Intel Arc Pro B390 vs NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 Max-Q Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The recorded data for the Intel Arc Pro B390 and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 Max-Q shows a fundamental split in capability profile, though neither part registers a quantitative win in the head-to-head benchmark matrix, which is empty. The differentiation must therefore be drawn from the architectural and specification records.

The Intel Arc Pro B390 is built on the Panther Lake chip with the Xe3-LPG architecture, fabricated on an Intel 3 nm node. It operates as an integrated graphics processor with system-shared memory, meaning its memory size, bus width, and bandwidth are all listed as "System Shared" or "System Dependent." This part is designed to operate within the power envelope of an 80 W TDP, which is unusually high for an IGP but still below the dedicated adapter class. Its boost clock reaches 2500 MHz from a 300 MHz base, and it delivers 7.680 TFLOPS of FP32 compute, 15.36 TFLOPS of FP16 (2:1 ratio), a pixel rate of 60.00 GPixel/s, and a texture rate of 120.0 GTexel/s. It carries 1536 shading units, 48 TMUs, 24 ROPs, and 12 ray tracing cores. Its FP16 throughput is double its FP32 throughput, indicating a strong bias toward workloads that can exploit packed math.

The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 Max-Q is a mobile discrete GPU based on the AD106 chip with Ada Lovelace architecture, fabricated on a 5 nm TSMC node. It uses 8 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 128-bit bus with 256.0 GB/s of bandwidth. Its base clock is 735 MHz with a boost of 1230 MHz, and memory runs at 2000 MHz with 16 Gbps effective. The part has 4608 shading units, 144 TMUs, 48 ROPs, 36 RT cores, and 144 tensor cores. Its FP32 throughput is 11.34 TFLOPS, and its FP16 throughput is also 11.34 TFLOPS (1:1 ratio), meaning it does not double FP16 rate. Pixel rate is 59.04 GPixel/s and texture rate is 177.1 GTexel/s. The TDP is recorded at 35 W, and it connects via PCIe 4.0 x8.

Where each one wins is a matter of resource allocation. The RTX 4070 Max-Q wins on raw shading throughput, texture rate, memory capacity, memory bandwidth, and specialized tensor core count. The Arc Pro B390 wins on clock speed, FP16 compute rate, pixel fill rate by a narrow margin, and power envelope flexibility in the sense that it is an integrated solution with no separate memory bus constraints. The Intel part also has a higher boost clock by a wide margin, 2500 MHz versus 1230 MHz, and its FP16 figure exceeds the NVIDIA part by roughly 35%. However, the RTX 4070 Max-Q has three times the shading units, three times the TMUs, double the ROPs, three times the RT cores, and a far larger memory subsystem.

The Verdict

The data indicates that the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 Max-Q is the stronger compute and graphics part across nearly every measured resource. Its FP32 peak of 11.34 TFLOPS is approximately 48% higher than the Intel Arc Pro B390's 7.680 TFLOPS. Its texture rate of 177.1 GTexel/s is about 48% higher than Intel's 120.0 GTexel/s. Its memory bandwidth of 256.0 GB/s is fixed and substantial, while the Intel part has no independent memory bandwidth figure at all, since it relies on system memory. The RTX 4070 Max-Q also carries 144 tensor cores, a feature class entirely absent from the Intel record.

The Intel Arc Pro B390 does hold specific advantages. Its FP16 throughput of 15.36 TFLOPS exceeds the RTX 4070 Max-Q's 11.34 TFLOPS, a margin of about 35%. Its pixel rate of 60.00 GPixel/s is marginally higher than the NVIDIA part's 59.04 GPixel/s. Its boost clock of 2500 MHz dwarfs the NVIDIA boost of 1230 MHz, suggesting lower occupancy per clock but a much faster clocked core. It is also an integrated processor with no power connector and a 3 nm process, while the RTX 4070 Max-Q is a discrete chip with a 5 nm process.

The verdict from the database is straightforward: the RTX 4070 Max-Q is the higher-performing GPU for conventional rasterization, ray tracing, and tensor-accelerated workloads. The Arc Pro B390 is a specialized integrated part that offers competitive FP16 throughput and a high pixel rate, but it lacks the memory bandwidth, shading unit count, and dedicated tensor hardware of the NVIDIA part. Users constrained to an integrated solution would use the Arc Pro B390, but the RTX 4070 Max-Q is the superior adapter on the recorded specifications.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head benchmark array is empty, so no direct measured performance deltas exist in the database. The comparison must be constructed from the specification records. The biggest wins for the RTX 4070 Max-Q are in shading throughput, texture throughput, memory bandwidth, and ray tracing resources. It has 4608 shading units versus 1536, a 3x advantage. Its 144 TMUs triple Intel's 48. Its 36 RT cores triple Intel's 12. Its 144 tensor cores have no counterpart in the Intel part. Its FP32 peak of 11.34 TFLOPS is about 48% higher than 7.680 TFLOPS. Its texture rate of 177.1 GTexel/s is about 48% higher than 120.0 GTexel/s. Its memory bandwidth of 256.0 GB/s is a fixed quantity, while the Intel part has no fixed bandwidth figure, instead being system dependent.

The biggest wins for the Intel Arc Pro B390 are in FP16 throughput, pixel fill rate, clock speed, and process node. Its FP16 figure of 15.36 TFLOPS is about 35% higher than the NVIDIA part's 11.34 TFLOPS. Its pixel rate of 60.00 GPixel/s edges out the NVIDIA part's 59.04 GPixel/s by about 1.6%. Its boost clock of 2500 MHz is more than double the RTX 4070 Max-Q's 1230 MHz. Its base clock of 300 MHz is lower than NVIDIA's 735 MHz, but the boost delta is enormous. The Intel part is also on a 3 nm process versus 5 nm, and it uses system-shared memory, which eliminates the discrete memory bus entirely.

Power consumption is another split. The RTX 4070 Max-Q is recorded at 35 W TDP, while the Intel Arc Pro B390 is recorded at 80 W TDP. This is counterintuitive given the NVIDIA part's higher compute throughput; the RTX 4070 Max-Q delivers 11.34 TFLOPS at 35 W, while the Intel part delivers 7.680 TFLOPS at 80 W. The efficiency comparison favors NVIDIA by a wide margin in FP32 per watt. In FP16, the Intel part delivers 15.36 TFLOPS at 80 W, which is 0.192 TFLOPS per watt, while the NVIDIA part delivers 11.34 TFLOPS at 35 W, which is 0.324 TFLOPS per watt. NVIDIA still leads in FP16 efficiency despite the Intel part's higher absolute FP16 rate.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher FP32 compute?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 Max-Q has 11.34 TFLOPS of FP32, which is about 48% higher than the Intel Arc Pro B390's 7.680 TFLOPS.

Q: Does the Intel Arc Pro B390 have any performance advantage over the RTX 4070 Max-Q?

A: Yes. Its FP16 throughput is 15.36 TFLOPS versus 11.34 TFLOPS, a roughly 35% advantage. Its pixel rate of 60.00 GPixel/s is slightly higher than the NVIDIA part's 59.04 GPixel/s, and its boost clock of 2500 MHz is more than double the NVIDIA boost clock of 1230 MHz.

Q: How much memory does the RTX 4070 Max-Q have and what is its bandwidth?

A: It has 8 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 128-bit bus with 256.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The Intel Arc Pro B390 uses system-shared memory with no fixed capacity or bandwidth.

Q: What are the ray tracing resources of each GPU?

A: The RTX 4070 Max-Q has 36 RT cores, while the Intel Arc Pro B390 has 12 RT cores. The NVIDIA part has three times the RT core count.

Q: Which GPU has tensor cores?

A: Only the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 Max-Q has tensor cores, with 144 in total. The Intel Arc Pro B390 record does not list any tensor cores.

Q: What is the TDP of each part?

A: The Intel Arc Pro B390 is rated at 80 W, while the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 Max-Q is rated at 35 W. Neither requires a power connector, and both are classified as IGP slot width.

Architecture Differences

The Intel Arc Pro B390 uses the Panther Lake chip with Xe3-LPG architecture, built on an Intel 3 nm process at Intel's foundry. The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 Max-Q uses the AD106 chip with Ada Lovelace architecture, built on a 5 nm TSMC process. The transistor counts differ significantly: the NVIDIA part has 22,900 million transistors on a 188 mm² die, with a transistor density of 121.8M per mm². The Intel part's transistor count and die size are listed as unknown, so no density comparison is possible.

The memory architecture is a major divergence. The Intel Arc Pro B390 uses system-shared memory for both capacity and bus width, with bandwidth listed as system dependent. The RTX 4070 Max-Q uses 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus with a fixed 256.0 GB/s bandwidth. The NVIDIA part connects via PCIe 4.0 x8, while the Intel part uses an IGP bus interface.

The compute resources differ in scale and type. The Intel part has 1536 shading units, 48 TMUs, 24 ROPs, and 12 RT cores. The NVIDIA part has 4608 shading units, 144 TMUs, 48 ROPs, 36 RT cores, and 144 tensor cores. The NVIDIA part has three times the shading units, three times the TMUs, double the ROPs, three times the RT cores, and the only tensor core array. The Intel part has no tensor cores in its record.

Clock behavior also differs. The Intel part has a 300 MHz base and 2500 MHz boost, while the NVIDIA part has a 735 MHz base and 1230 MHz boost. The Intel part's boost clock is more than double the NVIDIA part's, but the NVIDIA part starts from a higher base. FP16 throughput is handled differently: the Intel part doubles FP16 to 15.36 TFLOPS from its 7.680 TFLOPS FP32, while the NVIDIA part maintains a 1:1 ratio at 11.34 TFLOPS for both. This indicates the Intel architecture is optimized for packed math, while the NVIDIA architecture treats FP16 and FP32 with equal throughput.

Both parts support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. Both are classified as IGP slot width with no power connectors and portable device dependent display outputs. The RTX 4070 Max-Q was released in the GeForce 40 Mobile generation with a predecessor of GeForce 30 Mobile and a successor of GeForce 50 Mobile. The Arc Pro B390 was released in the Arc Graphics-WM generation with a predecessor of HD Graphics-WM. The NVIDIA part is manufactured by TSMC, while the Intel part is manufactured by Intel. The process node difference, 3 nm versus 5 nm, favors Intel in lithography, but the NVIDIA part compensates with a vastly larger transistor count and dedicated memory subsystem.