Intel Arc Pro B390 vs Intel Arc Pro B50 Comparison

Intel Arc Pro B390 and Intel Arc Pro B50 target different segments within Intel’s professional graphics lineup. The B390 is an integrated graphics processor (IGP) built for compact, power-lean systems, while the B50 is a discrete, dual-slot card with dedicated memory. Benchmark data shows the B50 holds a clear performance lead in compute and DirectX workloads, but the B390’s integrated design and higher pixel rate serve specific use cases. The recorded data indicates the B50 delivers 10.65 TFLOPS FP32 versus 7.680 TFLOPS for the B390, a gap that translates into measurable wins across most tested scenarios. However, the B390’s 60.00 GPixel/s pixel rate exceeds the B50’s 41.60 GPixel/s, suggesting advantages in fill-rate-bound tasks.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Arc Pro B50 wins decisively in raw compute and DirectX performance. Its FP32 throughput of 10.65 TFLOPS is 38.7% higher than the B390’s 7.680 TFLOPS. FP16 performance follows the same pattern: 21.30 TFLOPS for the B50 versus 15.36 TFLOPS for the B390. Texture rate also favors the B50 heavily, at 332.8 GTexel/s compared to 120.0 GTexel/s, a 2.77x advantage. These numbers indicate the B50 is better suited for shader-heavy workloads, 3D rendering, and general GPU compute.

The B50’s benchmark scores confirm this dominance. In PassMark G3D, the B50 scores 12,553 points, while its GPU compute score reaches 6,037. DirectX 11 testing yields a score of 100, with DirectX 9 at 144 and DirectX 10 at 58. The B50 also records a 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 1,604. These results place the B50 at the 17th percentile among all GPUs in the database, with an average benchmark score of 2,660.

The Intel Arc Pro B390 wins in pixel fill rate. At 60.00 GPixel/s, it outperforms the B50’s 41.60 GPixel/s by 44.2%. This advantage suggests the B390 can handle certain 2D compositing, display output, or pixel-heavy operations more efficiently despite its lower overall compute. The B390 also operates at a lower base clock of 300 MHz versus 1,700 MHz on the B50, though boost clocks are closer at 2,500 MHz versus 2,600 MHz. For systems where integrated graphics are mandatory, such as ultra-thin portables or embedded designs, the B390’s IGP nature is its primary win, requiring no separate card and consuming 80 W TDP versus 70 W for the B50.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs use distinct architectures and manufacturing processes. The B390 is built on Intel’s Xe3-LPG architecture using the Panther Lake chip, fabricated on a 3 nm process at Intel’s own foundry. The B50 uses the Xe2-HPG architecture with the BMG-G21 chip, manufactured by TSMC on a 5 nm process. The B50’s die contains 19,600 million transistors across a 272 mm² area, yielding a transistor density of 72.1M per mm². The B390’s transistor count and die size are not recorded in the database.

Core configurations differ significantly. The B50 has 2,048 shading units, 128 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 16 render output units (ROPs), along with 16 ray tracing cores. The B390 has 1,536 shading units, 48 TMUs, 24 ROPs, and 12 ray tracing cores. Despite having fewer TMUs, the B390’s higher ROP count contributes to its pixel rate advantage. The B50’s larger TMU count drives its massive texture rate lead.

Memory subsystems are fundamentally different. The B390 uses system shared memory, meaning its bandwidth is system dependent and its bus width is not fixed. The B50 has 16 GB of dedicated GDDR6 memory on a 128-bit bus, delivering 224.0 GB/s bandwidth. Memory clocks also differ: the B390 runs at system shared speeds, while the B50 operates at 1,750 MHz with 14 Gbps effective data rate. This dedicated memory gives the B50 predictable, higher-bandwidth access for large datasets.

API support is identical for both: DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The B50 uses a PCIe 5.0 x8 bus interface and is a dual-slot card measuring 167 mm in length, 69 mm in height, and 40 mm in width. The B390 is an IGP with no slot width, no power connectors, and a bus interface listed simply as IGP. Display outputs for the B390 are portable device dependent, while the B50 provides four mini-DisplayPort 2.1 connections.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher raw compute performance?

A: The B50 has higher FP32 compute at 10.65 TFLOPS versus 7.680 TFLOPS for the B390. FP16 performance is also higher on the B50 at 21.30 TFLOPS compared to 15.36 TFLOPS.

Q: How do their memory configurations differ?

A: The B50 has 16 GB of dedicated GDDR6 memory on a 128-bit bus with 224.0 GB/s bandwidth. The B390 uses system shared memory, with bandwidth listed as system dependent and no fixed bus width.

Q: Which GPU has a better pixel fill rate?

A: The B390 has a higher pixel rate at 60.00 GPixel/s, exceeding the B50’s 41.60 GPixel/s by 44.2%.

Q: What are the power requirements for each?

A: The B390 has a TDP of 80 W and requires no power connectors as an IGP. The B50 has a TDP of 70 W, also with no power connectors, but lists a suggested PSU of 250 W.

Q: How do their physical designs differ?

A: The B390 is an integrated processor with no slot width or dimensions recorded. The B50 is a dual-slot card with dimensions of 167 mm by 69 mm by 40 mm and uses a PCIe 5.0 x8 interface.

Q: What is the B50’s performance percentile ranking?

A: The B50 sits at the 17th percentile among all GPUs in the database, with an average benchmark score of 2,660.

Specification Differences

| Field | Intel Arc Pro B390 | Intel Arc Pro B50 |

| --- | --- | --- |

| Chip | Panther Lake | BMG-G21 |

| Architecture | Xe3-LPG | Xe2-HPG |

| Generation | Arc Graphics-WM (Panther Lake) | Battlemage (Pro Series) |

| Process Node | 3 nm | 5 nm |

| Foundry | Intel | TSMC |

| Transistors | unknown | 19,600 million |

| Die Size | unknown | 272 mm² |

| Transistor Density | null | 72.1M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 300 MHz | 1700 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 2500 MHz | 2600 MHz |

| Memory Clock | System Shared | 1750 MHz 14 Gbps effective |

| Memory Size | System Shared | 16 GB |

| Memory Type | System Shared | GDDR6 |

| Memory Bus Width | System Shared | 128 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | System Dependent | 224.0 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 1536 | 2048 |

| TMUs | 48 | 128 |

| ROPs | 24 | 16 |

| RT Cores | 12 | 16 |

| Pixel Rate | 60.00 GPixel/s | 41.60 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 120.0 GTexel/s | 332.8 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 7.680 TFLOPS | 10.65 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | 15.36 TFLOPS (2:1) | 21.30 TFLOPS (2:1) |

| TDP | 80 W | 70 W |

| Slot Width | IGP | Dual-slot |

| Suggested PSU | null | 250 W |

| Bus Interface | IGP | PCIe 5.0 x8 |

| Display Outputs | Portable Device Dependent | 4x mini-DisplayPort 2.1 |

| Dimensions | null | 167 mm, 69 mm, 40 mm |

| Release Date | 2026-01-26 | 2025-09-04 |

| Predecessor | HD Graphics-WM | null |

| Launch MSRP | null | 349 USD |

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The B50 dominates the recorded benchmark suite. In PassMark G3D, the B50 scores 12,553 points, a figure that places it in the 17th percentile overall. Its nearest rivals in the database include the NVIDIA GeForce GT 1030 with an average score of 2,662 (a delta of -0.1%), the NVIDIA Quadro K1100M at 2,664 (-0.2%), the NVIDIA GeForce GT 440 at 2,645 (+0.6%), and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5070 SUPER at 2,690 (-1.1%). The B50’s average benchmark score of 2,660 aligns closely with these competitors, indicating that while it leads the B390, it sits in a modest performance tier overall.

The B390 has no recorded benchmarks, average score, or nearest rivals in the database. This means the head-to-head comparison relies entirely on theoretical specifications and the B50’s measured results. The B50’s FP32 advantage of 10.65 TFLOPS against 7.680 TFLOPS represents a 38.7% lead in raw compute. Texture rate shows an even larger gap, with the B50 at 332.8 GTexel/s versus 120.0 GTexel/s, a 2.77x difference. These metrics strongly suggest the B50 would win any compute-intensive benchmark by a wide margin.

The B390’s win comes in pixel rate. At 60.00 GPixel/s, it beats the B50’s 41.60 GPixel/s by 44.2%. This is notable because the B390 has fewer shading units (1,536 versus 2,048) and fewer TMUs (48 versus 128), yet its higher ROP count (24 versus 16) enables faster pixel output. In scenarios dominated by fill rate, such as certain 2D workloads or low-resolution rendering with heavy overdraw, the B390 could post competitive results.

Memory bandwidth heavily favors the B50. With 224.0 GB/s dedicated bandwidth, the B50 avoids the system dependency that limits the B390. The B390’s bandwidth is listed as system dependent, meaning performance varies with the host platform’s memory configuration. This makes the B50’s performance more predictable in professional applications that require consistent memory access.

The Verdict

The data directs different buyers to each product. The Intel Arc Pro B50 is the choice for workloads that demand compute throughput, texture processing, and dedicated memory. Its 10.65 TFLOPS FP32, 332.8 GTexel/s texture rate, and 16 GB GDDR6 with 224.0 GB/s bandwidth make it suitable for 3D rendering, GPU compute, and DirectX-based professional applications. The recorded benchmark scores, including 12,553 in PassMark G3D and 6,037 in GPU compute, confirm its capability, even if its overall percentile ranking of 17 shows room above it in the broader GPU landscape. The B50’s launch MSRP of 349 USD positions it as a discrete entry-level professional card.

The Intel Arc Pro B390 serves a different purpose. As an IGP with no power connectors and no slot width, it fits into systems where a discrete card is impossible or undesirable. Its 80 W TDP and integrated nature suit compact devices. The B390’s 60.00 GPixel/s pixel rate is a genuine advantage, and its 3 nm process node at Intel’s foundry suggests efficiency in a small footprint. However, the lack of recorded benchmarks means its real-world performance remains unverified in the database.

For users prioritizing raw speed and memory capacity, the B50 is the clear winner. For systems requiring integrated graphics with a higher pixel fill rate, the B390 holds a specific edge. The B50’s nearest rivals, such as the NVIDIA GeForce GT 1030 at 2,662 average score, indicate it competes in a low-end discrete segment, while the B390’s role as an IGP cannot be directly compared to those discrete cards. Both products remain active in production status, with the B390 releasing on 2026-01-26 and the B50 on 2025-09-04. Choose the B50 for compute and dedicated memory, or the B390 for integrated, fill-rate-oriented graphics.