Intel Arc Pro B370 vs NVIDIA RTX 5000 Max-Q Ada Generation Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded database contains no direct head-to-head benchmark runs for the Intel Arc Pro B370 against the NVIDIA RTX 5000 Max-Q Ada Generation. Both entries list empty benchmark arrays, zero average benchmark scores, and identical percentile placements at the 50th percentile of all GPUs. This means the comparison must be built from specification data and architectural analysis rather than measured performance deltas.

The absence of test results is itself informative. The Intel Arc Pro B370 is an integrated graphics processor (IGP) on the Panther Lake chip, while the NVIDIA RTX 5000 Max-Q Ada Generation is a discrete-class mobile GPU on the AD103 die. Their performance envelopes are separated by hardware class before any workload is run. The Intel part delivers 6.144 TFLOPS of FP32 compute, while the NVIDIA part delivers 32.69 TFLOPS, a difference of roughly 5.3 times in raw single-precision throughput. The pixel rate tells a similar story: 48.00 GPixel/s for Intel versus 188.2 GPixel/s for NVIDIA, a 3.9 times gap. Texture rate shows the widest split, with Intel at 96.00 GTexel/s and NVIDIA at 510.7 GTexel/s, a 5.3 times advantage.

These figures are theoretical maxima from clock and unit counts, not measured results, but they establish the ceiling for each design. The Intel GPU cannot exceed its 300 MHz base and 2400 MHz boost clocks across 1280 shading units. The NVIDIA part operates at a 930 MHz base and 1680 MHz boost, but spreads that across 9728 shading units. Clock speed alone does not tell the performance story; the unit counts and memory system do.

Memory bandwidth separates the two more than any other specification. The Intel Arc Pro B370 uses system shared memory with bandwidth listed as system dependent. The NVIDIA RTX 5000 Max-Q Ada Generation has 16 GB of GDDR6 on a 256 bit bus, delivering 576.0 GB/s of dedicated bandwidth. Shared memory on an IGP is constrained by the host platform's memory controller and is shared with the CPU, while dedicated GDDR6 is exclusively available to the GPU. For memory-bound workloads, this is a decisive structural difference.

The RT core counts reinforce the compute split. Intel includes 10 RT cores; NVIDIA includes 76. The tensor core comparison is one-sided: NVIDIA lists 304 tensor cores, while the Intel field is null, meaning the data does not record any tensor hardware for the Arc Pro B370. FP16 throughput reflects this: Intel reaches 12.29 TFLOPS with a 2:1 ratio, while NVIDIA achieves 32.69 TFLOPS with a 1:1 ratio, meaning NVIDIA's FP16 rate equals its FP32 rate without any conversion penalty.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher FP32 compute performance?

A: The NVIDIA RTX 5000 Max-Q Ada Generation, at 32.69 TFLOPS, versus 6.144 TFLOPS for the Intel Arc Pro B370. The NVIDIA part is approximately 5.3 times higher in raw FP32 throughput.

Q: How do the memory systems differ?

A: The Intel Arc Pro B370 uses system shared memory with system dependent bandwidth and no dedicated VRAM. The NVIDIA RTX 5000 Max-Q Ada Generation has 16 GB of GDDR6 on a 256 bit bus with 576.0 GB/s of bandwidth.

Q: What are the power requirements?

A: The Intel Arc Pro B370 has a TDP of 25 W and requires no power connectors. The NVIDIA RTX 5000 Max-Q Ada Generation has a TDP of 120 W and also requires no power connectors, as both are mobile or integrated designs.

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 GPU has more shading units?

A: The NVIDIA RTX 5000 Max-Q Ada Generation has 9728 shading units, compared to 1280 for the Intel Arc Pro B370. NVIDIA also has 304 TMUs and 112 ROPs, versus Intel's 40 TMUs and 20 ROPs.

Q: What are the process nodes and foundries?

A: The Intel Arc Pro B370 uses a 3 nm process at Intel. The NVIDIA RTX 5000 Max-Q Ada Generation uses a 5 nm process at TSMC.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different architectural generations and design philosophies. The Intel Arc Pro B370 is built on the Xe3-LPG architecture and is part of the Arc Graphics-WM (Panther Lake) generation. It is an integrated GPU on the Panther Lake chip, with a 3 nm process node from Intel's own foundry. The chip carries 1280 shading units, 40 texture mapping units, 20 raster output units, and 10 RT cores. The tensor core field is null in the database, indicating no recorded tensor hardware. The FP16 implementation runs at a 2:1 ratio relative to FP32, meaning half the throughput when using packed math.

The NVIDIA RTX 5000 Max-Q Ada Generation uses the Ada Lovelace architecture on the AD103 chip. It belongs to the Ada-MW generation and succeeds the Ampere-MW lineup, with the Blackwell-MW listed as its successor. The process node is 5 nm at TSMC. The die contains 45,900 million transistors across a 379 mm² area, giving a transistor density of 121.1M per mm². The GPU has 9728 shading units, 304 TMUs, 112 ROPs, 76 RT cores, and 304 tensor cores. FP16 runs at a 1:1 ratio with FP32, so there is no throughput loss for half-precision workloads.

The architectural split is stark. Intel integrates the GPU into the processor package, sharing system memory and relying on the platform for bandwidth. NVIDIA builds a dedicated mobile GPU with its own VRAM, its own memory bus, and a full complement of tensor and RT hardware. The Intel design targets low power and platform simplicity, while the NVIDIA design targets compute density and memory isolation.

The production status for both is Active. The Intel part was released on 2026-01-26, while the NVIDIA part was released on 2023-03-20. The Intel part lists its predecessor as HD Graphics-WM, and the NVIDIA part lists its predecessor as Ampere-MW. Neither entry has a listed successor for Intel, and the NVIDIA successor is Blackwell-MW.

Specification Differences

The bus interface separates the two clearly. The Intel Arc Pro B370 uses an IGP bus interface, meaning it communicates over the processor's internal fabric rather than a dedicated expansion slot. The NVIDIA RTX 5000 Max-Q Ada Generation uses PCIe 4.0 x16. Both are listed with IGP slot width, and both have no power connectors, but the bus interface difference is fundamental to how each GPU accesses data.

Clock speeds differ in both base and boost. Intel runs at a 300 MHz base and 2400 MHz boost. NVIDIA runs at a 930 MHz base and 1680 MHz boost. Intel has the higher boost clock by 720 MHz, but NVIDIA starts from a much higher base frequency. The Intel memory clock is listed as system shared, while NVIDIA's memory clock is 2250 MHz with 18 Gbps effective data rate.

The memory configuration is the largest specification gap. Intel has system shared memory, system shared type, system shared bus width, and system dependent bandwidth. NVIDIA has 16 GB of GDDR6, a 256 bit bus, and 576.0 GB/s bandwidth.

Compute unit counts all favor NVIDIA. Shading units: 1280 versus 9728. TMUs: 40 versus 304. ROPs: 20 versus 112. RT cores: 10 versus 76. Tensor cores: null versus 304. Pixel rate: 48.00 GPixel/s versus 188.2 GPixel/s. Texture rate: 96.00 GTexel/s versus 510.7 GTexel/s. FP32: 6.144 TFLOPS versus 32.69 TFLOPS. FP16: 12.29 TFLOPS versus 32.69 TFLOPS.

TDP differs by 95 W: 25 W for Intel versus 120 W for NVIDIA. The Intel part is a 3 nm chip from Intel; the NVIDIA part is a 5 nm chip from TSMC. Transistor count and die size are only listed for NVIDIA: 45,900 million transistors and 379 mm². The Intel transistor count and die size are listed as unknown.

Display outputs are portable device dependent for both, meaning the exact ports depend on the laptop or mobile platform they are installed in. Both support the same API set: DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Arc Pro B370 wins in power efficiency and platform integration. Its 25 W TDP is 95 W lower than the NVIDIA part. It runs from a 300 MHz base to a 2400 MHz boost, giving it a higher boost ceiling than the NVIDIA part's 1680 MHz. It uses system shared memory, which eliminates the need for dedicated VRAM and reduces cost and complexity in the host system. For thin-and-light portable devices where battery life and thermal headroom are primary constraints, the Intel part is the practical choice.

The NVIDIA RTX 5000 Max-Q Ada Generation wins in every raw compute category recorded. It has 7.6 times the shading units, 7.6 times the TMUs, 5.6 times the ROPs, and 7.6 times the RT cores. Its FP32 throughput is 5.3 times higher, and its FP16 throughput is 2.7 times higher. It has 304 tensor cores where Intel has none recorded. Its 576.0 GB/s dedicated memory bandwidth is not directly comparable to Intel's system dependent shared memory, but the structural advantage is clear. Its pixel rate is 3.9 times higher, and its texture rate is 5.3 times higher.

The NVIDIA part also wins on architectural maturity for AI workloads. The 304 tensor cores enable hardware-accelerated tensor operations, which are absent from the Intel specification. The 1:1 FP16 ratio means no performance penalty for half-precision compute, unlike the Intel 2:1 ratio. The 76 RT cores provide substantially more ray tracing hardware than the 10 RT cores on Intel.

The release dates place the NVIDIA part in an earlier generation, but the Ada Lovelace architecture still holds the performance lead in the recorded data. The Intel part is newer by release date, but its integrated design inherently limits its compute ceiling.

The Verdict

The data supports a clear split by use case. The Intel Arc Pro B370 is an integrated GPU with a 25 W TDP, system shared memory, and a compact set of compute resources. It belongs in portable devices where power draw is the dominant constraint and where the GPU shares memory with the CPU. Its 6.144 TFLOPS of FP32 and 10 RT cores are sufficient for light graphics work and basic acceleration, but the absence of recorded tensor cores and the system dependent bandwidth cap its reach.

The NVIDIA RTX 5000 Max-Q Ada Generation is a dedicated mobile GPU with 120 W TDP, 16 GB of GDDR6, 576.0 GB/s bandwidth, and a full compute stack: 9728 shading units, 76 RT cores, and 304 tensor cores. Its 32.69 TFLOPS of FP32 and 32.69 TFLOPS of FP16 place it in a different performance class entirely. The database records no benchmark scores for either part, so the verdict rests on the specification table, but that table is unambiguous.

A system designer choosing between these two is choosing between an integrated solution and a discrete solution. The Intel part wins on power and simplicity. The NVIDIA part wins on every measured compute metric. For workloads that need ray tracing, tensor operations, or high memory bandwidth, the NVIDIA part is the only option with the hardware to support them. For workloads that must run within a 25 W envelope and cannot accommodate dedicated VRAM, the Intel part is the only option that fits.

The percentile placement of 50 for both GPUs reflects the absence of benchmark data, not parity in capability. The raw specifications show a minimum 2.7 times gap in favor of NVIDIA in FP16, and a 5.3 times gap in FP32 and texture rate. The NVIDIA part is listed with a successor, Blackwell-MW, indicating its generation is superseded, but within this comparison it remains the performance leader. The Intel part has no listed successor, and its production status is Active. The choice between them depends entirely on whether the platform can support a 120 W discrete GPU with 16 GB of dedicated memory, or whether it must rely on a 25 W integrated solution.