Intel Arc Pro B370 vs NVIDIA RTX 2000 Embedded Ada Generation Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The recorded data separates these two mobile graphics parts by workload type rather than by clear overall dominance. The Intel Arc Pro B370, built on the Xe3-LPG architecture, uses a system-shared memory design and a 25 W TDP, which positions it for integrated-class tasks where power draw is the primary constraint. The NVIDIA RTX 2000 Embedded Ada Generation, with 8 GB of dedicated GDDR6 memory and a 50 W TDP, targets sustained professional workloads that require consistent memory bandwidth and higher compute throughput.

The Intel part wins in efficiency-oriented scenarios. Its 300 MHz base clock and 2400 MHz boost clock operate within a 25 W envelope, and its system-shared memory approach means the database shows no fixed memory bus width or bandwidth figure. That makes it suitable for portable devices where the memory subsystem is already shared with the host processor. The Arc Pro B370 also carries the DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) feature set, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4 support, matching the NVIDIA part on API compatibility. For lightweight CAD viewing, basic render previews, or general GPU-accelerated interface work, the Intel part delivers the required feature set without the need for discrete memory management.

The NVIDIA part wins in raw throughput and memory-bound tasks. It delivers 12.35 TFLOPS of FP32 compute, 193.0 GTexel/s texture fill, and 96.48 GPixel/s pixel fill. The 256.0 GB/s memory bandwidth from 8 GB of GDDR6 over a 128-bit bus gives it a decisive advantage in any workload that streams large datasets. The 3,072 shading units, 96 TMUs, 48 ROPs, 24 RT cores, and 96 tensor cores provide a much wider execution resource pool than the Intel part's 1,280 shading units, 40 TMUs, 20 ROPs, and 10 RT cores. The RTX 2000 Embedded Ada also supports the same DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4 APIs, so the feature-level differences are minimal; the gap is in execution capacity.

Architecture Differences

The two parts come from fundamentally different design philosophies. The Intel Arc Pro B370 uses the Xe3-LPG architecture on Intel's 3 nm process node, with the chip codenamed Panther Lake. It belongs to the Arc Graphics-WM (Panther Lake) generation, and the database lists its predecessor as HD Graphics-WM. The part is an integrated GPU (IGP) with a system-shared memory configuration: memory size, type, bus width, and bandwidth are all listed as system-dependent. The base clock is 300 MHz, the boost clock is 2400 MHz, and the FP32 throughput is 6.144 TFLOPS. The FP16 rate is 12.29 TFLOPS with a 2:1 ratio, indicating that the hardware packs two FP16 operations per FP32 operation. The die size, transistor count, and transistor density are not recorded in the database. The power envelope is 25 W, with no power connectors and a slot width of IGP.

The NVIDIA RTX 2000 Embedded Ada Generation uses the Ada Lovelace architecture on TSMC's 5 nm process node, with the chip designated AD107. The database lists 18,900 million transistors on a 159 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 118.9M per mm². The base clock is 1530 MHz, the boost clock is 2010 MHz, and the memory runs at 2000 MHz with 16 Gbps effective data rate. The memory configuration is fixed: 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus, delivering 256.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The FP32 throughput is 12.35 TFLOPS, and the FP16 rate is also 12.35 TFLOPS with a 1:1 ratio, meaning the hardware does not double FP16 rate. The part has 3,072 shading units, 96 TMUs, 48 ROPs, 24 RT cores, and 96 tensor cores. The TDP is 50 W, the bus interface is PCIe 4.0 x16, and the slot width is IGP with no power connectors. The predecessor is listed as Ampere-MW, and the successor is Blackwell-MW.

The architectural split is clear. Intel uses a compact 3 nm integrated design with shared memory and a 2:1 FP16 ratio, while NVIDIA uses a larger 5 nm discrete-class design with dedicated GDDR6, tensor cores, and a 1:1 FP16 ratio. The Intel part has no tensor core count listed, while the NVIDIA part has 96. The Intel part has 10 RT cores versus 24 on the NVIDIA part. The pixel rate difference is roughly 2x (48.00 GPixel/s versus 96.48 GPixel/s), and the texture rate difference is also roughly 2x (96.00 GTexel/s versus 193.0 GTexel/s).

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database has no recorded head-to-head benchmark entries between these two parts, and neither part has individual benchmark scores or nearest rival entries. The avgBenchmarkScore is 0 for both, and both sit at the 50th percentile among all GPUs. This means the comparison must rely on the architectural specifications recorded in the database rather than measured frame rates or synthetic scores.

The FP32 compute gap is the most straightforward numerical comparison. The NVIDIA part delivers 12.35 TFLOPS, which is 2.01x the Intel part's 6.144 TFLOPS. In practical terms, the RTX 2000 Embedded Ada is roughly 101% ahead of the Arc Pro B370 in single-precision floating-point throughput. That doubles the theoretical compute ceiling for simulation, rendering, and compute shaders.

The memory bandwidth gap is even larger. The NVIDIA part provides 256.0 GB/s over a 128-bit bus, while the Intel part's bandwidth is listed as system dependent, meaning it has no fixed dedicated bandwidth figure. For any workload that streams textures, geometry, or dataset buffers, the NVIDIA part has a hard bandwidth advantage that the Intel part cannot match unless the host system's shared memory happens to provide comparable throughput, which the database does not confirm.

The texture and pixel fill rates follow the same pattern. The NVIDIA part's 193.0 GTexel/s is 2.01x the Intel part's 96.00 GTexel/s, and its 96.48 GPixel/s is 2.01x the Intel part's 48.00 GPixel/s. These ratios are consistent across the board, indicating that the NVIDIA part's wider execution resources (3,072 shading units versus 1,280, 96 TMUs versus 40, 48 ROPs versus 20) scale uniformly in the theoretical peak rates.

The RT core count difference is 24 versus 10, a 2.4x gap in ray tracing hardware. The tensor core difference is absolute: the NVIDIA part has 96 tensor cores, and the Intel part has no tensor core count recorded. For AI-accelerated professional workflows, the RTX 2000 Embedded Ada has a clear resource advantage.

The clock behavior differs in an interesting way. The Intel part has a 300 MHz base clock and a 2400 MHz boost clock, an 8x ratio between base and boost. The NVIDIA part has a 1530 MHz base clock and a 2010 MHz boost clock, a much narrower 1.31x ratio. This suggests the Intel part is designed to idle extremely low and scale up under load, while the NVIDIA part maintains a higher sustained clock floor. The NVIDIA base clock alone is 5.1x higher than the Intel base clock, and even the NVIDIA boost clock of 2010 MHz is below the Intel boost clock of 2400 MHz. The Intel part can reach a higher peak clock, but it starts from a far lower baseline.

Power efficiency is where the Intel part closes the gap. The Intel TDP is 25 W, exactly half the NVIDIA TDP of 50 W. The Intel part delivers 6.144 TFLOPS at 25 W, which computes to roughly 0.246 TFLOPS per watt. The NVIDIA part delivers 12.35 TFLOPS at 50 W, which computes to roughly 0.247 TFLOPS per watt. The efficiency per watt is nearly identical, despite the different architectures and process nodes. The Intel part achieves the same compute-per-watt with a 2:1 FP16 ratio and shared memory, while the NVIDIA part achieves it with dedicated memory and tensor cores.

FAQ

Q: Which part has higher FP32 compute throughput?

A: The NVIDIA RTX 2000 Embedded Ada Generation delivers 12.35 TFLOPS of FP32 compute, which is 2.01x the Intel Arc Pro B370's 6.144 TFLOPS.

Q: How do the memory configurations differ?

A: The NVIDIA part uses 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus with 256.0 GB/s bandwidth. The Intel part uses system-shared memory, with size, type, bus width, and bandwidth all listed as system dependent.

Q: Do both parts support the same graphics APIs?

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

Q: What is the power draw difference?

A: The Intel Arc Pro B370 has a 25 W TDP, while the NVIDIA RTX 2000 Embedded Ada Generation has a 50 W TDP. The Intel part draws half the power.

Q: Does the NVIDIA part have tensor cores?

A: Yes, the NVIDIA part has 96 tensor cores. The Intel part has no tensor core count recorded in the database.

Q: What is the ray tracing hardware difference?

A: The NVIDIA part has 24 RT cores, while the Intel part has 10 RT cores. The NVIDIA part has 2.4x the ray tracing hardware.

The Verdict

The data defines two distinct usage profiles. The Intel Arc Pro B370 is a 25 W integrated GPU with system-shared memory, a 300 MHz base clock, a 2400 MHz boost clock, and no fixed memory bandwidth. It matches the NVIDIA part on API support, including DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, and it achieves comparable compute-per-watt. The database shows the Intel part at 6.144 TFLOPS FP32, 96.00 GTexel/s texture rate, and 48.00 GPixel/s pixel rate, all within a 25 W envelope. This makes it the choice for portable devices where the host memory is already shared and where half the power budget of the NVIDIA part is a hard constraint.

The NVIDIA RTX 2000 Embedded Ada Generation is a 50 W discrete-class part with 8 GB of dedicated GDDR6, 256.0 GB/s of bandwidth, 12.35 TFLOPS FP32, 193.0 GTexel/s texture rate, 96.48 GPixel/s pixel rate, 24 RT cores, and 96 tensor cores. It doubles the Intel part's compute, texture, and pixel throughput, provides 2.4x the RT cores, and adds tensor cores that the Intel part does not list. The 1530 MHz base clock means it maintains a much higher floor under sustained load compared to the Intel part's 300 MHz base.

The decision rests on power and memory architecture. Systems that must operate at 25 W with shared memory and still deliver the DirectX 12 Ultimate feature set should select the Intel Arc Pro B370. Systems that need the full 256.0 GB/s of dedicated bandwidth, 12.35 TFLOPS of FP32 compute, and tensor core acceleration should select the NVIDIA RTX 2000 Embedded Ada Generation. The database does not record any measured benchmark scores for either part, so the comparison is entirely specification-based. Both parts sit at the 50th percentile among all GPUs, and both have no nearest rival entries, indicating that the database has not yet accumulated comparative performance measurements for these two products.