Intel Arc Pro B390 vs NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 Ti SUPER Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data contains no shared benchmark results between the Intel Arc Pro B390 and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 Ti SUPER. The database shows zero head-to-head tests, zero wins for either product, and an empty comparison list. This absence itself is informative: the two products occupy entirely separate measurement domains. The Intel Arc Pro B390 has no benchmark entries at all, while the RTX 4070 Ti SUPER carries ten distinct scores.

The RTX 4070 Ti SUPER's average benchmark score sits at 31,087, placing it in the 76th percentile of all GPUs tracked in the database. Its closest measured rival, the NVIDIA Quadro M5000, averages 31,206, a delta of -0.4%, meaning the Quadro edges past it by a hair. The NVIDIA GRID M60-1Q matches that same -0.4% delta with a 31,220 average. The NVIDIA RTX PRO 4500 Blackwell runs 1.4% ahead at 31,532, and the NVIDIA TITAN RTX leads the group by 1.9% with a 31,676 average. These deltas are tight, all within roughly two percentage points, indicating that the RTX 4070 Ti SUPER sits in a densely packed performance cluster where small architectural differences decide placement.

Diving into the individual tests, the RTX 4070 Ti SUPER shows a peak in Passmark G3D with 31,811 points, the highest single score recorded for it. Passmark GPU Compute reaches 18,372, roughly 58% of the G3D figure. Geekbench OpenCL posts 199,267, a much larger number because that test scales differently. Geekbench Vulkan lands at 53,683. The Passmark legacy suite shows 360 in DirectX 9, 278 in DirectX 11, 181 in DirectX 10, and 119 in DirectX 12. The Passmark G2D score of 1,225 reflects 2D rasterization work, a different workload entirely.

Because the Intel part has no recorded scores, relative performance cannot be quantified from the database. The percentile gap, though, is stark: the Arc Pro B390 sits at the 50th percentile, while the RTX 4070 Ti SUPER sits at the 76th. That 26-percentile gap represents a substantial positioning difference in the overall GPU landscape, even without direct test data.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different foundries, different process nodes, and different design philosophies. The Intel Arc Pro B390 uses Intel's own 3 nm process, built at Intel's foundry. The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 Ti SUPER uses a 5 nm process from TSMC. The node difference alone suggests a density advantage for Intel, though no transistor count or die size is recorded for the Arc part. The RTX 4070 Ti SUPER packs 45,900 million transistors on a 379 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 121.1 million per square millimeter. Without comparable figures for the Intel chip, the data only shows that the NVIDIA part is large and dense in absolute terms.

The Intel chip is called Panther Lake, using the Xe3-LPG architecture and belonging to the Arc Graphics-WM (Panther Lake) generation. The NVIDIA chip is AD103, using Ada Lovelace and belonging to the GeForce 40-series. The Intel part's predecessor is listed as HD Graphics-WM, while the RTX 4070 Ti SUPER's predecessor is the GeForce 30 series and its successor is the GeForce 50 series. The Intel part lists no successor.

Compute resources differ enormously. The Arc Pro B390 has 1,536 shading units, 48 TMUs, 24 ROPs, and 12 ray tracing cores. The RTX 4070 Ti SUPER has 8,448 shading units, 264 TMUs, 96 ROPs, and 66 ray tracing cores. The NVIDIA part also carries 264 tensor cores; the Intel part lists none. The shading unit ratio alone is 5.5 to 1 in NVIDIA's favor. The RTX 4070 Ti SUPER also lists 264 tensor cores, an entire class of hardware absent from the Intel specification.

Peak rates follow the same pattern. The RTX 4070 Ti SUPER delivers 44.10 TFLOPS FP32 and 44.10 TFLOPS FP16 at a 1:1 ratio. The Arc Pro B390 delivers 7.680 TFLOPS FP32 and 15.36 TFLOPS FP16 at a 2:1 ratio. The FP32 difference is roughly 5.7 times in NVIDIA's favor. Pixel rate for the RTX 4070 Ti SUPER is 250.6 GPixel/s versus 60.00 GPixel/s for the Intel part. Texture rate is 689.0 GTexel/s versus 120.0 GTexel/s.

Memory architecture is where the products diverge most fundamentally. The Intel Arc Pro B390 uses system shared memory, with no dedicated VRAM, no dedicated bus width, and bandwidth described as system dependent. The RTX 4070 Ti SUPER uses 16 GB of GDDR6X on a 256-bit bus with 672.3 GB/s of bandwidth. The NVIDIA memory clock is listed at 1313 MHz with 21 Gbps effective. The Intel part's memory clock is simply "System Shared."

Clock speeds tell a different story. The Intel part has a base clock of 300 MHz and a boost of 2500 MHz. The NVIDIA part has a base of 2340 MHz and a boost of 2610 MHz. The Intel boost clock is only 4.2% lower than NVIDIA's boost, despite the massive compute gap, which suggests the Intel chip is clocked aggressively for an integrated part.

Form factor and power draw reinforce the split. The Intel Arc Pro B390 is an IGP with no power connectors, an 80 W TDP, and a slot width listed as IGP. The RTX 4070 Ti SUPER is a triple-slot card, 310 mm long, 140 mm high, 61 mm wide, drawing 285 W with a single 16-pin connector and a suggested PSU of 600 W.

The Verdict

The data indicates two products designed for entirely different roles. The Intel Arc Pro B390 is an integrated graphics processor, built on a 3 nm node, drawing 80 W, using system shared memory, and occupying no expansion slot. The RTX 4070 Ti SUPER is a dedicated triple-slot add-in board with 16 GB of dedicated GDDR6X, a 285 W TDP, and a 600 W PSU recommendation.

The benchmark data only covers the RTX 4070 Ti SUPER, which lands at the 76th percentile with an average score of 31,087. The Intel part sits at the 50th percentile with no recorded average score. In compute terms, the RTX 4070 Ti SUPER delivers 44.10 TFLOPS FP32 versus 7.680 TFLOPS for the Arc Pro B390, a 5.7-fold difference. Memory bandwidth is 672.3 GB/s versus system dependent. Shading units, TMUs, ROPs, and RT cores all massively favor NVIDIA.

For users needing the raw throughput of a dedicated GPU, the RTX 4070 Ti SUPER is the only option with measured performance data. For systems requiring an integrated solution with no add-in card, the Arc Pro B390 fits that constraint, but the recorded specifications show it operates at a fraction of the NVIDIA part's compute and memory capabilities. The 50th percentile placement for Intel versus 76th for NVIDIA, combined with the absence of any Intel benchmark scores, means the database cannot confirm any workload where the Intel part wins.

FAQ

Q: What is the average benchmark score for each GPU?

A: The RTX 4070 Ti SUPER has an average benchmark score of 31,087. The Arc Pro B390 has an average benchmark score of 0, with no recorded benchmark entries.

Q: How do the GPUs compare in FP32 compute?

A: The RTX 4070 Ti SUPER delivers 44.10 TFLOPS FP32. The Arc Pro B390 delivers 7.680 TFLOPS FP32, roughly 5.7 times less.

Q: What memory configurations do the two GPUs use?

A: The RTX 4070 Ti SUPER uses 16 GB of GDDR6X on a 256-bit bus with 672.3 GB/s bandwidth. The Arc Pro B390 uses system shared memory, with system dependent bandwidth.

Q: What are the TDP and power connector requirements?

A: The RTX 4070 Ti SUPER has a 285 W TDP with a 1x 16-pin power connector and a 600 W suggested PSU. The Arc Pro B390 has an 80 W TDP and no power connectors.

Q: Which GPU has more shading units and ray tracing cores?

A: The RTX 4070 Ti SUPER has 8,448 shading units and 66 RT cores. The Arc Pro B390 has 1,536 shading units and 12 RT cores.

Q: What process nodes do the two chips use?

A: The Arc Pro B390 uses Intel's 3 nm process. The RTX 4070 Ti SUPER uses TSMC's 5 nm process.

Where Each One Wins

The RTX 4070 Ti SUPER wins in every quantified category in the database. FP32 compute: 44.10 TFLOPS versus 7.680 TFLOPS. FP16 compute: 44.10 TFLOPS versus 15.36 TFLOPS. Pixel rate: 250.6 GPixel/s versus 60.00 GPixel/s. Texture rate: 689.0 GTexel/s versus 120.0 GTexel/s. Memory bandwidth: 672.3 GB/s versus system dependent. Shading units, TMUs, ROPs, RT cores, and tensor cores all favor NVIDIA. The RTX 4070 Ti SUPER's 76th percentile placement against the Arc Pro B390's 50th percentile confirms its higher standing in the overall GPU distribution.

The Arc Pro B390 wins in power efficiency and physical footprint. Its 80 W TDP is 205 W lower than the RTX 4070 Ti SUPER's 285 W. It requires no power connectors, no expansion slot, and no dedicated PSU recommendation. It is listed as an IGP, meaning it integrates into the processor rather than occupying a PCIe slot. Its base clock of 300 MHz is much lower than NVIDIA's 2340 MHz, but its boost clock of 2500 MHz nearly matches NVIDIA's 2610 MHz, indicating the Intel part can reach competitive clock speeds when needed. The 3 nm process node is smaller than NVIDIA's 5 nm node, which may contribute to its lower power draw, though no transistor or die size data exists for the Intel chip.

For portable or embedded scenarios where the GPU must share system memory and draw minimal power, the Arc Pro B390 fits a role the RTX 4070 Ti SUPER cannot fill. The RTX 4070 Ti SUPER, at 310 mm long and 61 mm wide, is a physically large triple-slot card; the Arc Pro B390 takes no add-in card space at all.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ in nearly every recorded specification field.

Process node: Intel 3 nm versus TSMC 5 nm. Foundry: Intel versus TSMC. Transistor count: unknown versus 45,900 million. Die size: unknown versus 379 mm². Transistor density: not listed versus 121.1M per mm².

Base clock: 300 MHz versus 2340 MHz. Boost clock: 2500 MHz versus 2610 MHz. Memory clock: System Shared versus 1313 MHz with 21 Gbps effective.

Memory size: System Shared versus 16 GB. Memory type: System Shared versus GDDR6X. Bus width: System Shared versus 256 bit. Bandwidth: System Dependent versus 672.3 GB/s.

Shading units: 1,536 versus 8,448. TMUs: 48 versus 264. ROPs: 24 versus 96. RT cores: 12 versus 66. Tensor cores: none listed versus 264.

Pixel rate: 60.00 GPixel/s versus 250.6 GPixel/s. Texture rate: 120.0 GTexel/s versus 689.0 GTexel/s. FP32: 7.680 TFLOPS versus 44.10 TFLOPS. FP16: 15.36 TFLOPS versus 44.10 TFLOPS.

TDP: 80 W versus 285 W. Slot width: IGP versus triple-slot. Power connectors: None versus 1x 16-pin. Suggested PSU: not listed versus 600 W. Bus interface: IGP versus PCIe 4.0 x16.

Display outputs: Portable Device Dependent versus 1x HDMI 2.1 and 3x DisplayPort 1.4a. Dimensions: not listed versus 310 mm length, 140 mm height, 61 mm width.

Release date: 2026-01-26 versus 2024-01-23. Production status: Active versus End-of-life. Predecessor: HD Graphics-WM versus GeForce 30. Successor: none listed versus GeForce 50. Launch MSRP: not listed versus 799 USD.

Both support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. Both list no game clock. The Intel part uses the Xe3-LPG architecture with the Panther Lake chip; the NVIDIA part uses Ada Lovelace with the AD103 chip.