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

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark database contains no recorded head-to-head benchmark entries for the Intel Arc Pro B370 and the NVIDIA RTX 2000 Mobile Ada Generation. With zero benchmark results logged for either adapter, the winsA and winsB counters both stand at 0. This absence of measured data means direct performance comparisons cannot be established from the recorded measurements.

Both GPUs occupy the 50th percentile against all GPUs in the database, indicating they are positioned at the median of the recorded performance distribution. However, percentile placement without raw benchmark scores provides limited comparative insight. The average benchmark score for both entries is 0, confirming that no synthetic or real-world workloads have been submitted to the database for either product.

The lack of head-to-head data does not diminish the value of the specification comparison. The recorded hardware characteristics allow for a structural analysis of expected behavior. The Intel part delivers 6.144 TFLOPS of FP32 compute, while the NVIDIA part delivers 12.99 TFLOPS. That difference places the RTX 2000 Mobile Ada at roughly 2.11 times the raw floating-point throughput of the Arc Pro B370. In FP16, the Intel GPU reaches 12.29 TFLOPS using a 2:1 ratio, while the NVIDIA GPU sustains 12.99 TFLOPS at a 1:1 ratio, narrowing the gap to approximately 5.7% in favor of NVIDIA.

Texture and pixel throughput show a similar pattern. The RTX 2000 Mobile Ada outputs 203.0 GTexel/s and 101.5 GPixel/s, compared to 96.00 GTexel/s and 48.00 GPixel/s for the Intel part. These figures indicate the NVIDIA adapter processes roughly 2.11 times the texels and 2.11 times the pixels per second. The consistency of these ratios with the FP32 comparison suggests the NVIDIA architecture scales its execution resources proportionally.

No benchmark wins can be attributed to either side. The data simply does not include any measured workloads. The specification sheet, however, provides a foundation for understanding where each product is likely to excel.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher FP32 compute performance?

A: The NVIDIA RTX 2000 Mobile Ada Generation records 12.99 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, while the Intel Arc Pro B370 records 6.144 TFLOPS. The NVIDIA adapter delivers approximately 2.11 times the single-precision throughput.

Q: What memory configurations do the two GPUs use?

A: The NVIDIA RTX 2000 Mobile Ada Generation uses 8 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 128-bit bus with 256.0 GB/s of bandwidth and a 2000 MHz memory clock running at 16 Gbps effective. The Intel Arc Pro B370 uses system shared memory, with system-dependent bandwidth and no dedicated memory clock.

Q: How do the shading unit counts compare?

A: The NVIDIA adapter contains 3072 shading units, 96 texture mapping units, 48 raster output units, 24 ray tracing cores, and 96 tensor cores. The Intel adapter contains 1280 shading units, 40 texture mapping units, 20 raster output units, and 10 ray tracing cores, with no tensor cores listed.

Q: What process nodes do the two chips use?

A: The Intel Arc Pro B370 uses a 3 nm process at Intel foundry. The NVIDIA RTX 2000 Mobile Ada Generation uses a 5 nm process at TSMC, with 18,900 million transistors on a 159 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 118.9M per mm².

Q: Do both GPUs support the same graphics APIs?

A: Yes. Both the Intel Arc Pro B370 and the NVIDIA RTX 2000 Mobile Ada Generation support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4.

Q: What are the power consumption figures?

A: The Intel Arc Pro B370 has a TDP of 25 W. The NVIDIA RTX 2000 Mobile Ada Generation has a TDP of 50 W. Neither adapter requires external power connectors, and both use an IGP slot width.

Architecture Differences

The Intel Arc Pro B370 is built on the Panther Lake chip using the Xe3-LPG architecture, part of the Arc Graphics-WM (Panther Lake) generation. The manufacturing process is 3 nm at Intel foundry. The NVIDIA RTX 2000 Mobile Ada Generation uses the AD107 chip with Ada Lovelace architecture, part of the Ada-MW generation, fabricated on a 5 nm process at TSMC. The NVIDIA chip contains 18,900 million transistors across a 159 mm² die.

The Intel GPU integrates its memory as system shared, meaning the adapter draws from the host system's memory pool. The NVIDIA GPU uses dedicated 8 GB GDDR6 memory on a 128-bit interface. Memory bandwidth on the Intel part is system dependent, while the NVIDIA part delivers a fixed 256.0 GB/s.

The execution resource allocation differs substantially. NVIDIA provides 3072 shading units, 96 TMUs, 48 ROPs, 24 RT cores, and 96 tensor cores. Intel provides 1280 shading units, 40 TMUs, 20 ROPs, and 10 RT cores, with no tensor core count recorded. The absence of tensor cores on the Intel part indicates a divergence in AI acceleration capability, though the database does not include benchmark data to quantify this impact.

Clock behavior also differs. The Intel GPU runs at a 300 MHz base clock with a 2400 MHz boost clock. The NVIDIA GPU runs at a 1635 MHz base clock with a 2115 MHz boost clock. Despite the lower base clock, the Intel boost clock exceeds the NVIDIA boost clock by 285 MHz. The NVIDIA part compensates with a much higher base clock and roughly double the execution resources.

Pixel and texture rates reflect these architectural choices. The NVIDIA adapter outputs 101.5 GPixel/s and 203.0 GTexel/s. The Intel adapter outputs 48.00 GPixel/s and 96.00 GTexel/s. The RTX 2000 Mobile Ada Generation also lists a 1:1 FP16 to FP32 ratio, while the Intel part lists a 2:1 ratio, meaning the Intel GPU halves its FP16 throughput relative to FP32.

The Verdict

The recorded data shows two adapters with different design priorities. The NVIDIA RTX 2000 Mobile Ada Generation delivers roughly double the FP32 throughput, double the texture rate, double the pixel rate, and nearly double the FP16 throughput compared to the Intel Arc Pro B370. It also carries dedicated 8 GB GDDR6 memory with 256.0 GB/s bandwidth, versus the system shared memory approach of the Intel part.

The Intel Arc Pro B370 operates at 25 W TDP, exactly half the 50 W TDP of the NVIDIA adapter. The Intel part also uses a smaller 3 nm process node compared to the 5 nm node on the NVIDIA chip. The Intel boost clock of 2400 MHz exceeds the NVIDIA boost clock of 2115 MHz, which partially compensates for the lower shading unit count in clock-sensitive workloads.

For workloads that depend on raw compute throughput, memory bandwidth, or ray tracing resources, the NVIDIA adapter holds the structural advantage. Its 3072 shading units, 24 RT cores, and 96 tensor cores provide a larger execution footprint. For power-constrained environments, the Intel adapter offers a lower TDP while still supporting the same DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4 API levels.

Neither product has recorded benchmark results, so the verdict rests on specification analysis. The data indicates the NVIDIA RTX 2000 Mobile Ada Generation is the higher-throughput part, while the Intel Arc Pro B370 is the lower-power part with a more advanced process node.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ in every major hardware category recorded in the database.

Processor and manufacturing: Intel uses the Panther Lake chip with Xe3-LPG architecture on a 3 nm process at Intel foundry. NVIDIA uses the AD107 chip with Ada Lovelace architecture on a 5 nm process at TSMC, with 18,900 million transistors, a 159 mm² die size, and a transistor density of 118.9M per mm².

Clock speeds: Intel runs at 300 MHz base and 2400 MHz boost. NVIDIA runs at 1635 MHz base and 2115 MHz boost.

Memory: Intel uses system shared memory with system dependent bandwidth. NVIDIA uses 8 GB GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus with 2000 MHz memory clock, 16 Gbps effective, and 256.0 GB/s bandwidth.

Execution units: Intel has 1280 shading units, 40 TMUs, 20 ROPs, and 10 RT cores. NVIDIA has 3072 shading units, 96 TMUs, 48 ROPs, 24 RT cores, and 96 tensor cores.

Output rates: Intel delivers 48.00 GPixel/s and 96.00 GTexel/s. NVIDIA delivers 101.5 GPixel/s and 203.0 GTexel/s.

Compute throughput: Intel delivers 6.144 TFLOPS FP32 and 12.29 TFLOPS FP16 at a 2:1 ratio. NVIDIA delivers 12.99 TFLOPS FP32 and 12.99 TFLOPS FP16 at a 1:1 ratio.

Power and interface: Intel has a 25 W TDP, while NVIDIA has a 50 W TDP. Both use IGP slot width and require no power connectors. The bus interface differs: Intel uses IGP, while NVIDIA uses PCIe 4.0 x16.

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

Release timing: Intel was released on 2026-01-26 with a predecessor of HD Graphics-WM and no successor recorded. NVIDIA was released on 2023-03-20 with a predecessor of Ampere-MW and a successor of Blackwell-MW.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA RTX 2000 Mobile Ada Generation wins on every measured throughput metric in the database. Its 12.99 TFLOPS FP32 output doubles the Intel part's 6.144 TFLOPS. Its 203.0 GTexel/s texture rate and 101.5 GPixel/s pixel rate both exceed the Intel adapter's 96.00 GTexel/s and 48.00 GPixel/s by a factor of approximately 2.11. The 8 GB GDDR6 memory with 256.0 GB/s bandwidth provides a fixed, dedicated memory pool, whereas the Intel adapter relies on system shared memory with system dependent bandwidth.

The Intel Arc Pro B370 wins on power efficiency. Its 25 W TDP is half the NVIDIA part's 50 W TDP. The 3 nm process node is smaller than the 5 nm node used by NVIDIA. The Intel boost clock of 2400 MHz is 285 MHz higher than the NVIDIA boost clock of 2115 MHz, which benefits workloads that scale with clock frequency rather than execution unit count.

For ray tracing workloads, the NVIDIA adapter holds a 24 RT core count versus 10 on the Intel part. For AI-adjacent tasks, the NVIDIA adapter includes 96 tensor cores, while the Intel adapter lists no tensor core count. The NVIDIA part also provides a PCIe 4.0 x16 bus interface, while the Intel part uses an IGP interface.

The data shows a clear performance-tier separation. The NVIDIA adapter is the higher-throughput mobile option, while the Intel adapter is the lower-power integrated option. The 50th percentile ranking for both GPUs against all GPUs in the database suggests they occupy similar overall positions in the distribution, but the specification differences define their distinct roles.