Intel Arc Pro B370 vs NVIDIA Rubin GPU Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data contains no direct head-to-head benchmark results between the Intel Arc Pro B370 and the NVIDIA Rubin GPU. The database shows zero wins for either part in their respective benchmark categories, and no average benchmark scores are available for comparison. This absence of measured performance data is itself informative, as it underscores how fundamentally different these two products are positioned.

The Intel Arc Pro B370 delivers 6.144 TFLOPS of FP32 compute and 12.29 TFLOPS of FP16 compute with a 2:1 ratio. The NVIDIA Rubin GPU, by contrast, delivers 130.0 TFLOPS of FP32 and 260.0 TFLOPS of FP16, also at a 2:1 ratio. That places the Rubin GPU at roughly 21 times the FP32 throughput of the Arc Pro B370. In texture rate, the gap is similarly stark: 96.00 GTexel/s for the Intel part versus 2,031.2 GTexel/s for the NVIDIA part. The pixel rates are closer, with the Arc Pro B370 at 48.00 GPixel/s and the Rubin GPU at 54.41 GPixel/s, a difference of about 13 percent.

Both products sit at the 50th percentile in the database's overall GPU rankings, but this percentile reflects their distinct placement within separate market segments, not comparable performance tiers. The Arc Pro B370 is an integrated graphics processor with a 25 W TDP, while the Rubin GPU is a server-class accelerator with a 2300 W TDP. The benchmark data confirms they are not competitors in any conventional sense; the Rubin GPU's compute resources are an order of magnitude larger across nearly every measured metric.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs share a 3 nm process node but diverge completely in every other architectural aspect. The Intel Arc Pro B370 is built on Intel's Xe3-LPG architecture, using the Panther Lake chip, and is part of the Arc Graphics-WM generation. The NVIDIA Rubin GPU uses the GR100 chip with the Rubin architecture, belonging to the Server Rubin generation. Intel fabricates its chip at Intel's own foundry, while NVIDIA uses TSMC.

The Intel part integrates 1280 shading units, 40 texture mapping units, 20 raster operation units, and 10 ray tracing cores. It has no dedicated tensor cores listed. The NVIDIA part packs 28,672 shading units, 896 TMUs, 24 ROPs, and 896 tensor cores. The shading unit count alone is more than 22 times higher on the NVIDIA side. The Intel chip's transistor count is listed as unknown, while the NVIDIA GR100 contains 336,000 million transistors on a 1456 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 230.8 million per square millimeter.

Memory architecture could not be more different. The Intel Arc Pro B370 uses system shared memory, with the bus width, type, and bandwidth all dependent on the host platform. The NVIDIA Rubin GPU has 288 GB of HBM4 memory on a 16384-bit bus, delivering 22.1 TB/s of bandwidth. Clock behavior also differs: the Intel part has a 300 MHz base clock and a 2400 MHz boost clock, while the NVIDIA part has a 700 MHz base and a 2267 MHz boost. The NVIDIA clock speeds are lower at the top end, but the massive parallel width compensates.

The Intel Arc Pro B370 is an IGP (integrated graphics processor) with no power connectors and a 25 W TDP, designed for portable devices. The NVIDIA Rubin GPU is an SXM module with a suggested power supply of 2700 W and uses a PCIe 6.0 x16 bus interface. The Intel part supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The NVIDIA part lists N/A for all three APIs, indicating it is not a consumer graphics card in the traditional sense. Display outputs on the Intel part are portable device dependent, while the NVIDIA part has no outputs at all. The Intel product was released on 2026-01-26, and the NVIDIA product on 2025-12-31, making them near-contemporaries but aimed at entirely different workloads.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Arc Pro B370 wins in power efficiency and integration. At 25 W TDP, it operates within the thermal envelope of a mobile processor, requiring no external power connectors and fitting as an IGP. This makes it suitable for compact portable devices where space and cooling are constrained. Its pixel rate of 48.00 GPixel/s is not far behind the NVIDIA part, which suggests it can handle basic display rendering tasks adequately for its class. The Intel part also supports modern graphics APIs, including DirectX 12 Ultimate, which matters for compatibility with current software stacks.

The NVIDIA Rubin GPU wins decisively in raw compute throughput. Its 130.0 TFLOPS FP32 and 260.0 TFLOPS FP16 performance, combined with 22.1 TB/s memory bandwidth and 288 GB of HBM4 capacity, position it for server workloads that demand massive parallel processing. The 896 tensor cores give it dedicated hardware for matrix operations, which the Intel part lacks entirely. The NVIDIA part's texture rate of 2,031.2 GTexel/s is more than 21 times the Intel's 96.00 GTexel/s, indicating far superior fill-rate capabilities for texture-heavy operations.

The pixel rate comparison is the only area where the two products approach parity, with the NVIDIA part leading by just 6.41 GPixel/s. This suggests that for simple 2D output, the Intel integrated solution is not severely disadvantaged. However, the NVIDIA part's lack of display outputs means it is not intended for direct display in any case.

FAQ

Q: How do the FP32 compute performances compare?

A: The NVIDIA Rubin GPU delivers 130.0 TFLOPS of FP32 compute, while the Intel Arc Pro B370 delivers 6.144 TFLOPS. The NVIDIA part is approximately 21 times faster in this metric.

Q: What memory configurations do the two GPUs use?

A: The Intel Arc Pro B370 uses system shared memory, with capacity, type, and bandwidth dependent on the host system. The NVIDIA Rubin GPU has 288 GB of dedicated HBM4 memory on a 16384-bit bus, providing 22.1 TB/s of bandwidth.

Q: Are these GPUs compatible with the same software APIs?

A: No. The Intel Arc Pro B370 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The NVIDIA Rubin GPU lists N/A for DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan, indicating it does not expose these consumer graphics APIs.

Q: What are the power requirements for each product?

A: The Intel Arc Pro B370 has a 25 W TDP and requires no power connectors. The NVIDIA Rubin GPU has a 2300 W TDP and a suggested power supply of 2700 W.

Q: What process nodes are used for each chip?

A: Both the Intel Arc Pro B370 and the NVIDIA Rubin GPU are manufactured on a 3 nm process node. Intel uses its own foundry, while NVIDIA uses TSMC.

Q: Does either GPU have tensor cores?

A: The NVIDIA Rubin GPU has 896 tensor cores. The Intel Arc Pro B370 does not list any tensor cores in its specifications.

The Verdict

The data shows two products with no meaningful overlap in purpose or capability. The Intel Arc Pro B370 is an integrated graphics solution with 1280 shading units, a 25 W TDP, and system shared memory, targeting portable devices that need basic graphics output with modern API support. Its 6.144 TFLOPS FP32 throughput and 96.00 GTexel/s texture rate are modest figures, appropriate for its integration level.

The NVIDIA Rubin GPU is a server accelerator with 28,672 shading units, 896 tensor cores, 288 GB of HBM4 memory, and 22.1 TB/s of bandwidth. Its 130.0 TFLOPS FP32 and 260.0 TFLOPS FP16 performance, combined with a 2300 W TDP and SXM module form factor, place it firmly in data center and high-performance computing territory. It has no display outputs and no consumer graphics API support, confirming it is not a desktop graphics card.

A user or system integrator should choose the Intel Arc Pro B370 if the requirement is for an integrated GPU within a 25 W power envelope, with DirectX 12 Ultimate support, for a portable device. The NVIDIA Rubin GPU should be chosen for server workloads requiring massive parallel compute, tensor operations, and very high memory bandwidth, accepting the 2700 W suggested power supply and the absence of display connectivity. The benchmark database records no head-to-head comparisons because none exist; these products do not compete in any shared segment.