Intel Arc Pro B370 vs NVIDIA RTX 3000 Mobile Ada Generation Comparison

FAQ

Q: What are the two GPUs compared here?

A: The Intel Arc Pro B370, based on the Xe3-LPG architecture and Panther Lake chip, and the NVIDIA RTX 3000 Mobile Ada Generation, based on Ada Lovelace and the AD106 chip.

Q: How do their process nodes differ?

A: The Intel Arc Pro B370 is built on a 3 nm process at Intel, while the NVIDIA RTX 3000 Mobile Ada Generation uses a 5 nm process at TSMC.

Q: What are the shading unit counts for each GPU?

A: The Intel Arc Pro B370 has 1280 shading units, while the NVIDIA RTX 3000 Mobile Ada Generation has 4608 shading units.

Q: What is the TDP difference between the two?

A: The Intel Arc Pro B370 has a TDP of 25 W, whereas the NVIDIA RTX 3000 Mobile Ada Generation has a TDP of 115 W.

Q: How much memory does each GPU have?

A: The Intel Arc Pro B370 uses system shared memory, while the NVIDIA RTX 3000 Mobile Ada Generation has 8 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 128 bit bus.

Q: What API features do both support?

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

The Verdict

The data describes two GPUs aimed at different segments of the mobile market. The Intel Arc Pro B370 is a low-power integrated graphics processor designed for portability and efficiency, with a 25 W TDP and system shared memory. The NVIDIA RTX 3000 Mobile Ada Generation is a high-performance discrete mobile GPU with 8 GB of dedicated GDDR6 memory, a 115 W TDP, and a much larger compute footprint.

For workloads that depend on raw shader throughput, texture work, or ray tracing, the NVIDIA part holds the clear advantage on paper. Its 4608 shading units, 36 RT cores, and 144 tensor cores dwarf the Intel part's 1280 shading units and 10 RT cores. The NVIDIA GPU also delivers 15.62 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, compared to 6.144 TFLOPS for the Intel part, a difference of roughly 2.5 times.

For thin-and-light systems where power draw is the primary constraint, the Intel Arc Pro B370 is the only sensible option. Its 25 W TDP means it can be integrated directly into a processor package (IGP slot width) without external power connectors. The NVIDIA part, while also listed with an IGP slot width and no power connectors, draws 115 W and would require a significantly more robust cooling solution and power delivery system.

The benchmark database shows both GPUs sitting at the 50th percentile among all GPUs, with average benchmark scores of 0 in the recorded data. This means the quantitative comparison rests entirely on the specification differences. The choice between them depends on whether the target system prioritizes sustained compute performance or minimal power consumption.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head benchmark array is empty in the database, and the win counts for both GPUs are 0. As a result, the comparison must lean on the recorded specification data to establish relative performance expectations.

The most decisive gap is in FP32 compute. The NVIDIA RTX 3000 Mobile Ada Generation delivers 15.62 TFLOPS, which is more than double the Intel Arc Pro B370's 6.144 TFLOPS. In practical terms, applications that scale with raw shader throughput, such as rendering, simulation, or heavy GPU compute tasks, should favor the NVIDIA part by a wide margin.

Texture and pixel throughput follow the same pattern. The NVIDIA GPU produces 244.1 GTexel/s and 81.36 GPixel/s, while the Intel part manages 96.00 GTexel/s and 48.00 GPixel/s. The NVIDIA part is roughly 2.5 times faster in texture fill and about 1.7 times faster in pixel fill, which matters for high-resolution rendering and texture-heavy scenes.

Ray tracing hardware also differs substantially. The NVIDIA GPU includes 36 RT cores, while the Intel Arc Pro B370 includes 10. For ray-traced workloads, the NVIDIA part should maintain a significant advantage, although the database does not provide direct benchmark scores to quantify it.

Memory bandwidth is another area of clear separation. The NVIDIA GPU has 256.0 GB/s of bandwidth from its dedicated GDDR6 memory, while the Intel part relies on system shared memory with bandwidth listed as system dependent. Dedicated memory avoids contention with the CPU and provides predictable bandwidth for GPU workloads, which is a structural advantage for the NVIDIA part.

Clock speeds tell a more nuanced story. The Intel Arc Pro B370 has a base clock of 300 MHz and a boost clock of 2400 MHz, while the NVIDIA GPU runs at a base of 1395 MHz and a boost of 1695 MHz. The Intel part's higher boost clock partially compensates for its smaller shader count, but the sheer difference in execution units means the NVIDIA part still dominates aggregate throughput.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ across nearly every major specification category. The Intel Arc Pro B370 uses a 3 nm process at Intel, while the NVIDIA RTX 3000 Mobile Ada Generation uses a 5 nm process at TSMC. The NVIDIA chip contains 22,900 million transistors on a 188 mm² die, with a transistor density of 121.8M per mm². The Intel part lists transistor count and die size as unknown.

Memory configurations are fundamentally different. The Intel GPU uses system shared memory for both capacity and type, with a system shared bus width and system dependent bandwidth. The NVIDIA GPU has 8 GB of GDDR6 memory, a 128 bit bus, and 256.0 GB/s of bandwidth, with a memory clock of 2000 MHz (16 Gbps effective).

Compute unit counts differ sharply. The Intel part has 1280 shading units, 40 TMUs, 20 ROPs, and 10 RT cores. The NVIDIA part has 4608 shading units, 144 TMUs, 48 ROPs, 36 RT cores, and 144 tensor cores. The Intel part lists no tensor cores, while the NVIDIA part includes a full tensor core array.

Power and interface specifications also diverge. The Intel GPU has a 25 W TDP, while the NVIDIA GPU has a 115 W TDP. Both use an IGP slot width and have no power connectors, but the bus interface differs: the Intel part uses IGP, while the NVIDIA part uses PCIe 4.0 x16.

The display outputs for both are listed as portable device dependent. Both GPUs are currently active in production status. The Intel part was released on 2026-01-26, while the NVIDIA part was released on 2023-03-20.

Architecture Differences

The Intel Arc Pro B370 uses the Xe3-LPG architecture, built around the Panther Lake chip, and belongs to the Arc Graphics-WM (Panther Lake) generation. Its predecessor is HD Graphics-WM. The architecture is designed for integration, reflected in the 25 W TDP, system shared memory, and lack of dedicated power connectors.

The NVIDIA RTX 3000 Mobile Ada Generation uses the Ada Lovelace architecture, built around the AD106 chip, and belongs to the Ada-MW generation. Its predecessor is Ampere-MW, and its successor is Blackwell-MW. The architecture uses a 5 nm TSMC process and a 188 mm² die containing 22,900 million transistors.

The process node difference is notable: Intel's 3 nm process is tighter than NVIDIA's 5 nm process, which should improve power efficiency per transistor for the Intel part. However, the NVIDIA chip packs far more hardware into a larger die, which explains its higher TDP and higher throughput.

FP16 processing differs in approach. The Intel part delivers 12.29 TFLOPS with a 2:1 ratio, meaning it can double its FP32 throughput by using packed FP16 operations. The NVIDIA part delivers 15.62 TFLOPS with a 1:1 ratio, meaning its FP16 throughput matches its FP32 throughput. For applications that rely heavily on FP16, the NVIDIA part still outputs more raw throughput, but the Intel part demonstrates a more aggressive ratio.

The Intel part has no tensor cores listed, while the NVIDIA part includes 144 tensor cores. This is a structural difference for AI-accelerated workloads; the NVIDIA architecture has dedicated hardware for matrix operations, while the Intel part does not list any equivalent.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Arc Pro B370 wins in power efficiency and integration flexibility. Its 25 W TDP is less than a quarter of the NVIDIA part's 115 W TDP. For compact portable devices where thermal headroom is scarce, the Intel GPU is the only realistic choice. Its system shared memory model also means the system designer does not need to allocate separate memory chips or a dedicated memory bus for the GPU, simplifying board layout and reducing component count.

The Intel part also has a higher boost clock at 2400 MHz versus 1695 MHz for the NVIDIA part. In short bursts of activity where the workload is light enough to avoid thermal throttling, the Intel part's higher clock speed could provide snappier response for basic graphics tasks, though the database does not include direct benchmark confirmation.

The NVIDIA RTX 3000 Mobile Ada Generation wins in every raw compute category recorded. It delivers 15.62 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, 244.1 GTexel/s of texture throughput, 81.36 GPixel/s of pixel throughput, and 256.0 GB/s of memory bandwidth. Its 4608 shading units, 144 TMUs, 48 ROPs, 36 RT cores, and 144 tensor cores give it a massive structural advantage for demanding workloads.

For ray-traced rendering, the NVIDIA part's 36 RT cores versus 10 RT cores on the Intel part indicates a clear advantage. For machine learning inference or training, the NVIDIA part's 144 tensor cores provide dedicated hardware that the Intel part lacks entirely. For high-resolution gaming or professional 3D applications, the NVIDIA part's dedicated 8 GB GDDR6 memory and 256.0 GB/s bandwidth avoid the performance variability of system shared memory.

The NVIDIA GPU also wins on transistor count and die complexity. With 22,900 million transistors on a 188 mm² die, it represents a substantially larger and more capable processor than the Intel part, whose transistor count and die size are unknown. The NVIDIA part's PCIe 4.0 x16 bus interface also provides a dedicated high-bandwidth connection to the host system, whereas the Intel part relies on the integrated graphics path.

In summary, the Intel Arc Pro B370 is positioned for efficiency-first portable systems with modest graphics demands. The NVIDIA RTX 3000 Mobile Ada Generation is positioned for performance-first mobile workstations where compute, ray tracing, and memory bandwidth are the priorities. The recorded specification data supports this split clearly, even without direct head-to-head benchmark scores.