own foundry. The B50 uses the Xe2-HPG architecture on the BMG-G21 chip, fabricated on a 5 nm process at TSMC. These architectural differences explain their divergent design goals: the B370 targets integrated graphics within a mobile or compact platform, while the B50 is a discrete professional GPU.

The B50's die details are recorded in the database: 19,600 million transistors on a 272 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 72.1M per mm². The B370's transistor count and die size are listed as unknown, reflecting the integrated nature of the design where those parameters are less publicly specified.

Clock behavior differs significantly. The B370 runs a 300 MHz base clock with a 2400 MHz boost, a wide dynamic range suited to power management in integrated settings. The B50 runs a 1700 MHz base clock with a 2600 MHz boost, maintaining higher sustained frequencies. The B50's memory operates at 1750 MHz with 14 Gbps effective data rate, while the B370 uses system-shared memory with no dedicated clock specification.

Both GPUs support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, indicating parity in API coverage. The B50 includes 16 RT cores versus 10 on the B370, and the B50's 2048 shading units exceed the B370's 1280 by 60%. Texture unit counts show a 3.2x difference (128 vs 40), while ROPs favor the B370 at 20 vs 16.

The B50's release date of 2025-09-04 places it earlier in the market, while the B370's release date of 2026-01-26 shows a later introduction. The B370 lists its predecessor as HD Graphics-WM, while the B50 has no predecessor recorded. The B50 carries a launch MSRP of 349 USD, stated here once as recorded.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher raw compute performance?

A: The Intel Arc Pro B50 delivers 10.65 TFLOPS FP32 and 21.30 TFLOPS FP16 (2:1), versus 6.144 TFLOPS FP32 and 12.29 TFLOPS FP16 (2:1) on the Intel Arc Pro B370. The B50 leads by 73% in both precision formats.

Q: How do the memory configurations differ?

A: The B50 has 16 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus with 224.0 GB/s bandwidth, running at 1750 MHz (14 Gbps effective). The B370 uses system-shared memory with system-dependent bandwidth and no dedicated memory bus.

Q: What is the power consumption difference?

A: The B370 has a 25 W TDP and an integrated (IGP) form factor with no power connectors. The B50 has a 70 W TDP, a dual-slot design, no power connectors, and a suggested PSU of 250 W.

Q: Which GPU has better pixel fill rate?

A: The B370 achieves 48.00 GPixel/s, which is 15% higher than the B50's 41.60 GPixel/s. This results from the B370's 20 ROPs versus 16 ROPs on the B50.

Q: What display outputs does each GPU provide?

A: The B50 offers 4x mini-DisplayPort 2.1 outputs. The B370's display outputs are listed as "Portable Device Dependent," meaning they depend on the host device's configuration.

Q: How does the B50 compare to its nearest rivals in the database?

A: The B50's average benchmark score of 2660 places it within 1.1% of its nearest rivals: the NVIDIA GeForce GT 1030 (2662, 0.1% higher), NVIDIA Quadro K1100M (2664, 0.2% higher), NVIDIA GeForce GT 440 (2645, 0.6% lower), and NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5070 SUPER (2690, 1.1% higher).

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Arc Pro B370 | Intel Arc Pro B50 |

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

| Chip | Panther Lake | BMG-G21 |

| Architecture | Xe3-LPG | Xe2-HPG |

| Generation | Arc Graphics-WM (Panther Lake) | Battlemage (Pro Series) |

| Process Node | 3 nm | 5 nm |

| Foundry | Intel | TSMC |

| Transistors | unknown | 19,600 million |

| Die Size | unknown | 272 mm² |

| Transistor Density | not recorded | 72.1M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 300 MHz | 1700 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 2400 MHz | 2600 MHz |

| Memory Clock | System Shared | 1750 MHz (14 Gbps effective) |

| Memory Size | System Shared | 16 GB |

| Memory Type | System Shared | GDDR6 |

| Memory Bus Width | System Shared | 128 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | System Dependent | 224.0 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 1280 | 2048 |

| TMUs | 40 | 128 |

| ROPs | 20 | 16 |

| RT Cores | 10 | 16 |

| Pixel Rate | 48.00 GPixel/s | 41.60 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 96.00 GTexel/s | 332.8 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 6.144 TFLOPS | 10.65 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | 12.29 TFLOPS (2:1) | 21.30 TFLOPS (2:1) |

| TDP | 25 W | 70 W |

| Slot Width | IGP | Dual-slot |

| Power Connectors | None | None |

| Suggested PSU | not recorded | 250 W |

| Bus Interface | IGP | PCIe 5.0 x8 |

| Display Outputs | Portable Device Dependent | 4x mini-DisplayPort 2.1 |

| Release Date | 2026-01-26 | 2025-09-04 |

| Predecessor | HD Graphics-WM | not recorded |

| Launch MSRP | not recorded | 349 USD |

The Verdict

The data indicates two distinct usage profiles. The Intel Arc Pro B50 is the choice for professional workloads requiring dedicated graphics memory, high compute throughput, and extensive texture processing. Its 10.65 TFLOPS FP32, 16 GB GDDR6, and 332.8 GTexel/s texture rate position it for 3D rendering, GPU compute, and demanding visualization tasks. The 16 RT cores and PCIe 5.0 x8 interface further support modern professional applications. Its benchmark scores confirm competitive standing against the NVIDIA GT 1030 and Quadro K1100M, with deltas under 1%.

The Intel Arc Pro B370 suits integrated and power-constrained environments where the 25 W TDP and IGP form factor are decisive. Its 48.00 GPixel/s pixel rate exceeds the B50's, making it effective for display output and 2D-heavy workloads. The 3 nm process and Xe3-LPG architecture represent a newer design generation, though without recorded benchmark scores its performance tier is defined by specifications alone.

The B50's 70 W TDP and dual-slot footprint require more system space and cooling, while the B370's integrated design fits directly into the host platform. For users needing dedicated VRAM and maximum compute, the B50 delivers. For integrated efficiency and pixel throughput, the B370 holds the advantage. The choice ultimately depends on whether the workload prioritizes raw compute and memory capacity over power economy and compact integration.