Intel Arc Pro B390 vs NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 AD103 Comparison

The Verdict

The data positions the Intel Arc Pro B390 and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 AD103 in entirely different segments. The Arc Pro B390 is an integrated graphics processor (IGP) built for the Panther Lake mobile platform, while the RTX 4070 AD103 is a discrete, dual-slot add-in board. For any user needing dedicated rendering power, the RTX 4070 AD103 is the clear choice based on raw specifications. The Arc Pro B390 serves a specific purpose: it is for systems where a separate graphics card is neither possible nor desired, as it shares system memory and requires no power connectors. The RTX 4070 AD103, with its 12 GB of dedicated GDDR6X memory and 29.15 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, is for workloads that demand sustained high throughput. The Arc Pro B390, with 7.680 TFLOPS, is for basic acceleration in a compact, low-power integrated package. The production status confirms this split: the Arc Pro B390 is Active, while the RTX 4070 AD103 is End-of-life. The recorded data shows no benchmark scores for either part, so the verdict relies entirely on architectural and specification analysis.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different design philosophies and manufacturing processes. The Intel Arc Pro B390 uses the Xe3-LPG architecture on a 3 nm process node, fabricated by Intel itself. The chip is called Panther Lake, and it belongs to the Arc Graphics-WM generation. In contrast, the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 AD103 uses the Ada Lovelace architecture on a 5 nm process node, fabricated by TSMC. The NVIDIA part has a transistor count of 45,900 million on a die size of 379 mm², yielding a transistor density of 121.1M per mm². The Intel part lists its transistor count and die size as unknown, so no direct comparison of those figures is possible from the database.

The compute resources differ dramatically. The Arc Pro B390 has 1,536 shading units, 48 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 24 raster operation units (ROPs). It also includes 12 ray tracing cores. The RTX 4070 AD103 has 5,888 shading units, 184 TMUs, and 64 ROPs, along with 46 ray tracing cores and 184 tensor cores. The NVIDIA part also supports FP16 at a 1:1 ratio with FP32, delivering 29.15 TFLOPS for both, while the Intel part delivers 15.36 TFLOPS FP16 at a 2:1 ratio relative to its FP32. The memory architecture is fundamentally different: the Intel part uses System Shared memory with system-dependent bandwidth, while the NVIDIA part uses 12 GB of GDDR6X on a 192-bit bus with 504.2 GB/s of bandwidth. The bus interface also differs, with the Intel part using an IGP interface and the NVIDIA part using PCIe 4.0 x16. Both support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has a higher boost clock?

A: The Intel Arc Pro B390 has a boost clock of 2500 MHz, while the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 AD103 has a boost clock of 2475 MHz.

Q: What is the power consumption difference?

A: The Intel Arc Pro B390 has a TDP of 80 W, while the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 AD103 has a TDP of 200 W. The NVIDIA part also has a suggested power supply of 550 W, while the Intel part has no power connectors.

Q: Do both GPUs support the same graphics APIs?

A: Yes, both support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4.

Q: What memory type does each GPU use?

A: The Intel Arc Pro B390 uses System Shared memory, while the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 AD103 uses 12 GB of GDDR6X memory.

Q: Which GPU has more shading units?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 AD103 has 5,888 shading units, while the Intel Arc Pro B390 has 1,536 shading units.

Q: What is the release date for each product?

A: The Intel Arc Pro B390 was released on 2026-01-26, and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 AD103 was released on 2024-02-29.

Specification Differences

The database records the following differing fields between the two parts. The Intel Arc Pro B390 has a base clock of 300 MHz and a boost clock of 2500 MHz. The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 AD103 has a base clock of 1920 MHz and a boost clock of 2475 MHz. The Intel part's memory clock is listed as System Shared, while the NVIDIA part's memory clock is 1313 MHz with 21 Gbps effective. Memory size, type, bus width, and bandwidth all differ: System Shared versus 12 GB GDDR6X, System Shared versus 192-bit, and System Dependent versus 504.2 GB/s, respectively.

The compute units differ: the Intel part has 1,536 shading units, 48 TMUs, 24 ROPs, and 12 ray tracing cores, with no tensor cores listed. The NVIDIA part has 5,888 shading units, 184 TMUs, 64 ROPs, 46 ray tracing cores, and 184 tensor cores. Pixel rate and texture rate also differ: 60.00 GPixel/s versus 158.4 GPixel/s, and 120.0 GTexel/s versus 455.4 GTexel/s. FP32 performance is 7.680 TFLOPS versus 29.15 TFLOPS. FP16 performance is 15.36 TFLOPS (2:1) versus 29.15 TFLOPS (1:1). TDP is 80 W versus 200 W. Slot width is IGP versus Dual-slot. Power connectors are None versus 1x 16-pin. Suggested PSU is not listed for the Intel part, versus 550 W for the NVIDIA part. Bus interface is IGP versus PCIe 4.0 x16. Display outputs are Portable Device Dependent versus 1x HDMI 2.1 and 3x DisplayPort 1.4a. Dimensions are not listed for the Intel part, while the NVIDIA part measures 240 mm in length, 110 mm in height, and 40 mm in width. Production status is Active versus End-of-life. Release dates differ, and the predecessor and successor fields also differ, with the Intel part listing HD Graphics-WM as predecessor and none as successor, while the NVIDIA part lists GeForce 30 as predecessor and GeForce 50 as successor.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains no head-to-head benchmark entries for these two products, and neither part has any individual benchmark scores recorded. The winsA and winsB counters are both zero. Consequently, no direct performance measurements exist to compare. The analysis must rely on the specification differences to project relative performance. The recorded data shows the NVIDIA part has 3.8 times the shading units of the Intel part (5,888 versus 1,536). The texture rate is 455.4 GTexel/s versus 120.0 GTexel/s, a 3.8x advantage. The pixel rate is 158.4 GPixel/s versus 60.00 GPixel/s, a 2.6x advantage. FP32 throughput is 29.15 TFLOPS versus 7.680 TFLOPS, a 3.8x advantage. Memory bandwidth is 504.2 GB/s versus system-dependent, which is not directly quantifiable but is a structural advantage for the discrete part. The NVIDIA part also has 46 ray tracing cores versus 12, and 184 tensor cores versus none listed for the Intel part.

The boost clocks are nearly identical, with the Intel part at 2500 MHz and the NVIDIA part at 2475 MHz, a 25 MHz difference. This suggests that the performance gap is driven by the much larger execution resource pool in the NVIDIA part rather than clock speed. The base clocks differ substantially, with the NVIDIA part at 1920 MHz versus 300 MHz for the Intel part, which indicates different power management characteristics. The Intel part is designed for low power draw at 80 W, while the NVIDIA part draws 200 W. The data indicates that the NVIDIA part will deliver significantly higher throughput in any compute or graphics workload that can utilize its larger resource pool, but the Intel part offers this capability at a fraction of the power envelope.

Where Each One Wins

Based strictly on the recorded data, the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 AD103 wins in every measurable performance category. It has higher shading unit count, TMU count, ROP count, ray tracing core count, and tensor core count. Its FP32 performance is 3.8x higher, its texture rate is 3.8x higher, and its pixel rate is 2.6x higher. It has dedicated 12 GB GDDR6X memory with 504.2 GB/s bandwidth, which is a decisive advantage over the system-shared memory of the Intel part. Its dual-slot form factor and PCIe 4.0 x16 interface allow it to be installed in a standard desktop system with a 550 W power supply. It supports 1x HDMI 2.1 and 3x DisplayPort 1.4a outputs, making it suitable for multi-monitor desktop setups. The RTX 4070 AD103 is the choice for any workload that demands maximum throughput: high-resolution rendering, ray-traced effects, tensor-accelerated tasks, and large texture datasets.

The Intel Arc Pro B390 wins in the categories of power consumption and integration. Its 80 W TDP is 120 W lower than the NVIDIA part's 200 W TDP. It has no power connectors and uses an IGP bus interface, meaning it draws power from the host platform and requires no additional cabling. Its slot width is listed as IGP, so it does not occupy an expansion slot. Its display outputs are Portable Device Dependent, which positions it for laptops and compact mobile devices. Its base clock of 300 MHz and boost clock of 2500 MHz indicate a wide dynamic range for power saving under light load and maximum performance when needed. The Intel part also uses a 3 nm process node, which is smaller than the 5 nm node used by the NVIDIA part, suggesting a more advanced manufacturing process for the integrated design. For a mobile platform where a discrete GPU cannot be installed, the Arc Pro B390 provides 7.680 TFLOPS of FP32 compute, 12 ray tracing cores, and support for DirectX 12 Ultimate, which covers modern graphics APIs. The data shows that the Arc Pro B390 is the appropriate choice for an integrated, low-power system, while the RTX 4070 AD103 is the appropriate choice for a dedicated high-performance desktop configuration.