Intel Arc Pro B370 vs NVIDIA RTX 2000 Max-Q Ada Generation Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded database contains no direct head-to-head benchmark results for the Intel Arc Pro B370 against the NVIDIA RTX 2000 Max-Q Ada Generation. Both entries list zero benchmark scores, zero wins for either side, and no nearest rival data. The absence of measured performance data means no comparative FPS, compute, or synthetic scores can be cited from the database.

What can be derived from the specifications is the theoretical compute ceiling. The NVIDIA part delivers 8.940 TFLOPS FP32, which is 45.4% higher than the Intel part's 6.144 TFLOPS. In FP16, the situation reverses in raw throughput terms: Intel lists 12.29 TFLOPS (2:1 ratio), while NVIDIA lists 8.940 TFLOPS (1:1 ratio). That gives Intel a 37.5% advantage in peak FP16 rate. However, the FP32 comparison is more relevant for general graphics and traditional compute workloads, where NVIDIA holds a clear lead.

Pixel throughput favors NVIDIA: 69.84 GPixel/s versus 48.00 GPixel/s, a 45.5% advantage. Texture rate also favors NVIDIA: 139.7 GTexel/s versus 96.00 GTexel/s, a 45.5% lead. These rates scale with the shading unit and ROP counts, which are substantially higher on NVIDIA (3072 shading units, 48 ROPs versus 1280 shading units, 20 ROPs).

Clock behavior differs significantly. Intel runs a base clock of 300 MHz and a boost of 2400 MHz, an 8x boost ratio. NVIDIA runs a base of 930 MHz and a boost of 1455 MHz, a 1.56x ratio. The Intel boost clock is 65% higher than NVIDIA's boost clock, but the NVIDIA part compensates with 2.4x the shading units, 2.4x the TMUs, and 2.4x the ROPs. The combination of higher clocks on Intel cannot overcome the larger execution resource pool on NVIDIA for rasterization throughput.

Memory bandwidth is a decisive split. NVIDIA uses 8 GB GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus, yielding 256.0 GB/s. Intel uses system shared memory with bandwidth described as "System Dependent." No fixed number exists for Intel's memory bandwidth in the database. The practical implication is that NVIDIA has a guaranteed, dedicated bandwidth figure, while Intel's depends entirely on the host platform's memory subsystem.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher FP32 compute throughput?

A: The NVIDIA RTX 2000 Max-Q Ada Generation lists 8.940 TFLOPS FP32, while the Intel Arc Pro B370 lists 6.144 TFLOPS. NVIDIA leads by 45.4%.

Q: Does the Intel part have any compute advantage?

A: In FP16, Intel lists 12.29 TFLOPS (2:1) versus NVIDIA's 8.940 TFLOPS (1:1). Intel's peak FP16 rate is 37.5% higher, though NVIDIA's 1:1 FP16 rate means no throughput penalty when using FP16.

Q: What memory configuration does each GPU use?

A: NVIDIA uses 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus with 256.0 GB/s bandwidth. Intel uses system shared memory with "System Dependent" bandwidth and no fixed size, type, or bus width.

Q: How do the power targets compare?

A: Intel lists a TDP of 25 W. NVIDIA lists a TDP of 35 W. The NVIDIA part consumes 40% more power according to the recorded TDP values.

Q: What are the process nodes and foundries?

A: Intel uses a 3 nm process at Intel foundry. NVIDIA uses a 5 nm process at TSMC, with a transistor count of 18,900 million on a 159 mm² die, giving a density of 118.9M / mm².

Q: Which GPU supports higher API levels?

A: Both support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. There is no API level difference in the database.

Architecture Differences

The Intel Arc Pro B370 is built on the Xe3-LPG architecture, part of the Arc Graphics-WM (Panther Lake) generation. The chip is named Panther Lake and manufactured on a 3 nm process at Intel's own foundry. The NVIDIA RTX 2000 Max-Q Ada Generation uses the Ada Lovelace architecture with the AD107 chip, manufactured on a 5 nm process at TSMC. The database does not list transistor count or die size for Intel, while NVIDIA lists 18,900 million transistors on a 159 mm² die.

The execution resource layout differs markedly. Intel has 1280 shading units, 40 TMUs, 20 ROPs, and 10 ray tracing cores. NVIDIA has 3072 shading units, 96 TMUs, 48 ROPs, 24 ray tracing cores, and 96 tensor cores. Intel lists no tensor core count. The NVIDIA part has 2.4x the shading units, 2.4x the TMUs, 2.4x the ROPs, and 2.4x the ray tracing cores. This resource scaling explains the higher pixel and texture rates on NVIDIA.

Clock behavior reflects different design philosophies. Intel uses a very low base clock of 300 MHz with a high boost of 2400 MHz. NVIDIA uses a higher base of 930 MHz with a modest boost of 1455 MHz. The Intel boost clock is 65% higher than NVIDIA's boost. However, the NVIDIA part's larger execution pool means each clock cycle accomplishes more work per clock across the GPU.

Ray tracing hardware counts favor NVIDIA with 24 RT cores versus Intel's 10. The database does not list RT performance metrics, so the practical impact is inferred from core counts. Tensor core presence on NVIDIA (96) versus no listed tensor core count on Intel indicates a divergence in AI-accelerated workloads.

Memory architecture is fundamentally different. Intel uses system shared memory, meaning no dedicated VRAM, with bandwidth dependent on the host platform. NVIDIA uses 8 GB GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus with 256.0 GB/s dedicated bandwidth. This changes memory latency characteristics and capacity guarantees. Intel's memory size and bus width are both listed as "System Shared," indicating no fixed allocation.

The production status for both is Active. Intel's release date is recorded as 2026-01-26, while NVIDIA's is 2023-03-20. The NVIDIA part has a recorded predecessor (Ampere-MW) and successor (Blackwell-MW). Intel has a predecessor (HD Graphics-WM) but no successor listed.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Arc Pro B370 | NVIDIA RTX 2000 Max-Q 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 | 930 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 2400 MHz | 1455 MHz |

| Memory Size | System Shared | 8 GB |

| Memory Type | System Shared | GDDR6 |

| Memory Bus Width | System Shared | 128 bit |

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

| Shading Units | 1280 | 3072 |

| TMUs | 40 | 96 |

| ROPs | 20 | 48 |

| RT Cores | 10 | 24 |

| Tensor Cores | null | 96 |

| Pixel Rate | 48.00 GPixel/s | 69.84 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 96.00 GTexel/s | 139.7 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 6.144 TFLOPS | 8.940 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | 12.29 TFLOPS (2:1) | 8.940 TFLOPS (1:1) |

| TDP | 25 W | 35 W |

| Bus Interface | IGP | PCIe 4.0 x16 |

| Release Date | 2026-01-26 | 2023-03-20 |

| Predecessor | HD Graphics-WM | Ampere-MW |

| Successor | null | Blackwell-MW |

Both parts share identical API support (DirectX 12 Ultimate 12_2, OpenGL 4.6, Vulkan 1.4), slot width (IGP), power connectors (None), and display outputs (Portable Device Dependent). Neither has a launch MSRP recorded.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA RTX 2000 Max-Q Ada Generation wins in every measured throughput category in the database. FP32 compute is 45.4% higher. Pixel rate is 45.5% higher. Texture rate is 45.5% higher. It has 2.4x the shading units, 2.4x the TMUs, 2.4x the ROPs, and 2.4x the RT cores. The 8 GB GDDR6 memory with 256.0 GB/s dedicated bandwidth provides a fixed memory performance envelope. The 96 tensor cores offer hardware acceleration for AI workloads where the Intel part lists no tensor core count. Higher base clock (930 MHz versus 300 MHz) means the NVIDIA part maintains performance at low utilization states without needing to ramp to boost.

The Intel Arc Pro B370 wins on several specification fronts. The 3 nm process node is smaller than NVIDIA's 5 nm. The boost clock of 2400 MHz is 65% higher than NVIDIA's 1455 MHz. The TDP of 25 W is 28.6% lower than NVIDIA's 35 W. Peak FP16 throughput is 37.5% higher, though this comes with a 2:1 ratio, meaning the FP16 rate is achieved by splitting FP32 units rather than native 1:1 throughput like NVIDIA. The system shared memory architecture means no dedicated VRAM allocation, which can be advantageous in unified memory systems where the CPU and GPU share a single pool. The bus interface is IGP, identical to NVIDIA's slot width, but the bus interface itself is listed as IGP for Intel versus PCIe 4.0 x16 for NVIDIA.

The release timeline shows Intel's part is newer by the recorded dates, with NVIDIA's part releasing in 2023 and Intel's in 2026. The NVIDIA part has a defined successor (Blackwell-MW), while Intel has no successor listed. Both are Active in production. Neither has benchmark scores or percentile rankings beyond the median 50th percentile placeholder, which indicates no measured data exists in the database to differentiate their actual performance distribution.

The data shows a clear resource advantage for NVIDIA in raw execution hardware and memory bandwidth. The Intel part counters with a more advanced process node, higher boost clock, lower TDP, and higher peak FP16 rate. The absence of measured benchmarks means these specification deltas are the only quantitative basis for comparison. For workloads that scale with shading units, texture units, ROPs, and dedicated memory bandwidth, the NVIDIA part has the structural advantage. For workloads sensitive to peak clock speed, FP16 rate, or power draw, the Intel part holds the specification edge.