Intel Arc Pro B370 vs NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4050 Max-Q Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded database contains no direct head-to-head benchmark results for the Intel Arc Pro B370 versus the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4050 Max-Q. Both entries list empty benchmark arrays, zero average scores, and zero recorded wins for either part. The absence of measured data means no direct performance comparison can be drawn from the database at this time. The percentile field places both GPUs at the 50th percentile against all GPUs, but this figure reflects their position in the overall distribution, not a measured comparison between the two. Without benchmark scores, any numerical comparison of frame rates, render times, or synthetic test results is unsupported by the available facts.

The closest available indicators are the theoretical throughput values listed in their specifications. The RTX 4050 Max-Q shows a FP32 rate of 8.218 TFLOPS, while the Arc Pro B370 shows 6.144 TFLOPS. That difference of roughly 2.07 TFLOPS translates to the NVIDIA part delivering about 34% higher raw FP32 throughput on paper. In FP16, the Arc Pro B370 reaches 12.29 TFLOPS using a 2:1 ratio, while the RTX 4050 Max-Q operates at 8.218 TFLOPS with a 1:1 ratio. The Intel part therefore shows a significant FP16 advantage in the recorded data, roughly 50% higher, assuming workloads can use the packed FP16 path. Texture rate also favors NVIDIA: 128.4 GTexel/s versus 96.00 GTexel/s, a 34% margin. Pixel rate goes to NVIDIA as well, 77.04 GPixel/s versus 48.00 GPixel/s, a 60% lead.

Memory bandwidth strongly favors the RTX 4050 Max-Q. The NVIDIA GPU uses 6 GB of GDDR6 on a 96-bit bus with 192.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The Intel part relies on system shared memory, with bandwidth listed as system dependent. In practice, shared memory bandwidth depends on the host platform's memory configuration, so no fixed comparison is possible. The recorded data does not specify a lane count or memory clock for the Intel IGP beyond the shared system memory designation. The RTX 4050 Max-Q also lists a memory clock of 2000 MHz with 16 Gbps effective transfer rate, which is not matched by any equivalent figure on the Intel side.

Where Each One Wins

The RTX 4050 Max-Q wins in every category where a fixed numerical comparison exists. FP32 compute, pixel fill rate, texture fill rate, and memory bandwidth all favor the NVIDIA part according to the recorded specifications. The FP32 rate of 8.218 TFLOPS exceeds the Arc Pro B370's 6.144 TFLOPS, making the NVIDIA GPU the stronger choice for general-purpose compute workloads that rely on standard single-precision math. The pixel rate of 77.04 GPixel/s versus 48.00 GPixel/s suggests an advantage in fill-bound scenarios such as heavy post-processing or high-resolution rendering. The texture rate of 128.4 GTexel/s versus 96.00 GTexel/s points to better performance in texture-heavy scenes. The 192.0 GB/s dedicated memory bandwidth is a clear advantage over system shared memory, particularly for large data sets or textures that exceed the capacity of a shared pool.

The Arc Pro B370 wins in FP16 throughput on paper. The 12.29 TFLOPS FP16 figure, achieved with a 2:1 ratio, exceeds the RTX 4050 Max-Q's 8.218 TFLOPS FP16 rate. This suggests the Intel part may hold an advantage in workloads that can exploit half-precision math, such as certain AI inference tasks or specific compute kernels. The Arc Pro B370 also shows a higher boost clock at 2400 MHz versus 1605 MHz for the NVIDIA part, though the NVIDIA GPU starts from a much higher base clock of 1140 MHz versus 300 MHz. The lower 25 W TDP for the Intel part versus 35 W for the NVIDIA part indicates a power draw difference that may matter in thermally constrained portable devices, though the database does not include efficiency measurements to quantify performance per watt.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different manufacturers and use fundamentally different designs. The Intel Arc Pro B370 uses the Xe3-LPG architecture on a 3 nm process node fabricated by Intel, built around the Panther Lake chip. The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4050 Max-Q uses the Ada Lovelace architecture on a 5 nm process node fabricated by TSMC, built around the AD107 chip. The NVIDIA chip contains 18,900 million transistors on a 159 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 118.9M per mm². The Intel chip's transistor count and die size are listed as unknown in the database.

The NVIDIA GPU packs 2560 shading units, 80 texture mapping units, 48 ROPs, 20 ray tracing cores, and 80 tensor cores. The Intel GPU has 1280 shading units, 40 TMUs, 20 ROPs, and 10 ray tracing cores, with no tensor core count listed. The RTX 4050 Max-Q therefore has double the shading units, double the TMUs, more than double the ROPs, double the ray tracing cores, and a dedicated tensor core array that the Intel part does not document. The bus interface also differs: the Intel GPU is an IGP with no dedicated bus interface beyond that designation, while the NVIDIA GPU uses PCIe 4.0 x8. Both parts are listed as IGP slot width, meaning they are intended for integrated or mobile implementations. Neither requires external power connectors, and display outputs are portable device dependent for both.

Memory architecture is another major split. The RTX 4050 Max-Q has 6 GB of dedicated GDDR6 on a 96-bit bus, while the Arc Pro B370 uses system shared memory with a system dependent bandwidth. The NVIDIA GPU's memory clock is listed at 2000 MHz with 16 Gbps effective, while the Intel GPU's memory clock is simply listed as system shared. Both support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, so API compatibility is identical on paper. The release dates differ substantially: the RTX 4050 Max-Q launched on January 2, 2023, while the Arc Pro B370 launched on January 26, 2026. The NVIDIA part's predecessor is listed as GeForce 30 Mobile, and its successor is GeForce 50 Mobile. The Intel part's predecessor is HD Graphics-WM, with no successor listed.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher FP32 compute performance?

A: The RTX 4050 Max-Q, with 8.218 TFLOPS versus 6.144 TFLOPS for the Arc Pro B370.

Q: Does the Intel GPU have any compute advantage?

A: The Arc Pro B370 lists 12.29 TFLOPS FP16 with a 2:1 ratio, versus 8.218 TFLOPS FP16 at 1:1 for the RTX 4050 Max-Q.

Q: How much memory does each GPU have?

A: The RTX 4050 Max-Q has 6 GB of GDDR6 on a 96-bit bus. The Arc Pro B370 uses system shared memory with no fixed capacity or bus width.

Q: What are the TDP ratings?

A: The Arc Pro B370 is rated at 25 W. The RTX 4050 Max-Q is rated at 35 W.

Q: Do they support the same graphics APIs?

A: Yes, both list DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4.

Q: Which GPU has more ray tracing cores?

A: The RTX 4050 Max-Q has 20 ray tracing cores, while the Arc Pro B370 has 10.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ across almost every recorded specification. The process node differs: 3 nm for Intel versus 5 nm for NVIDIA. The foundry differs: Intel for the Arc Pro B370, TSMC for the RTX 4050 Max-Q. The RTX 4050 Max-Q lists 18,900 million transistors and a 159 mm² die size, while the Intel chip lists unknown values for both. Base clocks are 300 MHz for Intel versus 1140 MHz for NVIDIA. Boost clocks are 2400 MHz for Intel versus 1605 MHz for NVIDIA. Memory size, type, bus width, and bandwidth all differ, with the NVIDIA part using 6 GB GDDR6 on a 96-bit bus at 192.0 GB/s, and the Intel part using system shared memory at system dependent bandwidth.

Shading units differ: 1280 for Intel versus 2560 for NVIDIA. TMUs differ: 40 versus 80. ROPs differ: 20 versus 48. Ray tracing cores differ: 10 versus 20. The NVIDIA part has 80 tensor cores, while the Intel part lists none. Pixel rate differs: 48.00 GPixel/s for Intel versus 77.04 GPixel/s for NVIDIA. Texture rate differs: 96.00 GTexel/s versus 128.4 GTexel/s. FP32 differs: 6.144 TFLOPS versus 8.218 TFLOPS. FP16 differs: 12.29 TFLOPS with a 2:1 ratio versus 8.218 TFLOPS at 1:1. TDP differs: 25 W versus 35 W. The bus interface differs: IGP for Intel versus PCIe 4.0 x8 for NVIDIA. Release dates differ: January 26, 2026 for Intel versus January 2, 2023 for NVIDIA. The NVIDIA part lists a predecessor of GeForce 30 Mobile and a successor of GeForce 50 Mobile, while the Intel part lists a predecessor of HD Graphics-WM and no successor.

The Verdict

The recorded data does not include any direct benchmark results, so the verdict rests entirely on specification differences. For users prioritizing raw compute throughput, dedicated memory, and higher fill rates, the RTX 4050 Max-Q is the stronger choice based on the numbers: 8.218 TFLOPS FP32, 192.0 GB/s bandwidth, 77.04 GPixel/s, and 128.4 GTexel/s. The double shading unit count, double TMU count, more than double ROP count, double ray tracing core count, and 80 tensor cores all point to a more capable part for standard graphics and compute workloads. The 35 W TDP is higher but remains within mobile IGP territory.

For users who need half-precision compute and lower power draw, the Arc Pro B370 holds the advantage in the recorded data. The 12.29 TFLOPS FP16 figure exceeds the NVIDIA part, and the 25 W TDP is 10 W lower. The 3 nm process node and newer 2026 release date suggest a more recent design, though the database does not provide performance measurements to confirm any real-world benefit. The system shared memory approach means no fixed bandwidth figure, which makes the Intel part dependent on the host platform's memory configuration.

The RTX 4050 Max-Q is the more complete package on paper. It has dedicated memory, a larger shader array, more ray tracing and tensor hardware, and higher fixed throughput in most categories. The Arc Pro B370 offers a lower TDP and a FP16 advantage, but lacks dedicated memory and has fewer execution resources across the board. Neither part has recorded benchmark scores in the database, so the choice comes down to the specification sheet. The NVIDIA GPU is the one with more documented capability, while the Intel GPU is the one with lower power requirements and a stronger half-precision compute figure.