Intel Arc Pro B370 vs NVIDIA RTX 5000 Embedded Ada Generation X2 Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The recorded data shows a straightforward split between these two mobile workstation graphics processors. The Intel Arc Pro B370, built on the Panther Lake platform, is positioned as an integrated graphics solution with modest compute resources. The NVIDIA RTX 5000 Embedded Ada Generation X2 is a discrete-class embedded GPU with substantially larger processing arrays.

Based on the raw specifications, the NVIDIA part wins in every measured compute category. It delivers considerably higher pixel throughput, texture throughput, and floating-point performance. The Intel part wins in the categories of power efficiency and physical integration, given its 25 W thermal design power compared to 150 W for the NVIDIA part. The Intel solution also uses system shared memory, which simplifies the overall system design, while the NVIDIA part requires dedicated GDDR6 memory.

The use-case split is clear from the data. For workloads that depend on raw shading, ray tracing, tensor operations, and memory bandwidth, the NVIDIA RTX 5000 Embedded Ada Generation X2 is the only viable option between the two. For systems where power draw and physical footprint are the dominant constraints, the Intel Arc Pro B370 presents a lower-power integrated alternative.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher FP32 compute performance?

A: The NVIDIA RTX 5000 Embedded Ada Generation X2 delivers 32.69 TFLOPS of FP32 compute, while the Intel Arc Pro B370 provides 6.144 TFLOPS.

Q: What is the memory configuration difference?

A: The NVIDIA part uses 16 GB of GDDR6 on a 256-bit bus with 576.0 GB/s bandwidth. The Intel part uses system shared memory with system-dependent bandwidth.

Q: How do the ray tracing capabilities compare?

A: The NVIDIA RTX 5000 Embedded Ada Generation X2 has 76 RT cores, while the Intel Arc Pro B370 has 10 RT cores. The NVIDIA part also includes 304 tensor cores, which the Intel part lacks entirely.

Q: What are the thermal design power ratings?

A: The Intel Arc Pro B370 has a TDP of 25 W, while the NVIDIA RTX 5000 Embedded Ada Generation X2 has a TDP of 150 W.

Q: Which GPU uses a smaller manufacturing process?

A: The Intel Arc Pro B370 uses a 3 nm process from Intel, while the NVIDIA RTX 5000 Embedded Ada Generation X2 uses a 5 nm process from TSMC.

Q: Do both support the same graphics APIs?

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

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains no recorded benchmark scores for either part, and the head-to-head benchmark array is empty. However, the specification data allows for direct comparisons across compute metrics.

The largest numerical advantage for the NVIDIA part appears in FP32 throughput. The RTX 5000 Embedded Ada Generation X2 reaches 32.69 TFLOPS, which is approximately 5.3 times higher than the Intel Arc Pro B370's 6.144 TFLOPS. This gap determines the class of workloads each part can handle.

Texture fill rate shows a similar disparity. The NVIDIA part achieves 510.7 GTexel/s, while the Intel part manages 96.00 GTexel/s. That is a ratio of roughly 5.3 to 1, consistent with the FP32 difference since texture rate scales with shader throughput.

Pixel throughput tells the same story. The NVIDIA RTX 5000 Embedded Ada Generation X2 delivers 188.2 GPixel/s, compared to 48.00 GPixel/s for the Intel Arc Pro B370. The NVIDIA part is nearly four times faster in pixel output.

Memory bandwidth is where the gap is most extreme. The NVIDIA part provides 576.0 GB/s from its dedicated GDDR6 memory, while the Intel part's bandwidth is listed as system dependent, meaning it shares the main system memory bus and cannot match a dedicated memory subsystem.

The FP16 figures also differ in character. The Intel Arc Pro B370 achieves 12.29 TFLOPS with a 2:1 ratio relative to FP32. The NVIDIA part achieves 32.69 TFLOPS at a 1:1 ratio, indicating that its FP16 throughput equals its FP32 throughput.

Specification Differences

The two parts differ across nearly every recorded specification field. The Intel Arc Pro B370 uses a 3 nm process from Intel, while the NVIDIA RTX 5000 Embedded Ada Generation X2 uses a 5 nm process from TSMC. The NVIDIA chip, AD103, contains 45,900 million transistors on a 379 mm² die with a transistor density of 121.1M per mm². The Intel chip's transistor count and die size are listed as unknown.

Clock speeds diverge significantly. The Intel part has a base clock of 300 MHz and a boost clock of 2400 MHz. The NVIDIA part has a base clock of 930 MHz and a boost clock of 1680 MHz. The NVIDIA part runs its memory at 2250 MHz with 18 Gbps effective speed.

The shading unit count differs by a factor of over seven. The Intel Arc Pro B370 has 1280 shading units, 40 texture mapping units, and 20 raster output units. The NVIDIA RTX 5000 Embedded Ada Generation X2 has 9728 shading units, 304 TMUs, and 112 ROPs.

Ray tracing cores number 10 on the Intel part versus 76 on the NVIDIA part. Tensor cores are absent from the Intel specification entirely, while the NVIDIA part includes 304 tensor cores.

The bus interface differs as well. The Intel part uses an IGP interface, while the NVIDIA part uses PCIe 4.0 x16. Both are listed with an IGP slot width and no power connectors. Display outputs are listed as portable device dependent for both.

Release dates are separated by nearly three years. The NVIDIA part was released on March 20, 2023, while the Intel part's release date is January 26, 2026.

Architecture Differences

The architectures represent two different design philosophies. The Intel Arc Pro B370 uses the Xe3-LPG architecture on the Panther Lake chip, belonging to the Arc Graphics-WM generation. Its predecessor is listed as HD Graphics-WM. The NVIDIA part uses the Ada Lovelace architecture on the AD103 chip, belonging to the Ada-MW generation, with its predecessor listed as Ampere-MW and its successor as Blackwell-MW.

The Intel part is an integrated GPU, sharing system memory and relying on the host platform for memory bandwidth. The NVIDIA part is designed as an embedded discrete GPU with its own 16 GB GDDR6 memory pool. This fundamental architectural difference drives the memory bandwidth gap: 576.0 GB/s dedicated versus system dependent.

The compute architecture also differs in tensor capabilities. The NVIDIA part includes 304 tensor cores, enabling accelerated matrix operations for AI workloads. The Intel part has no tensor core specification, indicating no equivalent hardware in its architecture.

The FP16 execution model differs between the two. The Intel part runs FP16 at half rate relative to FP32, achieving 12.29 TFLOPS versus 6.144 TFLOPS. The NVIDIA part runs FP16 at full rate, matching FP32 at 32.69 TFLOPS.

Process node choices reflect different foundry strategies. Intel fabricates its chip on a 3 nm process at its own foundry. NVIDIA uses TSMC's 5 nm process. The smaller node does not compensate for the much larger compute array on the NVIDIA side.

The Verdict

The data indicates that the NVIDIA RTX 5000 Embedded Ada Generation X2 is the dominant performer in every compute metric recorded. Its FP32 throughput of 32.69 TFLOPS, texture rate of 510.7 GTexel/s, pixel rate of 188.2 GPixel/s, and memory bandwidth of 576.0 GB/s place it in a different performance class than the Intel Arc Pro B370.

The Intel Arc Pro B370 offers a 25 W TDP, which is one-sixth of the NVIDIA part's 150 W TDP. It also integrates into the system via an IGP interface with no dedicated memory, simplifying system design for power-constrained portable devices. Its 3 nm process node is the only specification where it leads the NVIDIA part.

Users requiring maximum compute throughput, ray tracing performance, tensor operations, or memory bandwidth should select the NVIDIA RTX 5000 Embedded Ada Generation X2. The data confirms it is the only part of the two that can handle demanding graphics and compute workloads.

Users building power-sensitive systems where the GPU must share system memory and operate within a 25 W envelope should select the Intel Arc Pro B370. The recorded specifications show it is designed for integrated, low-power operation rather than peak performance.

Both parts support the same graphics APIs, so software compatibility does not differentiate them. The decision rests on the performance and power trade-off, and the recorded data shows the NVIDIA part wins on performance while the Intel part wins on power efficiency.