Intel Arc Pro B370 vs NVIDIA Jetson T4000 Comparison

The Verdict

The Intel Arc Pro B370 and NVIDIA Jetson T4000 target entirely different deployment scenarios, and the recorded data supports distinct conclusions. The Arc Pro B370 is an integrated graphics processor built into the Panther Lake platform, consuming 25 W and relying on system memory. It suits portable or embedded devices where a discrete card is impossible, and where the host platform provides the memory subsystem. The Jetson T4000, conversely, is a 90 W Blackwell accelerator with 64 GB of dedicated LPDDR5X memory on a 256-bit bus, delivering 273.2 GB/s of bandwidth. It is a standalone compute module with no display outputs, designed for server-class AI inference and edge workloads that demand large on-board memory and sustained throughput.

Benchmark results indicate the Arc Pro B370 holds a raw compute advantage in several rasterization metrics. Its FP32 throughput of 6.144 TFLOPS exceeds the Jetson T4000's 4.700 TFLOPS by roughly 30.7%. Pixel fill rate also favors Intel, at 48.00 GPixel/s versus 24.48 GPixel/s, a 96.1% lead. Texture rate follows the same pattern: 96.00 GTexel/s against 73.44 GTexel/s, a 30.7% margin. For applications that rely on traditional graphics pipelines, such as OpenGL 4.6 or DirectX 12 Ultimate, the Arc Pro B370 is the stronger part.

However, the Jetson T4000 counters with memory capacity and bandwidth that the Intel part cannot match. The Arc Pro B370's system-shared memory is explicitly marked as "System Dependent" for bandwidth, meaning its effective throughput is a function of the host platform, not a fixed specification. The Jetson T4000's fixed 273.2 GB/s and 64 GB capacity provide deterministic performance for large datasets, model weights, and multi-stream workloads. Its 64 tensor cores also give it a dedicated hardware path for tensor operations, a feature entirely absent from the Arc Pro B370's specification sheet. For neural network inference and training loops, the data favors the NVIDIA module.

Who should pick which: systems integrators needing a low-power IGP with strong conventional graphics and no external power connectors should choose the Arc Pro B370. Developers deploying AI inference at the edge, especially with models exceeding typical shared-memory allocations, should choose the Jetson T4000, despite its higher power draw and lack of display outputs.

Architecture Differences

The two processors stem from different foundries and process nodes. Intel fabricates the Arc Pro B370's Panther Lake chip on a 3 nm node at Intel's own fabs. NVIDIA uses TSMC's 5 nm node for the GB10B chip. Die size for the NVIDIA part is recorded at 391 mm², while the Intel die size is unknown. Transistor counts are listed as unknown for both.

The Intel architecture is Xe3-LPG, part of the Arc Graphics-WM generation for Panther Lake. It is an integrated GPU with no separate die, no external power connectors, and an IGP bus interface. The Jetson T4000 belongs to the Server Blackwell (Bxx) generation, uses the Blackwell architecture, and connects via PCIe 5.0 x8. Despite the "T4000" naming, this is not a display adapter; it has no display outputs and does not support DirectX, OpenGL, or Vulkan according to the API fields. The Arc Pro B370, in contrast, supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4.

Core configuration differs substantially. The Arc Pro B370 has 1280 shading units, 40 texture mapping units, 20 ROPs, and 10 ray tracing cores. It lists no tensor cores. The Jetson T4000 has 1536 shading units, 48 TMUs, 16 ROPs, 12 RT cores, and 64 tensor cores. The NVIDIA part has 20% more shading units, 20% more TMUs, and 20% more RT cores, but 20% fewer ROPs. The Intel part has 25% more ROPs. Tensor core presence is the most significant architectural divergence, giving NVIDIA a hardware accelerator class that Intel does not offer.

Clock behavior also differs. The Arc Pro B370 has a base clock of 300 MHz and a boost clock of 2400 MHz, an eightfold range. The Jetson T4000 runs at a flat 1530 MHz base and boost, with no dynamic range. Memory clocks are likewise different: Intel's memory clock is "System Shared," while NVIDIA's is 1067 MHz with 8.5 Gbps effective data rate.

FP16 processing reveals another split. The Arc Pro B370 achieves 12.29 TFLOPS FP16 via a 2:1 ratio relative to FP32. The Jetson T4000 delivers 4.700 TFLOPS FP16 at a 1:1 ratio. For workloads that can use FP16 math, Intel's peak rate more than doubles NVIDIA's, but NVIDIA's ratio suggests no separate FP16 path, potentially different precision behavior.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher FP32 compute?

A: The Intel Arc Pro B370 delivers 6.144 TFLOPS FP32, which is 30.7% higher than the NVIDIA Jetson T4000's 4.700 TFLOPS.

Q: Does the Jetson T4000 support display output?

A: No. The Jetson T4000 lists "No outputs" for display connections. The Arc Pro B370's display outputs are "Portable Device Dependent," meaning they rely on the host portable device.

Q: How much memory does each GPU have?

A: The Jetson T4000 has 64 GB of LPDDR5X on a 256-bit bus with 273.2 GB/s bandwidth. The Arc Pro B370 uses system-shared memory with system-dependent bandwidth, so its capacity and speed are not fixed specifications.

Q: Are tensor cores present on both chips?

A: No. The Jetson T4000 has 64 tensor cores. The Arc Pro B370 lists tensor cores as null, indicating no such hardware.

Q: What is the power requirement for each?

A: The Arc Pro B370 has a 25 W TDP with no power connectors. The Jetson T4000 has a 90 W TDP, no power connectors, and a suggested PSU rating of 250 W.

Q: Which APIs are supported?

A: The Arc Pro B370 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The Jetson T4000 lists N/A for DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Arc Pro B370 | NVIDIA Jetson T4000 |

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

| Process node | 3 nm | 5 nm |

| Foundry | Intel | TSMC |

| Die size | Unknown | 391 mm² |

| Base clock | 300 MHz | 1530 MHz |

| Boost clock | 2400 MHz | 1530 MHz |

| Memory size | System Shared | 64 GB |

| Memory type | System Shared | LPDDR5X |

| Memory bus width | System Shared | 256 bit |

| Memory bandwidth | System Dependent | 273.2 GB/s |

| Memory clock | System Shared | 1067 MHz, 8.5 Gbps effective |

| Shading units | 1280 | 1536 |

| TMUs | 40 | 48 |

| ROPs | 20 | 16 |

| RT cores | 10 | 12 |

| Tensor cores | None | 64 |

| Pixel rate | 48.00 GPixel/s | 24.48 GPixel/s |

| Texture rate | 96.00 GTexel/s | 73.44 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 6.144 TFLOPS | 4.700 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | 12.29 TFLOPS (2:1) | 4.700 TFLOPS (1:1) |

| TDP | 25 W | 90 W |

| Suggested PSU | None | 250 W |

| Bus interface | IGP | PCIe 5.0 x8 |

| Display outputs | Portable Device Dependent | No outputs |

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

| OpenGL | 4.6 | N/A |

| Vulkan | 1.4 | N/A |

| Dimensions | Unknown | 87 mm x 100 mm x 15 mm |

| Release date | 2026-01-26 | 2026-01-04 |

| Predecessor | HD Graphics-WM | Server Hopper |

| Successor | None | Server Rubin |

| Launch MSRP | None | 1,999 USD |

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows no direct head-to-head benchmark scores, but the specification sheet yields several decisive margins. The largest Intel win is pixel fill rate. At 48.00 GPixel/s, the Arc Pro B370 is 96.1% faster than the Jetson T4000's 24.48 GPixel/s. This near-doubling of pixel throughput directly benefits rasterization-heavy scenes, such as high-resolution rendering with many overdraws. The Intel part also leads in texture rate, 96.00 GTexel/s versus 73.44 GTexel/s, a 30.7% advantage. Texture-heavy workloads, such as terrain mapping or material shading, should see proportional gains.

FP32 compute gives Intel another 30.7% lead: 6.144 TFLOPS versus 4.700 TFLOPS. This is the same percentage margin as the texture rate difference, which is consistent with both metrics scaling from the core count and clock relationship. The Jetson T4000's higher shading unit count (1536 versus 1280) is offset by its lower boost clock (1530 MHz versus 2400 MHz), yielding the Intel advantage.

FP16 is where the gap widens most. Intel lists 12.29 TFLOPS at a 2:1 FP16 ratio, which is 161.5% higher than NVIDIA's 4.700 TFLOPS at 1:1. Applications that can exploit packed FP16 math on the Intel architecture would see more than 2.6 times the peak throughput. However, the 1:1 ratio on NVIDIA suggests its FP16 path may not be a separate fast path, so real-world FP16 gains could be smaller than the raw number implies.

NVIDIA's wins come from memory and tensor acceleration. The Jetson T4000's 64 GB capacity is fixed and dedicated, whereas the Arc Pro B370's memory is system-shared and system-dependent. For a model that requires, for example, more than the host system's available shared memory, the Intel part would fail outright regardless of its compute throughput. The 273.2 GB/s bandwidth is also a fixed specification, not dependent on the host platform. The 64 tensor cores provide a hardware path for matrix operations, which the Intel part lacks entirely. For AI inference, the Jetson T4000's architecture is purpose-built; the Arc Pro B370 has no such dedicated units.

Power efficiency favors Intel on paper. The Arc Pro B370 delivers 6.144 TFLOPS FP32 at 25 W, which is 245.8 GFLOPS per watt. The Jetson T4000 delivers 4.700 TFLOPS at 90 W, which is 52.2 GFLOPS per watt. Intel's efficiency is roughly 4.7 times higher in FP32 per watt. However, the Jetson T4000's suggested PSU of 250 W indicates the system-level power envelope is larger, and the 90 W TDP may not include all board components. The Intel part's 25 W TDP with no external connectors makes it viable in platforms where 90 W is not available.

Physical dimensions also separate the two. The Jetson T4000 measures 87 mm by 100 mm by 15 mm. The Arc Pro B370 has no recorded dimensions because it is an IGP, meaning it occupies no separate slot. For space-constrained designs, the IGP eliminates a discrete module entirely.

Release timing shows the Jetson T4000 launched earlier, on 2026-01-04, while the Arc Pro B370 followed on 2026-01-26. Both are listed as Active production status. The Jetson T4000 has a successor recorded (Server Rubin) and a predecessor (Server Hopper), indicating an established product line. The Arc Pro B370's predecessor is HD Graphics-WM, with no successor listed.

Both parts sit at the 50th percentile among all GPUs in the database, with zero recorded average benchmark scores. This means neither has accumulated performance samples yet, so the comparison relies on specification-level analysis rather than measured workloads. The wins tally is zero for both, reflecting the absence of direct head-to-head benchmark entries.