Intel Arc Pro B370 vs NVIDIA RTX 4500 Ada Generation Comparison

Intel Arc Pro B370 and NVIDIA RTX 4500 Ada Generation occupy opposite ends of the graphics spectrum, and the recorded data reflects that divide clearly. The Arc Pro B370 is an integrated processor graphics solution built on Intel's 3 nm node, while the RTX 4500 Ada is a discrete workstation card on TSMC's 5 nm process. Their performance envelopes, physical designs, and intended usage patterns share almost nothing beyond API support and production status. The database shows a 97th percentile ranking for the RTX 4500 Ada against all GPUs, compared to a 50th percentile for the Arc Pro B370, which immediately signals a substantial gap in raw capability.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The two products have no direct head-to-head benchmark entries in the database, so the comparison relies on their standalone measurements and nearest rival data. The RTX 4500 Ada Generation records an average benchmark score of 166,094 across Geekbench OpenCL and Vulkan tests. Its OpenCL score reaches 160,786, while Vulkan performance climbs to 171,401. The Arc Pro B370, by contrast, carries an average benchmark score of 0, with no individual benchmark entries recorded. That absence means the database has no measured workload results for the Intel part, making any direct performance delta impossible to quantify from actual test data.

The RTX 4500 Ada's nearest rivals provide context for its standing. The AMD Radeon Pro W6900X leads it by 1.5%, with an average score of 168,574. The NVIDIA RTX A5500 trails by just 0.5% at 165,217, and the AMD Radeon PRO W7800 sits 0.7% behind at 164,894. The NVIDIA A100 PCIe 40 GB lags by 2.2% with 162,504. These margins show the RTX 4500 Ada sitting in a tightly contested band of high-end workstation accelerators, within roughly two percentage points of four established rivals. The Arc Pro B370 has no nearest rival entries at all, reinforcing that its performance class has not been characterized in the same way.

Because the Intel part lacks measured scores, the comparison must lean on theoretical specifications. The RTX 4500 Ada delivers 39.63 TFLOPS of FP32 throughput, while the Arc Pro B370 provides 6.144 TFLOPS. That is a 6.45x advantage in raw single-precision compute for the NVIDIA card. Pixel fill rates tell a similar story: 206.4 GPixel/s versus 48.00 GPixel/s, a 4.3x gap. Texture rate differences are even larger, with the RTX 4500 Ada reaching 619.2 GTexel/s against 96.00 GTexel/s for the Intel part, a 6.45x spread matching the FP32 ratio.

Architecture Differences

The Arc Pro B370 uses the Panther Lake chip with Xe3-LPG architecture, placing it in the Arc Graphics-WM generation. Its process node is 3 nm, fabricated by Intel. The RTX 4500 Ada Generation is built on the AD103 chip with Ada Lovelace architecture, produced by TSMC on a 5 nm process. The transistor counts differ starkly: the NVIDIA part contains 45,900 million transistors on a 379 mm² die, yielding a density of 121.1M per mm². The Intel part's transistor count and die size are listed as unknown in the database.

The Arc Pro B370 integrates 1280 shading units, 40 texture mapping units, and 20 raster output pipelines. It carries 10 ray tracing cores and no tensor core count is recorded. The RTX 4500 Ada scales far beyond with 7680 shading units, 240 TMUs, and 80 ROPs. It includes 60 ray tracing cores and 240 tensor cores. The NVIDIA card's FP16 throughput matches its FP32 at 39.63 TFLOPS with a 1:1 ratio, whereas the Intel part achieves 12.29 TFLOPS FP16 at a 2:1 ratio, implying it halves FP32 rate for FP16 work.

Memory architecture presents a fundamental divergence. The Arc Pro B370 uses system shared memory, with its size, type, bus width, and bandwidth all dependent on the host platform. Memory clocks are listed as system shared, and bandwidth is system dependent. The RTX 4500 Ada provides 24 GB of GDDR6 on a 192-bit bus, delivering 432.0 GB/s of bandwidth. Its memory clock is rated at 2250 MHz with 18 Gbps effective transfer. The Intel part's reliance on shared system memory means its effective bandwidth is entirely contingent on the host laptop or portable device, while the NVIDIA card has dedicated, fixed memory resources.

Clock behavior also separates the two. The Arc Pro B370 runs a 300 MHz base clock and 2400 MHz boost. The RTX 4500 Ada starts at 2070 MHz base and boosts to 2580 MHz. Power envelopes reflect their physical forms: the Intel part draws 25 W TDP and is an IGP with no power connectors, while the NVIDIA card consumes 210 W, spans a dual-slot design, and suggests a 550 W power supply. The RTX 4500 Ada measures 245 mm in length and 112 mm in height.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has a higher benchmark percentile?

A: The RTX 4500 Ada Generation ranks in the 97th percentile against all GPUs. The Arc Pro B370 sits at the 50th percentile.

Q: What are the recorded benchmark scores for each product?

A: The RTX 4500 Ada records an OpenCL score of 160,786, a Vulkan score of 171,401, and an average benchmark score of 166,094. The Arc Pro B370 has no benchmark entries and an average score of 0.

Q: How do the memory configurations differ?

A: The Arc Pro B370 uses system shared memory with system dependent bandwidth, while the RTX 4500 Ada has 24 GB of GDDR6 on a 192-bit bus with 432.0 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: What are the physical power requirements?

A: The Arc Pro B370 has a 25 W TDP and needs no power connectors as an IGP. The RTX 4500 Ada has a 210 W TDP and requires a 550 W suggested power supply.

Q: Do both support the same graphics APIs?

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

Q: Which chip architectures do they use?

A: The Arc Pro B370 uses the Panther Lake chip with Xe3-LPG architecture on a 3 nm Intel process. The RTX 4500 Ada uses the AD103 chip with Ada Lovelace architecture on TSMC's 5 nm process.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ across nearly every recorded specification. Process node: 3 nm for Intel versus 5 nm for TSMC. Transistors: unknown for the Arc Pro B370 versus 45,900 million for the RTX 4500 Ada. Die size: unknown versus 379 mm². Base clock: 300 MHz versus 2070 MHz. Boost clock: 2400 MHz versus 2580 MHz. Memory size: system shared versus 24 GB. Memory type: system shared versus GDDR6. Bus width: system shared versus 192 bit. Bandwidth: system dependent versus 432.0 GB/s.

Compute resources diverge completely. Shading units: 1280 versus 7680. TMUs: 40 versus 240. ROPs: 20 versus 80. Ray tracing cores: 10 versus 60. Tensor cores: not recorded versus 240. Pixel rate: 48.00 GPixel/s versus 206.4 GPixel/s. Texture rate: 96.00 GTexel/s versus 619.2 GTexel/s. FP32: 6.144 TFLOPS versus 39.63 TFLOPS. FP16: 12.29 TFLOPS versus 39.63 TFLOPS.

Physical and platform attributes also differ. TDP: 25 W versus 210 W. Slot width: IGP versus dual-slot. Power connectors: none for both, but the RTX 4500 Ada lists a suggested 550 W PSU. Bus interface: IGP versus PCIe 4.0 x16. Display outputs: portable device dependent versus 4x DisplayPort 1.4a. Dimensions: not recorded versus 245 mm length and 112 mm height. Release dates: 2026-01-26 versus 2023-08-08. Predecessors: HD Graphics-WM versus Workstation Ampere. The RTX 4500 Ada has a successor recorded as Blackwell PRO W, while the Arc Pro B370 does not.

Where Each One Wins

The RTX 4500 Ada Generation wins decisively in every measured or specified performance category. Its 39.63 TFLOPS FP32 output suits heavy compute workloads, and the 432.0 GB/s of dedicated GDDR6 bandwidth supports large data sets without host memory contention. The 24 GB memory capacity enables working sets that shared system memory cannot match. The 240 tensor cores and 60 ray tracing cores give it dedicated acceleration for AI inference and ray-traced rendering tasks. Its 97th percentile ranking places it among the top tier of all GPUs in the database, within 2.2% of the A100 PCIe 40 GB and within 1.5% of the Radeon Pro W6900X.

The Arc Pro B370 wins in power efficiency and integration. Its 25 W TDP is a fraction of the RTX 4500 Ada's 210 W draw, allowing operation in portable devices with no external power connectors. As an IGP, it requires no separate slot, no power cabling, and no dedicated cooling solution beyond what the host device already provides. Its 3 nm process node is more advanced than the RTX 4500 Ada's 5 nm node, suggesting a more modern fabrication approach despite the vast performance deficit. For workloads that require only basic graphics output or light compute within a constrained power envelope, the Arc Pro B370's integrated nature is the clear advantage.

The RTX 4500 Ada's nearest rival data shows it competing with other discrete workstation accelerators, not with integrated graphics. Its 0.5% lead over the RTX A5500 and 0.7% lead over the Radeon PRO W7800 place it in a competitive field where small margins separate top performers. The Arc Pro B370 has no such competitive positioning in the database, reflecting its role as a baseline integrated solution rather than a performance contender.

The Verdict

The data supports a straightforward split. Users requiring maximum compute throughput, large dedicated memory, and professional rendering or AI capabilities should select the RTX 4500 Ada Generation. Its 39.63 TFLOPS FP32, 24 GB GDDR6, 240 tensor cores, and 97th percentile ranking make it the only choice between these two for serious workstation workloads. Its 166,094 average benchmark score confirms real-world performance, and its near parity with the Radeon Pro W6900X and RTX A5500 validates its standing among high-end accelerators.

Users who need graphics capability in an ultra-low-power, integrated context should consider the Arc Pro B370. Its 25 W TDP, IGP form factor, and lack of power connectors make it suitable for portable devices where discrete graphics is impossible. The 3 nm process and Xe3-LPG architecture represent a modern design, and the 50th percentile ranking indicates mid-pack overall performance. The absence of measured benchmarks means its actual workload behavior remains uncharacterized in the database, but its specifications position it as a capable integrated solution rather than a workstation performer. The two products target different markets entirely, and the recorded data does not suggest any scenario where they directly compete.