Intel Arc Pro B370 vs NVIDIA RTX A400 Comparison

Intel Arc Pro B370 and NVIDIA RTX A400 target adjacent spaces in the workstation GPU market, but they approach the task from opposite directions. The Arc Pro B370 is an integrated graphics processor built on Intel's 3 nm Panther Lake chip, while the RTX A400 is a discrete, single-slot Ampere card. The database shows a clear split: the RTX A400 has a full set of measured benchmark scores, while the Arc Pro B370 has no recorded benchmark entries and a 50th percentile ranking versus all GPUs, compared to the RTX A400's 35th percentile.

FAQ

Q: What are the available benchmark scores for the NVIDIA RTX A400?

A: The RTX A400 has nine recorded measurements: Geekbench OpenCL 22844, Geekbench Vulkan 22237, Passmark DirectX 10 32, DirectX 11 37, DirectX 12 27, DirectX 9 87, G2D 899, G3D 5983, and GPU compute 2557. Its average benchmark score is 6078.

Q: Does the Intel Arc Pro B370 have any benchmark scores in the database?

A: No. The Arc Pro B370 lists an empty benchmarks array, no average score, and no nearest rivals. Its percentile versus all GPUs is 50, which is higher than the RTX A400's 35th percentile, but the Arc Pro B370 has no measured performance data to support that ranking.

Q: How does the RTX A400 compare to its closest rivals?

A: The RTX A400's average score of 6078 is essentially tied with the NVIDIA GeForce MX230 (6077, 0% delta) and the NVIDIA Quadro P2000 (6049, 0.5% ahead). It sits 0.6% behind the Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200 (6117) and 1% ahead of the AMD Radeon 760M (6019).

Q: What process nodes do the two cards use?

A: The Intel Arc Pro B370 uses Intel's 3 nm process, while the NVIDIA RTX A400 uses Samsung's 8 nm process. The RTX A400 has a documented transistor count of 8,700 million on a 200 mm² die, with a density of 43.5M per mm². The Arc Pro B370's transistor count and die size are listed as unknown.

Q: What memory configurations are available?

A: The RTX A400 has 4 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 64-bit bus with 96.00 GB/s bandwidth. The Arc Pro B370 uses system shared memory, with type, bus width, and bandwidth all listed as system dependent.

Q: What are the power requirements?

A: The Arc Pro B370 is rated at 25 W TDP and uses no power connectors. The RTX A400 is rated at 50 W TDP, also uses no power connectors, and has a suggested PSU of 250 W.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different architectural generations and foundries. The Intel Arc Pro B370 is built on the Panther Lake chip using the Xe3-LPG architecture, part of the Arc Graphics-WM (Panther Lake) generation. It is manufactured on a 3 nm process at Intel. The NVIDIA RTX A400 uses the GA107 chip on the Ampere architecture, from the Workstation Ampere (Ax000) generation, manufactured on an 8 nm process at Samsung.

The compute layouts diverge significantly. The Arc Pro B370 has 1280 shading units, 40 texture mapping units, and 20 raster output pipelines. The RTX A400 has 768 shading units, 24 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. In ray tracing hardware, the Arc Pro B370 has 10 RT cores, while the RTX A400 has 6. The RTX A400 counters with 24 tensor cores, a feature that is null in the Arc Pro B370's specification. The Arc Pro B370's higher shading unit count gives it a theoretical raw compute advantage, but the RTX A400's tensor cores provide dedicated AI acceleration hardware that the Intel part lacks.

Clock behavior also differs. The Arc Pro B370 has a base clock of 300 MHz and a boost clock of 2400 MHz, a wide range that reflects its integrated nature. The RTX A400 runs at a base of 1417 MHz and boosts to 1762 MHz, a much narrower and higher baseline. Memory architecture is fundamentally different: the Arc Pro B370 uses system shared memory with system dependent bandwidth, while the RTX A400 has dedicated 4 GB GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus at 96.00 GB/s.

API support is identical across the board. Both support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The physical form factors are different: the Arc Pro B370 is an IGP with no slot width, while the RTX A400 is a single-slot card measuring 163 mm by 69 mm with four mini-DisplayPort 1.4a outputs. The Arc Pro B370's display outputs are listed as portable device dependent.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head benchmark array in the database is empty, so no direct comparative tests exist between the Arc Pro B370 and the RTX A400. The available comparison data comes from the RTX A400's individual benchmark results and its position among nearest rivals.

The RTX A400's strongest recorded results are in compute-oriented tests. Its Geekbench OpenCL score of 22844 and Vulkan score of 22237 are the two highest figures in its benchmark set. These indicate that the card's compute workload performance is substantially better than its graphics API performance in Passmark tests. The Passmark results are notably lower: DirectX 9 at 87, DirectX 11 at 37, DirectX 10 at 32, and DirectX 12 at 27. The G3D score of 5983 and G2D score of 899 sit between these extremes.

The Arc Pro B370 has no benchmark entries, so its performance cannot be measured against the RTX A400's recorded numbers. Theoretical rates are available, however. The Arc Pro B370's pixel rate is 48.00 GPixel/s and its texture rate is 96.00 GTexel/s. The RTX A400's pixel rate is 28.19 GPixel/s and its texture rate is 42.29 GTexel/s. In raw throughput terms, the Arc Pro B370 is 70% higher in pixel rate and 127% higher in texture rate. Compute throughput shows a similar pattern: the Arc Pro B370 delivers 6.144 TFLOPS FP32 and 12.29 TFLOPS FP16 (2:1), while the RTX A400 delivers 2.706 TFLOPS FP32 and 2.706 TFLOPS FP16 (1:1). This makes the Arc Pro B370 2.3 times higher in FP32 and 4.5 times higher in FP16.

The RTX A400's nearest rival data provides context for its measured scores. Its 6078 average is within 1% of all four listed rivals, including the NVIDIA GeForce MX230 at 6077, the NVIDIA Quadro P2000 at 6049, the Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200 at 6117, and the AMD Radeon 760M at 6019. This clustering suggests the RTX A400 performs in a narrow band around the 6000-6100 average score mark.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ across nearly every major specification category.

Process and foundry: the Arc Pro B370 uses 3 nm at Intel; the RTX A400 uses 8 nm at Samsung. The RTX A400 has documented transistor data (8,700 million, 200 mm², 43.5M per mm²), while the Arc Pro B370 lists these as unknown.

Clock speeds: the Arc Pro B370 has a 300 MHz base and 2400 MHz boost; the RTX A400 has a 1417 MHz base and 1762 MHz boost. Memory clocks are system shared for the Arc Pro B370 versus 1500 MHz with 12 Gbps effective for the RTX A400.

Memory: the Arc Pro B370 uses system shared memory with system dependent bandwidth; the RTX A400 has 4 GB GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus with 96.00 GB/s bandwidth.

Compute units: the Arc Pro B370 has 1280 shading units, 40 TMUs, 20 ROPs, and 10 RT cores; the RTX A400 has 768 shading units, 24 TMUs, 16 ROPs, 6 RT cores, and 24 tensor cores.

Throughput rates: the Arc Pro B370 has 48.00 GPixel/s pixel rate, 96.00 GTexel/s texture rate, 6.144 TFLOPS FP32, and 12.29 TFLOPS FP16 (2:1); the RTX A400 has 28.19 GPixel/s, 42.29 GTexel/s, 2.706 TFLOPS FP32, and 2.706 TFLOPS FP16 (1:1).

Power and form factor: the Arc Pro B370 is 25 W TDP, IGP slot width, no power connectors, and IGP bus interface; the RTX A400 is 50 W TDP, single-slot, no power connectors, 250 W suggested PSU, and PCIe 4.0 x8 bus interface.

Release and lineage: the Arc Pro B370 released on 2026-01-26 and lists HD Graphics-WM as its predecessor; the RTX A400 released on 2024-04-15, lists Quadro Turing as its predecessor and Workstation Ada as its successor.

Display outputs: the Arc Pro B370 is portable device dependent; the RTX A400 has 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a.

Shared specifications include DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, Vulkan 1.4, and active production status for both.

Where Each One Wins

The RTX A400 wins in measured software compatibility. Its nine recorded benchmark scores span Geekbench OpenCL, Geekbench Vulkan, and five Passmark API tests, giving it a documented performance profile that the Arc Pro B370 cannot match. The database has no entries for the Arc Pro B370, meaning any performance claim about it relies on theoretical rates rather than observed results.

The RTX A400 also wins on dedicated resources. It has 4 GB of dedicated GDDR6 memory with a fixed 96.00 GB/s bandwidth, while the Arc Pro B370 depends on system shared memory with bandwidth that varies by platform. The RTX A400's 24 tensor cores provide hardware acceleration for AI workloads, a feature entirely absent from the Arc Pro B370's specification. Its discrete single-slot form factor with four mini-DisplayPort 1.4a outputs makes it a drop-in card for workstation builds, and its 50 W TDP with no power connectors fits standard PCIe slot power delivery.

The Arc Pro B370 wins on theoretical compute throughput. Its 6.144 TFLOPS FP32 and 12.29 TFLOPS FP16 are 2.3 times and 4.5 times the RTX A400's respective figures. Its 48.00 GPixel/s pixel rate and 96.00 GTexel/s texture rate are 70% and 127% higher. It has more shading units (1280 versus 768), more TMUs (40 versus 24), more ROPs (20 versus 16), and more RT cores (10 versus 6). Its 25 W TDP is half the RTX A400's 50 W rating.

The Arc Pro B370 also wins on process technology. Its 3 nm Intel process is a smaller node than the RTX A400's 8 nm Samsung process, and its higher percentile ranking (50 versus 35) suggests the database places it in a stronger overall position despite the lack of measured scores.

The Verdict

The data presents a split decision. On theoretical specifications, the Intel Arc Pro B370 is the stronger part. It has more than double the FP32 throughput, more than four times the FP16 throughput, higher pixel and texture rates, more shading units, more RT cores, a smaller process node, and lower power consumption. For workloads that scale with raw shader throughput and ray tracing hardware, the Arc Pro B370's specification sheet is clearly superior.

On measured performance and ecosystem readiness, the NVIDIA RTX A400 is the only part with evidence. Its Geekbench OpenCL score of 22844 and Vulkan score of 22237 demonstrate real compute capability, and its Passmark results across five API versions provide a complete picture of graphics performance. Its nearest rival data places it within 1% of four other GPUs in the 6000-6100 average score range. The RTX A400's dedicated 4 GB memory, tensor cores, and discrete form factor with four display outputs make it a functional workstation component.

The Arc Pro B370's case rests entirely on its theoretical rates and its 50th percentile ranking. Those rates are impressive on paper, and the 3 nm process and 25 W TDP represent a modern integrated design. But without any benchmark scores, the database cannot confirm that the theoretical throughput translates into real application performance. The RTX A400, by contrast, has a complete measured profile and a clear position among its peers. Users who require verified performance data and dedicated workstation features should select the RTX A400. Users who prioritize the Arc Pro B370's raw throughput specifications and integrated form factor can consider it, but only with the understanding that its recorded performance is unverified.