Intel Arc Pro B390 vs NVIDIA H100 CNX Comparison

# Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Intel Arc Pro B390 and NVIDIA H100 CNX occupy opposite ends of the GPU spectrum, and the recorded data reflects that divide clearly. The H100 CNX delivers 53.84 TFLOPS of FP32 compute, which is 7.0 times the 7.680 TFLOPS offered by the Arc Pro B390. In FP16 workloads, the gap widens further: the H100 CNX reaches 215.4 TFLOPS (4:1 ratio) versus 15.36 TFLOPS (2:1 ratio) for the Intel part, a 14.0x advantage.

Texture throughput tells a similar story. The NVIDIA card processes 841.3 GTexel/s compared to 120.0 GTexel/s on the Intel chip, a 7.0x margin. Pixel rate is the one metric where the Intel part actually leads: 60.00 GPixel/s versus 44.28 GPixel/s for the H100 CNX. This 35.5% advantage comes from the Arc Pro B390's higher boost clock of 2500 MHz against 1845 MHz on the NVIDIA part, combined with the same 24 ROPs on both chips.

The H100 CNX counters with a base clock of 690 MHz versus 300 MHz on the Arc Pro B390, but the Intel part's boost behavior compensates substantially. Memory bandwidth is the most lopsided comparison in the entire dataset: the H100 CNX offers 2.04 TB/s across a 5120-bit HBM2e interface, while the Arc Pro B390 relies on system shared memory with bandwidth described as system dependent. The 80 GB of HBM2e on the NVIDIA card dwarfs the shared memory approach of the Intel chip.

# Where Each One Wins

The data shows the NVIDIA H100 CNX wins decisively in raw compute throughput, texture processing, and memory capacity. Its 53.84 TFLOPS FP32 and 215.4 TFLOPS FP16 figures position it for heavy parallel workloads such as large-scale scientific simulation, AI training, and data center inference tasks. The 80 GB HBM2e pool with 2.04 TB/s bandwidth supports massive datasets that cannot fit in the shared memory architecture of the Intel part. The 456 tensor cores further reinforce this specialization in matrix mathematics.

The Intel Arc Pro B390 wins in pixel throughput with 60.00 GPixel/s, a 35.5% advantage over the H100 CNX's 44.28 GPixel/s. This suggests the Intel chip handles rasterization-heavy tasks, particularly at lower resolutions where pixel fill rate becomes a limiting factor. The Arc Pro B390 also draws far less power at 80 W TDP versus 350 W for the H100 CNX, making it suitable for integrated graphics deployments where cooling and power delivery are constrained. Its 12 RT cores provide hardware ray tracing support, a feature absent from the H100 CNX entirely.

The Intel part also wins on API compatibility in the consumer sense. It supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, whereas the NVIDIA card lists no DirectX, OpenGL, or Vulkan support in the database. This makes the Arc Pro B390 viable for client-side rendering and workstation graphics, while the H100 CNX is clearly a compute-first accelerator with no display outputs.

# Architecture Differences

The Intel Arc Pro B390 uses the Xe3-LPG architecture built on Intel's 3 nm process node, packing 1536 shading units, 48 TMUs, 24 ROPs, and 12 RT cores into an integrated graphics processor. The chip is codenamed Panther Lake and belongs to the Arc Graphics-WM generation. It operates with a base clock of 300 MHz and a boost clock of 2500 MHz.

The NVIDIA H100 CNX uses the Hopper architecture on a 5 nm process from TSMC. The GH100 chip contains 80,000 million transistors on an 814 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 98.3M per mm². It features 14,592 shading units, 456 TMUs, 24 ROPs, and 456 tensor cores. The H100 CNX has no dedicated RT cores, which aligns with its server-oriented design philosophy.

Memory architecture diverges completely. The Arc Pro B390 uses system shared memory with no dedicated VRAM, while the H100 CNX employs 80 GB of HBM2e across a 5120-bit bus. The Intel part's memory clock runs at system-shared speeds with bandwidth listed as system dependent, whereas the NVIDIA card runs at 1593 MHz with 3.2 Gbps effective data rate.

Power delivery differs substantially. The Intel chip draws 80 W TDP with no external power connectors, fitting an IGP form factor. The H100 CNX consumes 350 W TDP, requires an 8-pin EPS connector, and comes as a dual-slot card measuring 267 mm in length and 111 mm in height. The NVIDIA card uses a PCIe 5.0 x16 interface, while the Intel part connects through an integrated graphics processor bus.

# Specification Differences

The two cards differ in nearly every recorded specification. Process node: 3 nm for Intel versus 5 nm for NVIDIA. Foundry: Intel versus TSMC. Transistor count: unknown for the Arc Pro B390, 80,000 million for the H100 CNX. Die size: unknown versus 814 mm². Transistor density: not listed versus 98.3M / mm².

Clock speeds show a 300 MHz base and 2500 MHz boost on the Intel part, against 690 MHz base and 1845 MHz boost on the NVIDIA card. Memory size, type, bus width, and bandwidth all differ: system shared versus 80 GB HBM2e, system shared versus 5120-bit, system dependent versus 2.04 TB/s.

Shading units: 1536 versus 14,592. TMUs: 48 versus 456. ROPs are equal at 24. RT cores: 12 versus none. Tensor cores: none listed versus 456. Pixel rate: 60.00 GPixel/s versus 44.28 GPixel/s. Texture rate: 120.0 GTexel/s versus 841.3 GTexel/s. FP32: 7.680 TFLOPS versus 53.84 TFLOPS. FP16: 15.36 TFLOPS (2:1) versus 215.4 TFLOPS (4:1).

TDP: 80 W versus 350 W. Slot width: IGP versus dual-slot. Power connectors: none versus 8-pin EPS. Suggested PSU: not listed versus 750 W. Bus interface: IGP versus PCIe 5.0 x16. Display outputs: portable device dependent versus no outputs. API support: DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, Vulkan 1.4 on Intel; none listed on NVIDIA. Release dates: 2026-01-26 for Intel versus 2023-03-20 for NVIDIA. The Intel part's predecessor is HD Graphics-WM, while the H100 CNX's predecessor is Server Ada and successor is Server Blackwell.

# FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher FP32 compute performance?

A: The NVIDIA H100 CNX delivers 53.84 TFLOPS, which is 7.0 times the 7.680 TFLOPS of the Intel Arc Pro B390.

Q: Does the Intel Arc Pro B390 support ray tracing?

A: Yes, it includes 12 RT cores. The NVIDIA H100 CNX has no RT cores listed in the database.

Q: What memory configuration does each card use?

A: The Intel Arc Pro B390 uses system shared memory with system-dependent bandwidth. The NVIDIA H100 CNX has 80 GB of HBM2e memory across a 5120-bit bus with 2.04 TB/s bandwidth.

Q: Which card has a higher pixel fill rate?

A: The Intel Arc Pro B390 achieves 60.00 GPixel/s, which is 35.5% higher than the 44.28 GPixel/s of the NVIDIA H100 CNX.

Q: What are the power requirements for each card?

A: The Intel Arc Pro B390 has an 80 W TDP with no external power connectors. The NVIDIA H100 CNX has a 350 W TDP, requires an 8-pin EPS connector, and lists a 750 W suggested PSU.

Q: When was each product released?

A: The Intel Arc Pro B390 release date is 2026-01-26. The NVIDIA H100 CNX release date is 2023-03-20.

# The Verdict

The data supports a clear division of purpose. The NVIDIA H100 CNX is built for maximum compute throughput with its 53.84 TFLOPS FP32, 215.4 TFLOPS FP16, 456 tensor cores, and 80 GB HBM2e memory. Any workload that demands large memory capacity, extreme bandwidth, or massive parallel processing aligns with this card. Its 350 W TDP and dual-slot form factor indicate a server environment with adequate power and cooling infrastructure.

The Intel Arc Pro B390 suits a different use case entirely. With 60.00 GPixel/s pixel throughput, 12 RT cores, and support for DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, it functions as an integrated graphics solution for client devices. The 80 W TDP and IGP slot width confirm its placement in portable or compact systems. Its 7.680 TFLOPS FP32 and 15.36 TFLOPS FP16 provide capable graphics performance for a 3 nm integrated processor.

The H100 CNX wins on every compute metric except pixel rate. The Arc Pro B390 wins on pixel fill rate, power efficiency, and API compatibility. Users requiring bare-metal compute density should choose the NVIDIA part; users needing integrated graphics with modern API support should pick the Intel part. The 24 ROPs on both cards suggest similar final pixel output stages, but the memory bandwidth difference of 2.04 TB/s versus system dependent bandwidth determines real-world performance in bandwidth-sensitive applications.