Intel Arc Pro B370 vs NVIDIA RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation Comparison

The Verdict

The database comparison between the Intel Arc Pro B370 and the NVIDIA RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation shows two products built for entirely different purposes. The Intel Arc Pro B370 is an integrated graphics processor (IGP) within the Panther Lake mobile platform, designed for thin-and-light portable devices where power draw is the primary constraint. The NVIDIA RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation is a discrete, dual-slot workstation graphics card aimed at compact professional workstations that require substantial compute throughput.

The RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation delivers dramatically higher raw performance. Its average benchmark score of 117,088 places it in the 95th percentile of all GPUs in the database, while the Arc Pro B370 sits at the 50th percentile with an average score of zero, meaning it has no recorded benchmark entries. The RTX 4000 SFF holds a 25-watt thermal advantage in the other direction: the NVIDIA card runs at 70 W TDP versus the Intel IGP's 25 W, but the Intel part is integrated into a processor package and requires no separate power connectors or cooling solution.

For users building a small-form-factor workstation, the RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation is the only choice with measurable performance data. For users selecting a mobile processor with graphics capabilities, the Arc Pro B370 serves as the integrated solution, but its performance cannot be compared directly because the database contains no benchmark scores for it. The data indicates that the RTX 4000 SFF is the superior discrete option, while the Arc Pro B370 is a low-power integrated alternative with no verified compute results.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different architectural generations and manufacturing processes. The Intel Arc Pro B370 uses the Xe3-LPG architecture built on Intel's 3 nm process node, with the chip codenamed Panther Lake. The NVIDIA RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation uses the Ada Lovelace architecture on TSMC's 5 nm process, with the AD104 chip. The process node difference gives Intel a theoretical density advantage, but the NVIDIA card packs far more hardware resources.

The RTX 4000 SFF contains 35,800 million transistors on a 294 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 121.8 million transistors per square millimeter. The Intel part's transistor count and die size are recorded as unknown in the database. This reflects the fundamental design difference: the Arc Pro B370 is an IGP sharing a processor package, while the RTX 4000 SFF is a standalone GPU with its own memory subsystem.

The memory architecture diverges completely. The Arc Pro B370 uses system shared memory, with its bandwidth labeled "System Dependent." The RTX 4000 SFF has 20 GB of dedicated GDDR6 memory on a 160-bit bus, delivering 280.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The NVIDIA card's memory clock runs at 1750 MHz with 14 Gbps effective data rate. The Intel IGP's memory clock is also system shared, meaning it depends entirely on the host processor's main memory configuration.

Shader resources differ by a factor of roughly 4.8. The RTX 4000 SFF has 6,144 shading units, 192 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 64 render output units (ROPs). The Arc Pro B370 has 1,280 shading units, 40 TMUs, and 20 ROPs. Ray tracing cores also favor NVIDIA: 48 RT cores on the Ada card versus 10 on the Intel IGP. The NVIDIA card additionally includes 192 tensor cores, while the Intel part lists none. The RTX 4000 SFF's FP32 throughput is 19.17 TFLOPS, while the Arc Pro B370 delivers 6.144 TFLOPS. The FP16 numbers show a notable difference in execution behavior: the NVIDIA card runs FP16 at a 1:1 ratio with FP32 (19.17 TFLOPS), while the Intel part uses a 2:1 ratio (12.29 TFLOPS).

Both GPUs support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, so API compatibility is identical. The bus interface differs: the Arc Pro B370 uses an IGP connection, while the RTX 4000 SFF uses PCIe 4.0 x16.

Where Each One Wins

The RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation wins in every measurable compute category. Its pixel rate of 99.84 GPixel/s is more than double the Arc Pro B370's 48.00 GPixel/s. Its texture rate of 299.5 GTexel/s is more than triple the Intel part's 96.00 GTexel/s. Its FP32 throughput of 19.17 TFLOPS is roughly 3.1 times the Intel IGP's 6.144 TFLOPS. The NVIDIA card's 280.0 GB/s memory bandwidth is not directly comparable since the Intel IGP's bandwidth is system-dependent, but the dedicated GDDR6 memory provides consistent, predictable performance.

The RTX 4000 SFF also wins on the only benchmark scores in the database. Its Geekbench OpenCL score is 124,812, and its Geekbench Vulkan score is 109,364. These scores place it in the 95th percentile of all GPUs. Its nearest rivals in average score include the NVIDIA GB10 at 117,393 (0.3% slower), the AMD Radeon PRO W7700 at 118,976 (1.6% slower), the NVIDIA Tesla V100 SXM2 16 GB at 114,395 (2.4% faster than this card), and the NVIDIA RTX A5500 Mobile at 113,944 (2.8% faster than this card). The RTX 4000 SFF's average benchmark score of 117,088 confirms it sits comfortably in the upper tier of workstation GPUs.

The Arc Pro B370 wins in power efficiency and physical footprint. Its 25 W TDP is less than half of the RTX 4000 SFF's 70 W TDP. As an IGP, it requires no power connectors and occupies no slot width. The RTX 4000 SFF is a dual-slot card measuring 168 mm in length and 69 mm in height, requiring a 250 W suggested power supply. The Intel part's display outputs are "Portable Device Dependent," meaning they rely on the host laptop's ports, while the NVIDIA card provides 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a outputs.

The production status for both is Active. The Arc Pro B370's release date is recorded as 2026-01-26, while the RTX 4000 SFF launched on 2023-03-20. The NVIDIA card's predecessor is Workstation Ampere and its successor is Blackwell PRO W. The Intel part's predecessor is HD Graphics-WM.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher raw compute performance?

A: The NVIDIA RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation. Its FP32 throughput is 19.17 TFLOPS versus 6.144 TFLOPS for the Intel Arc Pro B370. Its pixel rate is 99.84 GPixel/s versus 48.00 GPixel/s, and its texture rate is 299.5 GTexel/s versus 96.00 GTexel/s.

Q: How does memory configuration differ between the two?

A: The RTX 4000 SFF has 20 GB of dedicated GDDR6 memory on a 160-bit bus with 280.0 GB/s bandwidth. The Arc Pro B370 uses system shared memory with bandwidth labeled "System Dependent," meaning it relies on the host system's main memory.

Q: What are the power requirements for each card?

A: The Arc Pro B370 runs at 25 W TDP and requires no power connectors. The RTX 4000 SFF runs at 70 W TDP, also requires no power connectors, but needs a suggested power supply of 250 W.

Q: Which card is better for a small-form-factor workstation?

A: The RTX 4000 SFF is designed for this use case. It is a dual-slot card measuring 168 mm in length and 69 mm in height, with 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a outputs. The Arc Pro B370 is an IGP with display outputs labeled "Portable Device Dependent," so it is not a discrete card at all.

Q: What benchmark scores are recorded for each GPU?

A: The RTX 4000 SFF has a Geekbench OpenCL score of 124,812, a Geekbench Vulkan score of 109,364, and an average benchmark score of 117,088. The Arc Pro B370 has no benchmark scores recorded in the database.

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

A: Its average score of 117,088 is 0.3% higher than the NVIDIA GB10 (117,393), 1.6% higher than the AMD Radeon PRO W7700 (118,976), 2.4% lower than the Tesla V100 SXM2 16 GB (114,395), and 2.8% lower than the RTX A5500 Mobile (113,944). It sits in the 95th percentile of all GPUs.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database records no direct head-to-head benchmark results between these two GPUs. However, the RTX 4000 SFF has standalone benchmark scores that the Arc Pro B370 does not. The Geekbench OpenCL result of 124,812 and the Geekbench Vulkan result of 109,364 are the only compute scores available. The Arc Pro B370's average benchmark score is 0, and its benchmarks list is empty.

The nearest rival comparisons for the RTX 4000 SFF provide context for its performance level. The NVIDIA GB10 scores 117,393, which is 0.3% lower than the RTX 4000 SFF's average. The AMD Radeon PRO W7700 scores 118,976, which is 1.6% lower. The older NVIDIA Tesla V100 SXM2 16 GB scores 114,395, which is 2.4% higher than the RTX 4000 SFF. The NVIDIA RTX A5500 Mobile scores 113,944, which is 2.8% higher. These deltas show that the RTX 4000 SFF competes directly with other high-end workstation GPUs, trading blows within a few percentage points.

The architecture differences drive the performance gap. The RTX 4000 SFF's 6,144 shading units deliver 19.17 TFLOPS of FP32 compute, while the Arc Pro B370's 1,280 shading units deliver 6.144 TFLOPS. The NVIDIA card's 192 TMUs and 64 ROPs enable texture and pixel rates that are roughly 3.1 and 2.1 times higher, respectively. The 48 RT cores versus 10 provide substantially more ray tracing capacity, and the 192 tensor cores (none on the Intel part) enable AI acceleration workloads.

The memory subsystem amplifies these differences. The RTX 4000 SFF's dedicated 280.0 GB/s bandwidth is consistent and independent of host system configuration. The Arc Pro B370's system shared memory bandwidth is labeled "System Dependent," meaning its effective performance varies with the host platform's memory speed and channel configuration. In a workstation with fast system memory, the Intel IGP might approach acceptable performance for basic 2D workloads, but it cannot match the sustained bandwidth of dedicated GDDR6.

The RTX 4000 SFF's 95th percentile ranking versus the Arc Pro B370's 50th percentile ranking summarizes the competitive landscape. The NVIDIA card sits among the top 5% of all GPUs in the database, while the Intel part sits at the median with no recorded scores. The average benchmark score of 117,088 for the RTX 4000 SFF confirms strong, consistent performance across the two recorded tests. The Arc Pro B370's average score of 0 indicates that no compute benchmarks have been run or recorded for it.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ in almost every specification field where a comparison is possible.

Process and Chip: The Arc Pro B370 uses Intel's 3 nm process with the Panther Lake chip. The RTX 4000 SFF uses TSMC's 5 nm process with the AD104 chip. The NVIDIA card has 35,800 million transistors on a 294 mm² die with a density of 121.8M per mm². The Intel part's transistor count and die size are unknown.

Clocks: The Arc Pro B370 runs at 300 MHz base and 2400 MHz boost. The RTX 4000 SFF runs at 720 MHz base and 1560 MHz boost. The NVIDIA card's memory clock is 1750 MHz with 14 Gbps effective. The Intel IGP's memory clock is system shared.

Memory: The Arc Pro B370 uses system shared memory with system dependent bandwidth. The RTX 4000 SFF has 20 GB of GDDR6 on a 160-bit bus with 280.0 GB/s bandwidth.

Compute Units: The Arc Pro B370 has 1,280 shading units, 40 TMUs, 20 ROPs, 10 RT cores, and no tensor cores. The RTX 4000 SFF has 6,144 shading units, 192 TMUs, 64 ROPs, 48 RT cores, and 192 tensor cores.

Performance Rates: The Arc Pro B370 delivers 48.00 GPixel/s, 96.00 GTexel/s, 6.144 TFLOPS FP32, and 12.29 TFLOPS FP16 (2:1). The RTX 4000 SFF delivers 99.84 GPixel/s, 299.5 GTexel/s, 19.17 TFLOPS FP32, and 19.17 TFLOPS FP16 (1:1).

Power and Physical: The Arc Pro B370 has a 25 W TDP, IGP slot width, no power connectors, and no suggested PSU. The RTX 4000 SFF has a 70 W TDP, dual-slot width, no power connectors, and a 250 W suggested PSU. The Intel part measures no dimensions, while the NVIDIA card is 168 mm long and 69 mm tall.

Interface and Outputs: The Arc Pro B370 uses an IGP bus interface with portable device dependent display outputs. The RTX 4000 SFF uses PCIe 4.0 x16 with 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a outputs.

Release Timing: The Arc Pro B370 released on 2026-01-26. The RTX 4000 SFF released on 2023-03-20. Both are Active in production status. The Intel part's predecessor is HD Graphics-WM. The NVIDIA card's predecessor is Workstation Ampere and its successor is Blackwell PRO W.

APIs: Both support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, so there is no difference in API support.