Intel Arc Pro B370 vs Intel Data Center GPU Max 1100 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded database contains no direct head-to-head benchmark entries for the Intel Arc Pro B370 and the Intel Data Center GPU Max 1100. Both products have zero recorded benchmark scores and an average benchmark score of zero. Their percentile rankings against all GPUs are identical at the 50th percentile, which places both in the middle of the database distribution despite their drastically different designs.

Without measured performance deltas, the comparison must rest on the architectural and specification data recorded for each part. The Arc Pro B370 delivers 6.144 TFLOPS of FP32 compute, while the Data Center GPU Max 1100 delivers 22.22 TFLOPS. This is a 3.6x difference in raw floating-point throughput, favoring the Max 1100. Texture throughput shows a similar gap: the Max 1100 reaches 694.4 GTexel/s against 96.00 GTexel/s for the B370, a 7.2x advantage.

The pixel rate comparison is unusual. The B370 records 48.00 GPixel/s, while the Max 1100 records 0 MPixel/s because its ROP count is listed as zero. The Max 1100 is a compute-oriented accelerator with no display outputs and no raster operation units, so it produces no pixel throughput. The B370, by contrast, is an integrated graphics processor with 20 ROPs and full display output support.

Memory capacity and bandwidth also diverge sharply. The Max 1100 uses 48 GB of HBM2e on an 8192-bit bus, delivering 1.23 TB/s of bandwidth. The B370 uses system shared memory with a system-dependent bandwidth figure. The Max 1100 memory clock is recorded at 600 MHz with 1200 Mbps effective data rate. The B370 memory clock is listed as system shared, meaning it depends entirely on the host platform's memory configuration.

Clock behavior differs in an interesting way. The B370 has a base clock of 300 MHz and a boost clock of 2400 MHz, an 8x multiplier between base and boost. The Max 1100 runs at a 1000 MHz base and 1550 MHz boost, a much narrower range. The B370 relies on aggressive boost behavior to reach its performance envelope, while the Max 1100 operates closer to a fixed high-frequency state.

Shading resources show the Max 1100 with 7168 shading units, 448 TMUs, and 56 ray tracing cores. The B370 has 1280 shading units, 40 TMUs, and 10 ray tracing cores. The Max 1100 has 5.6x more shading units and 11.2x more TMUs. FP16 compute also differs: the B370 reaches 12.29 TFLOPS at a 2:1 ratio relative to FP32, while the Max 1100 reaches 22.22 TFLOPS at a 1:1 ratio. The Max 1100 does not gain any throughput advantage from FP16 operations, whereas the B370 doubles its output.

Where Each One Wins

The Arc Pro B370 wins in integration and platform flexibility. It is an IGP with a 25 W TDP, no power connectors, and a slot width listed as IGP. It uses system shared memory, meaning it requires no dedicated VRAM allocation and can scale with whatever system memory is present. Display outputs are portable device dependent, but the B370 does support them, which the Max 1100 does not. The B370 also supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) and Vulkan 1.4, while the Max 1100 is limited to DirectX 12 (12_1) and has no Vulkan support recorded. OpenGL 4.6 is present on both.

The B370 wins on process technology. It is fabricated on a 3 nm node, while the Max 1100 uses a 10 nm node. The B370 is part of the Arc Graphics-WM generation based on the Panther Lake chip and Xe3-LPG architecture. The Max 1100 uses the Ponte Vecchio chip and Generation 12.5 architecture. The B370 is the newer design, with a release date of 2026-01-26 versus 2023-01-09 for the Max 1100.

The Data Center GPU Max 1100 wins in raw compute, memory capacity, memory bandwidth, and scale. Its 22.22 TFLOPS FP32 and 22.22 TFLOPS FP16 put it far ahead of the B370 in any compute-heavy workload. Its 48 GB HBM2e pool with 1.23 TB/s bandwidth is a data-center-class memory subsystem, whereas the B370 depends on system memory that is not specified in the database. The Max 1100 has 100,000 million transistors on a 1280 mm² die, a transistor density of 78.1M per mm². The B370 transistor count and die size are unknown.

The Max 1100 uses a PCIe 5.0 x16 bus interface, while the B370 uses an IGP bus interface. The Max 1100 is a dual-slot card with a 267 mm length (10.5 inches), requires a 700 W suggested PSU, and uses a single 12-pin power connector. It has no display outputs, reflecting its role as an accelerator rather than a graphics output device. Its TDP is 300 W, twelve times the B370's 25 W.

The B370 has a production status of Active and lists its predecessor as HD Graphics-WM. The Max 1100 also has a production status of Active and lists its successor as H3C Graphics. The B370 has no successor recorded, and the Max 1100 has no predecessor recorded.

The Verdict

The recorded data indicates two fundamentally different products with no overlapping use cases. The Arc Pro B370 is an integrated GPU with display output, DirectX 12 Ultimate support, a 25 W TDP, and system shared memory. It targets portable devices where graphics output and low power consumption matter. The Data Center GPU Max 1100 is a dual-slot accelerator with no display outputs, 48 GB of HBM2e, 1.23 TB/s bandwidth, and 22.22 TFLOPS FP32 compute. It targets data center compute workloads where raw throughput and large memory pools matter.

For any workload involving rendered frames, pixel output, or display connectivity, the B370 is the only viable option because the Max 1100 records 0 MPixel/s and no display outputs. For any workload involving large-scale FP32 or FP16 computation, the Max 1100 delivers 3.6x the FP32 throughput and 1.8x the FP16 throughput of the B370. The Max 1100 also provides deterministic memory bandwidth at 1.23 TB/s, while the B370's bandwidth is system dependent.

The B370's 3 nm process node and 25 W TDP make it suitable for compact, power-constrained platforms. The Max 1100's 10 nm node and 300 W TDP require a 700 W suggested PSU and a dual-slot chassis. The B370 supports Vulkan 1.4 and DirectX 12 Ultimate; the Max 1100 supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and OpenGL 4.6 but no Vulkan. The B370's API support is more modern for graphics workloads. The Max 1100's API support is sufficient for its compute-oriented role.

The database shows both parts at the 50th percentile versus all GPUs, but this is a function of zero recorded benchmark scores, not actual performance parity. Neither part has any measured benchmark data in the database, so the percentile field carries no comparative information. The verdict from the recorded specifications is clear: the B370 for integrated graphics with display capability, the Max 1100 for high-throughput data center compute.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher FP32 compute performance?

A: The Intel Data Center GPU Max 1100 delivers 22.22 TFLOPS of FP32 compute, compared to 6.144 TFLOPS for the Intel Arc Pro B370.

Q: Do both GPUs support display outputs?

A: No. The Arc Pro B370 has display outputs listed as portable device dependent, while the Data Center GPU Max 1100 has no outputs.

Q: What memory configurations do these GPUs use?

A: The Arc Pro B370 uses system shared memory with a system-dependent bandwidth. The Data Center GPU Max 1100 uses 48 GB of HBM2e on an 8192-bit bus with 1.23 TB/s bandwidth.

Q: What is the power consumption difference?

A: The Arc Pro B370 has a 25 W TDP and requires no power connectors. The Data Center GPU Max 1100 has a 300 W TDP and uses one 12-pin power connector with a 700 W suggested PSU.

Q: Which GPU supports more modern graphics APIs?

A: The Arc Pro B370 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) and Vulkan 1.4. The Data Center GPU Max 1100 supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and OpenGL 4.6, but has no Vulkan support recorded.

Q: What are the process nodes for each chip?

A: The Arc Pro B370 uses a 3 nm process node with the Panther Lake chip. The Data Center GPU Max 1100 uses a 10 nm process node with the Ponte Vecchio chip.

Architecture Differences

The Arc Pro B370 is built on the Xe3-LPG architecture, part of the Arc Graphics-WM generation using the Panther Lake chip. It is fabricated on a 3 nm process by Intel. The transistor count and die size are unknown. It has 1280 shading units, 40 TMUs, 20 ROPs, and 10 ray tracing cores. The tensor core count is not recorded. Its FP32 throughput is 6.144 TFLOPS, and its FP16 throughput is 12.29 TFLOPS at a 2:1 ratio. Pixel rate is 48.00 GPixel/s, and texture rate is 96.00 GTexel/s.

The Data Center GPU Max 1100 is built on the Generation 12.5 architecture using the Ponte Vecchio chip. It is fabricated on a 10 nm process by Intel. It contains 100,000 million transistors on a 1280 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 78.1M per mm². It has 7168 shading units, 448 TMUs, 0 ROPs, and 56 ray tracing cores. The tensor core count is not recorded. Its FP32 throughput is 22.22 TFLOPS, and its FP16 throughput is 22.22 TFLOPS at a 1:1 ratio. Pixel rate is 0 MPixel/s, and texture rate is 694.4 GTexel/s.

The B370 uses system shared memory with no dedicated VRAM, a system shared bus width, and a system dependent bandwidth. Its base clock is 300 MHz with a 2400 MHz boost. The Max 1100 uses 48 GB of HBM2e on an 8192-bit bus with 1.23 TB/s bandwidth. Its memory clock is 600 MHz with 1200 Mbps effective data rate. Its base clock is 1000 MHz with a 1550 MHz boost.

The B370 is an IGP with a 25 W TDP, no power connectors, and a portable device dependent display output configuration. It supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The Max 1100 is a dual-slot accelerator with a 300 W TDP, one 12-pin power connector, a 700 W suggested PSU, and a PCIe 5.0 x16 bus interface. It has no display outputs and supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and OpenGL 4.6 but no Vulkan. Its physical length is 267 mm (10.5 inches).

The B370 was released on 2026-01-26 and lists HD Graphics-WM as its predecessor. The Max 1100 was released on 2023-01-09 and lists H3C Graphics as its successor. Both parts are currently marked as Active in production status. The B370 is part of a mobile integrated graphics lineage, while the Max 1100 is part of Intel's data center accelerator lineup. The architectural split is stark: a low-power, display-capable integrated GPU versus a high-power, compute-focused accelerator with no raster output stage.