Intel Arc Pro B390 vs NVIDIA B300 Comparison

FAQ

Q: What are the two GPUs compared in this analysis?

A: The Intel Arc Pro B390, an integrated graphics processor based on the Panther Lake chip, and the NVIDIA B300, a server-class accelerator built on the GB110 chip.

Q: Which GPU has the higher boost clock speed?

A: The Intel Arc Pro B390 has a boost clock of 2500 MHz, while the NVIDIA B300 boosts to 2032 MHz.

Q: How do the memory configurations differ?

A: The Intel Arc Pro B390 uses system-shared memory with bandwidth described as system dependent, while the NVIDIA B300 features 144 GB of HBM3e memory on a 4096-bit bus with 4.10 TB/s of bandwidth.

Q: What are the thermal design power ratings for each?

A: The Intel Arc Pro B390 has a TDP of 80 W, while the NVIDIA B300 has a TDP of 1400 W.

Q: Which GPU has more shading units?

A: The NVIDIA B300 has 18,944 shading units, compared to 1,536 for the Intel Arc Pro B390.

Q: What is the production status of both GPUs?

A: Both the Intel Arc Pro B390 and the NVIDIA B300 are listed as Active in production status.

Architecture Differences

The Intel Arc Pro B390 and NVIDIA B300 represent fundamentally different approaches to GPU design. The Intel part is built on the Xe3-LPG architecture, implemented on a 3 nm process node from Intel's own foundry. It belongs to the Arc Graphics-WM generation for Panther Lake. The NVIDIA B300 uses the Blackwell Ultra architecture, fabricated on a 5 nm process at TSMC, and belongs to the Server Blackwell generation.

Transistor counts reveal a massive scale disparity. The NVIDIA B300 integrates 104,000 million transistors, while the transistor count for the Intel Arc Pro B390 is unknown. This difference in scale carries through to every compute resource. The Intel GPU has 1,536 shading units, 48 texture mapping units, and 24 ROPs. The NVIDIA B300 has 18,944 shading units, 592 TMUs, and 24 ROPs. Both GPUs have 24 ROPs, but the NVIDIA part has roughly 12 times the shading units and 12 times the TMUs.

Ray tracing and tensor resources differ in kind as well. The Intel Arc Pro B390 has 12 dedicated ray tracing cores, while the NVIDIA B300 does not list a ray tracing core count. Conversely, the NVIDIA B300 features 592 tensor cores, while the Intel part has no tensor core listing. This reflects their target workloads: the Intel part serves integrated graphics duties, while the NVIDIA part is a server accelerator where tensor performance matters.

The NVIDIA B300 uses HBM3e memory in a 144 GB configuration with a 4096-bit bus and 4.10 TB/s of bandwidth. The Intel Arc Pro B390 uses system-shared memory with no dedicated VRAM, relying on the host system's memory. Memory clocks also differ: the Intel part lists system shared memory clock, while the NVIDIA B300 runs at 2000 MHz with 8 Gbps effective.

Power delivery and physical form factor separate these products completely. The Intel Arc Pro B390 has an 80 W TDP, uses an IGP slot interface, and requires no power connectors. The NVIDIA B300 has a 1400 W TDP, ships as an SXM Module, and requires a suggested PSU of 1800 W. The Intel part has no dedicated display outputs beyond what the portable device provides, while the NVIDIA B300 has no display outputs at all. API support also differs: the Intel part supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, while the NVIDIA B300 lists no API support in the database.

Release timing shows the Intel part launched later, with a release date of 2026-01-26, while the NVIDIA B300 launched on 2025-09-10. The Intel predecessor is HD Graphics-WM, and the NVIDIA predecessor is Server Hopper with a successor listed as Server Rubin.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data contains no head-to-head benchmark entries for the Intel Arc Pro B390 and NVIDIA B300. Both GPUs have an average benchmark score of zero and a percentile ranking of 50 against all GPUs. The wins counter shows zero for each side. This means the comparative performance picture must be drawn from the architectural specifications rather than direct measured results.

The raw compute figures show substantial differences. The Intel Arc Pro B390 delivers 7.680 TFLOPS of FP32 performance. The NVIDIA B300 delivers 76.99 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, which is ten times higher. In FP16 compute, the Intel part reaches 15.36 TFLOPS with a 2:1 ratio, while the NVIDIA B300 reaches 1,231.8 TFLOPS with a 16:1 ratio. The NVIDIA part holds an enormous lead in both precision formats, though the ratios reveal different design priorities: Intel uses a straightforward 2:1 FP16 ratio, while NVIDIA's 16:1 ratio indicates a much more aggressive rate for reduced precision work.

Texture and pixel throughput follow a similar pattern. The Intel Arc Pro B390 achieves a texture rate of 120.0 GTexel/s and a pixel rate of 60.00 GPixel/s. The NVIDIA B300 achieves a texture rate of 1,202.9 GTexel/s, which is roughly ten times higher, and a pixel rate of 48.77 GPixel/s. Interestingly, the Intel part has a higher pixel rate despite its smaller overall footprint. The ROP count is identical at 24, but the Intel GPU's higher boost clock of 2500 MHz against 2032 MHz contributes to its pixel throughput advantage.

Clock behavior shows an unusual split. The Intel Arc Pro B390 has a base clock of 300 MHz and boosts to 2500 MHz, a substantial relative boost range. The NVIDIA B300 has a base clock of 1665 MHz and boosts to 2032 MHz, a much tighter frequency range. In real-world terms, the Intel part's high boost clock helps it reach competitive pixel rates despite having fewer execution resources.

The memory bandwidth comparison is one-sided. The Intel Arc Pro B390 depends on system-shared memory with bandwidth described as "System Dependent," meaning its effective throughput varies by host platform. The NVIDIA B300 has a fixed 4.10 TB/s of bandwidth from its HBM3e stack. For memory-intensive server workloads, the NVIDIA part's dedicated high-bandwidth memory is a decisive advantage, while the Intel part's bandwidth cannot be stated as a fixed number because it changes with the system.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ in nearly every measured specification. The process node: Intel uses 3 nm, NVIDIA uses 5 nm. The foundry: Intel fab for the Arc Pro B390, TSMC for the B300. The chip: Panther Lake versus GB110. The architectures: Xe3-LPG versus Blackwell Ultra.

Compute resources differ sharply. Shading units: 1,536 versus 18,944. TMUs: 48 versus 592. ROPs: both 24. Ray tracing cores: 12 on the Intel part, not listed on the NVIDIA part. Tensor cores: not listed on the Intel part, 592 on the NVIDIA part.

Clock speeds: the Intel Arc Pro B390 runs at 300 MHz base and 2500 MHz boost, while the NVIDIA B300 runs at 1665 MHz base and 2032 MHz boost. Memory: system shared for Intel versus 144 GB HBM3e for NVIDIA. Memory bus: system shared versus 4096 bit. Memory bandwidth: system dependent versus 4.10 TB/s.

Performance figures: FP32 is 7.680 TFLOPS versus 76.99 TFLOPS. FP16 is 15.36 TFLOPS (2:1) versus 1,231.8 TFLOPS (16:1). Pixel rate: 60.00 GPixel/s versus 48.77 GPixel/s. Texture rate: 120.0 GTexel/s versus 1,202.9 GTexel/s.

Power and physical specifications: TDP of 80 W versus 1400 W. Slot width: IGP versus SXM Module. Power connectors: none versus not listed. Suggested PSU: not listed versus 1800 W. Bus interface: IGP versus PCIe 5.0 x16. Display outputs: portable device dependent versus no outputs.

API support: the Intel part lists DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, while the NVIDIA part lists none. Release dates: 2026-01-26 for Intel, 2025-09-10 for NVIDIA. The Intel predecessor is HD Graphics-WM, while the NVIDIA predecessor is Server Hopper and its successor is Server Rubin.

The Verdict

The data describes two products with almost no overlap in purpose. The Intel Arc Pro B390 is an integrated GPU with an 80 W TDP, system-shared memory, and no power connectors. The NVIDIA B300 is a 1400 W server accelerator with 144 GB of HBM3e memory, a suggested 1800 W PSU, and an SXM Module form factor.

Performance figures place the NVIDIA B300 far ahead in raw compute. Its FP32 throughput of 76.99 TFLOPS is ten times the Intel Arc Pro B390's 7.680 TFLOPS. Its FP16 throughput of 1,231.8 TFLOPS is roughly 80 times the Intel part's 15.36 TFLOPS. Its texture rate of 1,202.9 GTexel/s is ten times higher. Its memory bandwidth of 4.10 TB/s is fixed and dedicated, whereas the Intel part's bandwidth is system dependent.

The Intel Arc Pro B390 does hold specific advantages in the recorded data. Its pixel rate of 60.00 GPixel/s exceeds the NVIDIA B300's 48.77 GPixel/s. Its boost clock of 2500 MHz is higher than 2032 MHz. Its power draw of 80 W is dramatically lower than 1400 W. Its API support includes DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, while the NVIDIA part lists no APIs. For systems that require integrated graphics with broad API compatibility and minimal power draw, the Intel part is the only viable choice between these two.

The NVIDIA B300 serves workloads that demand massive compute throughput, high-bandwidth dedicated memory, and tensor processing. Its 592 tensor cores, 18,944 shading units, and 4.10 TB/s memory bandwidth position it for server compute tasks. Its lack of display outputs and API listings confirm it is not intended for client graphics.

The absence of head-to-head benchmark results means direct performance comparisons cannot be drawn from measured data. The specification sheet alone, however, shows a clear division: the Intel Arc Pro B390 is an integrated graphics solution for portable systems, while the NVIDIA B300 is a server accelerator with ten times the FP32 throughput, 80 times the FP16 throughput, and a power envelope 17.5 times larger. Buyers should select based on the workload class, since no single metric in the database suggests these products compete for the same socket, chassis, or application.