Intel Arc Pro B370 vs NVIDIA RTX 2000 Ada Generation Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a decisive performance advantage for the NVIDIA RTX 2000 Ada Generation across every measurable benchmark. The Intel Arc Pro B370 has no individual benchmark scores in the database, while the NVIDIA card delivers a substantial portfolio of results. The NVIDIA RTX 2000 Ada Generation posts an average benchmark score of 18954, placing it at the 63rd percentile of all GPUs. The Intel Arc Pro B370 sits at the 50th percentile with an average benchmark score of zero, indicating no recorded performance data exists for this part.

Looking at the NVIDIA card's individual results, the PassMark G3D score of 16927 represents its strongest overall graphics performance figure. The Geekbench OpenCL score of 78074 and Geekbench Vulkan score of 83360 show strong compute and graphics API performance respectively. The 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 result of 1767 provides a modern DirectX 12 workload measurement. In legacy DirectX tests, the card scores 216 in DirectX 9, 138 in DirectX 11, 82 in DirectX 10, and 71 in DirectX 12, which reflects the expected pattern where older APIs often yield higher frame rates in synthetic tests. The PassMark GPU Compute score of 7834 and the PassMark G2D score of 1072 round out the performance picture.

Relative to its nearest rivals in the database, the NVIDIA RTX 2000 Ada Generation performs essentially at parity with the NVIDIA Quadro K6000, which averages 19030 (a 0.4 percent difference favoring the K6000). It also matches the AMD Radeon RX 6600, which scores 19036 (0.4 percent ahead of the RTX 2000). The NVIDIA Tesla K80 trails slightly at 18866, putting the RTX 2000 Ada 0.5 percent ahead. The GeForce RTX 4050 Mobile scores 19049, which is 0.5 percent higher than the RTX 2000 Ada. These tight margins indicate the RTX 2000 Ada Generation sits in a well-populated performance band where small differences separate several comparable products.

The Intel Arc Pro B370 cannot be compared on equal terms because the database contains no benchmark entries for it. The wins tally reflects this: zero wins for the Intel part, zero wins for the NVIDIA part in the head-to-head benchmark field, though the NVIDIA card clearly holds all available performance data.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from fundamentally different design lineages. The Intel Arc Pro B370 uses the Panther Lake chip built on Intel's Xe3-LPG architecture, manufactured on a 3 nm process at Intel's own foundry. It belongs to the Arc Graphics-WM (Panther Lake) generation and is designated as an integrated graphics processor with an IGP bus interface. Its predecessor is listed as HD Graphics-WM.

The NVIDIA RTX 2000 Ada Generation uses the AD107 chip built on Ada Lovelace architecture, manufactured on a 5 nm process at TSMC. It belongs to the Workstation Ada (x000A) generation and sits in the GeForce 20-series family. Its predecessor is Workstation Ampere, and its successor is Blackwell PRO W.

Transistor and die data exist only for the NVIDIA part. The RTX 2000 Ada contains 18,900 million transistors on a 159 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 118.9 million per square millimeter. The Intel chip's transistor count and die size are listed as unknown.

Clock behavior differs substantially. The Intel Arc Pro B370 has a base clock of 300 MHz and a boost clock of 2400 MHz. The NVIDIA RTX 2000 Ada Generation runs at a 1620 MHz base clock and 2130 MHz boost. The Intel part's memory configuration is system shared, meaning it draws on main system memory with bandwidth described as system dependent. The NVIDIA card uses 16 GB of dedicated GDDR6 memory on a 128 bit bus, delivering 256.0 GB/s of bandwidth.

Core configurations favor the NVIDIA part heavily. The RTX 2000 Ada has 2816 shading units, 88 texture mapping units, 48 ROPs, 22 ray tracing cores, and 88 tensor cores. The Intel Arc Pro B370 has 1280 shading units, 40 TMUs, 20 ROPs, and 10 ray tracing cores, with no tensor core count listed. These differences translate into raw throughput figures: the NVIDIA card delivers 12.00 TFLOPS FP32 and 12.00 TFLOPS FP16 (1:1 ratio), while the Intel part delivers 6.144 TFLOPS FP32 and 12.29 TFLOPS FP16 (2:1 ratio). Pixel and texture rates follow the same pattern: 102.2 GPixel/s and 187.4 GTexel/s for NVIDIA versus 48.00 GPixel/s and 96.00 GTexel/s for Intel.

Power and physical specifications diverge sharply. The Intel Arc Pro B370 has a 25 W TDP, uses no power connectors, occupies an IGP slot width, and has no suggested PSU rating. The NVIDIA RTX 2000 Ada Generation has a 70 W TDP, also uses no power connectors, but is a dual-slot card with a 250 W suggested PSU and a PCIe 4.0 x8 bus interface. The NVIDIA card measures 168 mm in length and 69 mm in height; the Intel part has no recorded dimensions. Display outputs differ as well: the Intel part is described as portable device dependent, while the NVIDIA card provides 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a.

Both cards support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. Production status is listed as active for both. The NVIDIA card launched with a launch MSRP of 649 USD.

Where Each One Wins

Based strictly on recorded data, the NVIDIA RTX 2000 Ada Generation wins every category where measurements exist. Its strongest advantages appear in raw compute throughput, where its 12.00 TFLOPS FP32 exactly doubles the Intel part's 6.144 TFLOPS. The NVIDIA card also doubles the Intel part in pixel rate (102.2 versus 48.00 GPixel/s) and nearly doubles texture rate (187.4 versus 96.00 GTexel/s). The NVIDIA card's shading unit count of 2816 is 2.2 times the Intel part's 1280, and its 88 TMUs versus 40 represent a similar ratio. The NVIDIA card has 48 ROPs compared to 20 for the Intel part, and 22 ray tracing cores versus 10.

The NVIDIA card's dedicated 16 GB GDDR6 memory with 256.0 GB/s bandwidth stands in contrast to the Intel part's system shared memory with system dependent bandwidth. For workloads that demand consistent memory performance, the NVIDIA card has a clear structural advantage that does not rely on the host system's memory configuration.

The Intel Arc Pro B370's advantages are more limited but still present in the specification data. Its 3 nm process node is smaller than NVIDIA's 5 nm node. Its boost clock of 2400 MHz exceeds the NVIDIA card's 2130 MHz boost. Its FP16 throughput of 12.29 TFLOPS is slightly higher than its own FP32 figure due to the 2:1 ratio, and it marginally exceeds the NVIDIA card's 12.00 TFLOPS FP16. The Intel part's 25 W TDP is less than half the NVIDIA card's 70 W TDP, indicating substantially lower power draw for integrated use cases. The Intel part also carries the newer release date of January 2026 compared to February 2024 for the NVIDIA card.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA RTX 2000 Ada Generation has an average benchmark score of 18954. The Intel Arc Pro B370 has an average benchmark score of 0, meaning no benchmark data is recorded for it.

Q: How does the NVIDIA RTX 2000 Ada Generation compare to its nearest rivals?

A: It is 0.4 percent behind the NVIDIA Quadro K6000 (score 19030), 0.4 percent behind the AMD Radeon RX 6600 (score 19036), 0.5 percent ahead of the NVIDIA Tesla K80 (score 18866), and 0.5 percent behind the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4050 Mobile (score 19049).

Q: What is the memory configuration of each GPU?

A: The Intel Arc Pro B370 uses system shared memory with system dependent bandwidth. The NVIDIA RTX 2000 Ada Generation has 16 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 128 bit bus with 256.0 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Which GPU has more shading units and ray tracing cores?

A: The NVIDIA RTX 2000 Ada Generation has 2816 shading units and 22 ray tracing cores. The Intel Arc Pro B370 has 1280 shading units and 10 ray tracing cores.

Q: What are the power requirements for each card?

A: The Intel Arc Pro B370 has a 25 W TDP with no power connectors and no suggested PSU. The NVIDIA RTX 2000 Ada Generation has a 70 W TDP with no power connectors and a 250 W suggested PSU.

Q: Do both GPUs support the same graphics APIs?

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

The Verdict

The recorded data supports only one verdict: the NVIDIA RTX 2000 Ada Generation is the superior performer by every measurable metric. It doubles the Intel part's FP32 throughput, delivers more than double the pixel rate, has more than double the texture rate, and offers 16 GB of dedicated GDDR6 memory versus system shared memory. Its 63rd percentile ranking versus all GPUs and its average benchmark score of 18954 confirm that it performs competitively within its peer group, sitting within 0.5 percent of four nearby rivals.

The Intel Arc Pro B370's case rests on non-performance attributes. Its 3 nm process node, lower 25 W TDP, higher boost clock, and newer release date make it a modern low-power integrated solution. Its FP16 throughput of 12.29 TFLOPS slightly exceeds the NVIDIA card's 12.00 TFLOPS, and its 50th percentile ranking indicates it sits near the middle of the GPU distribution, though with no benchmark scores to substantiate real-world performance.

For users who need confirmed performance data, dedicated memory, and a full suite of benchmark results, the NVIDIA RTX 2000 Ada Generation is the only choice supported by evidence. For users who require an integrated GPU with minimal power draw and the latest process technology, the Intel Arc Pro B370 presents a plausible alternative, but the absence of benchmark data means its actual performance cannot be verified from the database.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Arc Pro B370 | NVIDIA RTX 2000 Ada Generation |

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

| Architecture | Xe3-LPG | Ada Lovelace |

| Process node | 3 nm | 5 nm |

| Foundry | Intel | TSMC |

| Transistors | unknown | 18,900 million |

| Die size | unknown | 159 mm² |

| Transistor density | null | 118.9M / mm² |

| Base clock | 300 MHz | 1620 MHz |

| Boost clock | 2400 MHz | 2130 MHz |

| Memory size | System Shared | 16 GB |

| Memory type | System Shared | GDDR6 |

| Memory bus width | System Shared | 128 bit |

| Memory bandwidth | System Dependent | 256.0 GB/s |

| Shading units | 1280 | 2816 |

| TMUs | 40 | 88 |

| ROPs | 20 | 48 |

| Ray tracing cores | 10 | 22 |

| Tensor cores | null | 88 |

| Pixel rate | 48.00 GPixel/s | 102.2 GPixel/s |

| Texture rate | 96.00 GTexel/s | 187.4 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 6.144 TFLOPS | 12.00 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | 12.29 TFLOPS (2:1) | 12.00 TFLOPS (1:1) |

| TDP | 25 W | 70 W |

| Slot width | IGP | Dual-slot |

| Power connectors | None | None |

| Suggested PSU | null | 250 W |

| Bus interface | IGP | PCIe 4.0 x8 |

| Display outputs | Portable Device Dependent | 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a |

| Release date | 2026-01-26 | 2024-02-11 |

| Predecessor | HD Graphics-WM | Workstation Ampere |

| Successor | null | Blackwell PRO W |

| Launch MSRP | null | 649 USD |

| Percentile vs all GPUs | 50 | 63 |

| Average benchmark score | 0 | 18954 |