Intel Arc Pro B370 vs NVIDIA RTX 4000 Ada Generation Comparison

The Verdict

The data presents two fundamentally different hardware propositions. The Intel Arc Pro B370 is an integrated graphics processor built on a 3 nm process with a 25 W power envelope, positioned for portable and low-power devices. The NVIDIA RTX 4000 Ada Generation is a single-slot workstation accelerator with a 130 W TDP, designed for sustained professional workloads. The recorded benchmark data only covers the NVIDIA card, which achieves an average benchmark score of 135218 and sits at the 95th percentile of all GPUs in the database, while the Intel part holds a 50th percentile ranking with no recorded benchmark scores. The RTX 4000 Ada Generation is the clear performance leader, while the Arc Pro B370’s role is defined by its integrated nature and minimal power draw.

The Arc Pro B370 should be selected for systems where physical space, power consumption, and portability are the dominant constraints. Its 25 W TDP, integrated form factor, and lack of power connectors make it suitable for compact or mobile designs. The RTX 4000 Ada Generation is the choice for professional environments that need the compute throughput, memory bandwidth, and rendering capabilities reflected in its benchmark scores, which place it within 0.9% of the AMD Radeon PRO V620 and essentially tied with the NVIDIA A10M.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher benchmark score in the database?

A: The NVIDIA RTX 4000 Ada Generation has an average benchmark score of 135218, while the Intel Arc Pro B370 has an average benchmark score of 0 with no recorded benchmark entries.

Q: How large is the performance gap between the two cards?

A: The RTX 4000 Ada Generation sits at the 95th percentile of all GPUs, whereas the Arc Pro B370 sits at the 50th percentile. The NVIDIA card delivers 26.73 TFLOPS of FP32 compute versus 6.144 TFLOPS for the Intel part.

Q: What memory configurations do these GPUs use?

A: The RTX 4000 Ada Generation uses 20 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 160-bit bus with 360.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The Arc Pro B370 uses system-shared memory with a system-dependent bandwidth and bus width.

Q: What are the power requirements for each card?

A: The Arc Pro B370 has a 25 W TDP and requires no power connectors. The RTX 4000 Ada Generation has a 130 W TDP and uses a single 16-pin connector, with a suggested power supply of 300 W.

Q: Which GPU is better suited for a portable device?

A: The Arc Pro B370, as an integrated graphics processor with a 25 W TDP and no external power connectors, is designed for such environments. The RTX 4000 Ada Generation is a single-slot add-in card with a 245 mm length.

Q: How does the RTX 4000 Ada Generation compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The database shows the RTX 4000 Ada Generation with a 0% delta versus the NVIDIA A10M (avg score 135230), 0.1% behind the AMD Radeon PRO W6800 (135396), 0.4% behind the AMD Radeon Pro W6800X Duo (135774), and 0.9% behind the AMD Radeon PRO V620 (136472).

Architecture Differences

The Intel Arc Pro B370 is built on Intel’s 3 nm process using the Xe3-LPG architecture, derived from the Panther Lake chip. It belongs to the Arc Graphics-WM generation and replaces HD Graphics-WM. The architecture is a low-power integrated design with 1280 shading units, 40 texture mapping units, 20 raster operation units, and 10 ray tracing cores. The Intel part has no dedicated tensor cores listed in the database. Its memory architecture is entirely system-shared, meaning capacity, bus width, and bandwidth are dependent on the host platform rather than fixed specifications. The GPU’s clock behavior reflects its power-oriented design: a 300 MHz base clock and a 2400 MHz boost clock. The pixel rate is 48.00 GPixel/s and the texture rate is 96.00 GTexel/s.

The NVIDIA RTX 4000 Ada Generation uses the AD104 chip fabricated by TSMC on a 5 nm process. The architecture is Ada Lovelace, and the card belongs to the Workstation Ada generation, succeeding Workstation Ampere and preceding Blackwell PRO W. The chip contains 35,800 million transistors on a 294 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 121.8M per square millimeter. The compute configuration is substantially larger: 6144 shading units, 192 texture mapping units, 64 raster operation units, 48 ray tracing cores, and 192 tensor cores. The memory subsystem is dedicated GDDR6 with 20 GB capacity, a 160-bit bus, and 360.0 GB/s bandwidth. Clocks run at 1500 MHz base and 2175 MHz boost, with memory at 2250 MHz or 18 Gbps effective. Pixel rate reaches 139.2 GPixel/s and texture rate reaches 417.6 GTexel/s.

The architectural split is clear: Intel’s Xe3-LPG targets efficiency and integration, while NVIDIA’s Ada Lovelace targets raw throughput and professional feature support. Both support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The Intel part offers FP16 at 12.29 TFLOPS with a 2:1 ratio relative to FP32, while the NVIDIA card delivers FP16 at 26.73 TFLOPS with a 1:1 ratio, indicating equal FP16 and FP32 throughput. The presence of 192 tensor cores on the NVIDIA card enables AI-accelerated workflows that the Intel part cannot match with its unspecified tensor core count.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ across nearly every measurable specification. The process nodes are 3 nm for Intel versus 5 nm for NVIDIA, though the Intel part’s transistor count and die size are listed as unknown in the database. The NVIDIA chip has 35,800 million transistors on a 294 mm² die with a density of 121.8M per square millimeter.

Clock speeds differ in both directions: Intel’s base clock is 300 MHz versus NVIDIA’s 1500 MHz, while Intel’s boost clock is 2400 MHz versus NVIDIA’s 2175 MHz. The Intel part’s memory is system-shared with no fixed size, type, bus width, or bandwidth, whereas the NVIDIA card has 20 GB of GDDR6 on a 160-bit bus with 360.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The memory clock is listed as system-shared for Intel and 2250 MHz (18 Gbps effective) for NVIDIA.

Compute resources diverge sharply: Intel has 1280 shading units, 40 TMUs, 20 ROPs, and 10 ray tracing cores, with no tensor cores listed. NVIDIA has 6144 shading units, 192 TMUs, 64 ROPs, 48 ray tracing cores, and 192 tensor cores. Pixel rate is 48.00 GPixel/s for Intel versus 139.2 GPixel/s for NVIDIA. Texture rate is 96.00 GTexel/s versus 417.6 GTexel/s. FP32 throughput is 6.144 TFLOPS versus 26.73 TFLOPS. FP16 throughput is 12.29 TFLOPS (2:1) versus 26.73 TFLOPS (1:1).

Power and physical specifications also differ. The Intel part draws 25 W, is an integrated graphics processor (IGP), has no power connectors, and uses an IGP bus interface. The NVIDIA card draws 130 W, occupies a single slot, uses one 16-pin power connector, requires a suggested 300 W power supply, and connects via PCIe 4.0 x16. Display outputs are portable-device-dependent for Intel, while NVIDIA provides 4x DisplayPort 1.4a. The NVIDIA card measures 245 mm in length and 112 mm in height. Release dates are also distinct: the Arc Pro B370 launched on 2026-01-26 and the RTX 4000 Ada Generation launched on 2023-08-08.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

Direct head-to-head benchmark data is not recorded in the database, but the available measurements for the NVIDIA RTX 4000 Ada Generation provide a quantitative comparison point. The card scores 146593 in Geekbench OpenCL and 123842 in Geekbench Vulkan, producing an average benchmark score of 135218. The Intel Arc Pro B370 has no benchmark scores recorded and an average of 0.

The percentile rankings capture the overall positioning. The RTX 4000 Ada Generation sits at the 95th percentile of all GPUs in the database. The Arc Pro B370 sits at the 50th percentile. This is a 45-point gap in percentile terms, indicating that the NVIDIA card outperforms the vast majority of recorded GPUs while the Intel part lands exactly at the median.

Looking at the NVIDIA card’s nearest rivals gives context for its standing. The NVIDIA A10M has an average score of 135230, a 0% delta from the RTX 4000 Ada Generation. The AMD Radeon PRO W6800 scores 135396, placing the RTX 4000 Ada Generation 0.1% behind it. The AMD Radeon Pro W6800X Duo scores 135774, a 0.4% gap. The AMD Radeon PRO V620 scores 136472, a 0.9% gap. The RTX 4000 Ada Generation is therefore bracketed by a tight cluster of workstation GPUs, all within roughly one percent of each other.

The compute specifications reinforce the benchmark hierarchy. The RTX 4000 Ada Generation delivers 26.73 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, which is 4.35 times the 6.144 TFLOPS of the Arc Pro B370. Texture rate on the NVIDIA card is 417.6 GTexel/s versus 96.00 GTexel/s, a 4.35x advantage. Pixel rate is 139.2 GPixel/s versus 48.00 GPixel/s, a 2.9x advantage. The NVIDIA card also carries 48 ray tracing cores and 192 tensor cores, compared to 10 ray tracing cores and no specified tensor cores on the Intel part.

Memory bandwidth presents one of the largest gaps. The NVIDIA card’s 360.0 GB/s dedicated bandwidth is fixed and independent of the host system. The Intel part’s bandwidth is system-dependent, which in the database is recorded as system-shared with no fixed value. In any configuration, a dedicated 160-bit GDDR6 interface with 20 GB capacity offers a structural advantage over shared memory that competes with the CPU for the same memory pool.

The NVIDIA card’s FP16 throughput matches its FP32 at 26.73 TFLOPS with a 1:1 ratio, whereas the Intel part achieves 12.29 TFLOPS at a 2:1 ratio. This means the NVIDIA card doubles the Intel part’s FP16 output while also maintaining full-rate FP32, a combination that matters for mixed-precision workloads. The 192 tensor cores on the NVIDIA card further separate the two for AI inference and training tasks.

The power efficiency comparison is notable, though it requires care: the Arc Pro B370 draws 25 W while the RTX 4000 Ada Generation draws 130 W. The NVIDIA card consumes 5.2 times the power but delivers 4.35 times the FP32 throughput and 4.35 times the texture rate. In terms of raw FP32 per watt, the Intel part delivers approximately 0.246 TFLOPS per watt, while the NVIDIA card delivers approximately 0.206 TFLOPS per watt, making the Intel part modestly more efficient on this metric despite its far lower absolute performance. However, the NVIDIA card’s advantage in ray tracing cores, tensor cores, and dedicated memory bandwidth makes it the stronger choice for professional workloads where those resources matter.