Intel Arc Pro B390 vs NVIDIA H100 PCIe 96 GB Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows no direct head-to-head benchmark results between the Intel Arc Pro B390 and the NVIDIA H100 PCIe 96 GB. Both entries in the database carry an average benchmark score of zero, and their percentile positions against all GPUs are identical at the 50th mark. This means the comparison must rely entirely on the architectural and specification data provided, rather than performance measurements.

The most significant numerical disparity lies in raw compute throughput. The NVIDIA H100 PCIe 96 GB delivers 62.08 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, which is roughly 8.1 times the 7.680 TFLOPS offered by the Intel Arc Pro B390. In FP16 workloads, the gap widens dramatically: the H100 reaches 248.3 TFLOPS (with a 4:1 ratio), while the Arc Pro B390 manages 15.36 TFLOPS (with a 2:1 ratio). That places the H100 at approximately 16.2 times the FP16 throughput of the Intel part.

Memory bandwidth tells a similar story. The H100 PCIe 96 GB uses HBM3 memory across a 5120-bit bus, yielding 3.36 TB/s of bandwidth. The Arc Pro B390 relies on system shared memory, with bandwidth listed as "System Dependent," meaning its effective throughput is dictated by the host platform rather than a fixed specification. The H100's 96 GB of dedicated HBM3 memory stands in stark contrast to the Intel part's shared memory architecture, which has no dedicated capacity.

Texture and pixel processing further separate the two. The NVIDIA card achieves 969.9 GTexel/s and 44.09 GPixel/s, while the Intel integrated GPU posts 120.0 GTexel/s and 60.00 GPixel/s. Notably, the Arc Pro B390 actually leads in pixel fill rate by roughly 36%, a result of its higher boost clock of 2500 MHz compared to the H100's 1837 MHz boost. This indicates the Intel part is better suited to fill-rate-bound scenarios, despite its massive deficit in raw shading power.

The H100's boost clock of 1837 MHz and base clock of 1665 MHz both exceed the Arc Pro B390's 300 MHz base clock, though the Intel part's 2500 MHz boost surpasses the NVIDIA card's boost. The H100's transistor count of 80,000 million on an 814 mm² die with a density of 98.3M / mm² reflects a large, complex compute die. The Intel part lists unknown transistor and die size figures, preventing a direct comparison on silicon scale.

The Verdict

The data points to two entirely different use cases. The NVIDIA H100 PCIe 96 GB is built for compute-heavy server workloads where FP32, FP16, and memory bandwidth are paramount. Its 62.08 TFLOPS FP32, 248.3 TFLOPS FP16, and 3.36 TB/s memory bandwidth place it in a class that the Intel Arc Pro B390 cannot approach. The H100 also includes 528 tensor cores, a feature absent from the Intel part, which lists no tensor core count.

The Intel Arc Pro B390, by contrast, is an integrated GPU (IGP) with a 3 nm process node, 80 W TDP, and no power connectors. It fits into systems where a discrete GPU is not an option and where the host CPU's Panther Lake chip provides the graphics. Its 1536 shading units, 48 TMUs, and 12 ray tracing cores give it basic 3D capability, but its 7.680 TFLOPS FP32 is far below what a server-class accelerator like the H100 provides.

For buyers needing a server accelerator with massive parallel compute and high-bandwidth memory, the H100 PCIe 96 GB is the only choice between these two. For a mobile or compact system requiring integrated graphics with modest 3D performance, the Arc Pro B390 serves that role. The data shows no scenario where the Intel part can substitute for the H100 in compute-intensive tasks, and no scenario where the H100 makes sense as an integrated graphics solution.

Architecture Differences

The Intel Arc Pro B390 is built on the Xe3-LPG architecture, using the Panther Lake chip, and is part of the Arc Graphics-WM (Panther Lake) generation. It uses a 3 nm process node from Intel's foundry. The NVIDIA H100 PCIe 96 GB uses the Hopper architecture with the GH100 chip, manufactured on a 5 nm process by TSMC. The H100 has 80,000 million transistors on an 814 mm² die with a density of 98.3M / mm², while the Intel part lists unknown transistor and die size figures.

The Intel part includes 12 dedicated ray tracing cores, a feature that the H100 does not list. The H100 includes 528 tensor cores, which the Arc Pro B390 does not list. The Intel part supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, while the H100 lists no API support at all in the database, reflecting its compute-focused role rather than graphics rendering.

The H100 has no display outputs ("No outputs"), confirming it as a compute accelerator. The Arc Pro B390 lists "Portable Device Dependent" for display outputs, meaning it provides display connectivity through the host portable device. The H100 uses a PCIe 5.0 x16 bus interface, while the Arc Pro B390 uses an IGP interface, tying it directly to the host processor.

Specification Differences

The two parts differ across nearly every recorded specification field. The Intel Arc Pro B390 has a base clock of 300 MHz and a boost clock of 2500 MHz, while the NVIDIA H100 PCIe 96 GB runs at 1665 MHz base and 1837 MHz boost. Memory configuration is radically different: the Intel part uses system shared memory with no dedicated size, type, bus width, or bandwidth (listed as "System Dependent"), while the H100 uses 96 GB of HBM3 on a 5120-bit bus with 3.36 TB/s bandwidth.

Shading units number 1536 on the Intel part versus 16896 on the H100, a factor of 11. Texture mapping units are 48 versus 528, while both parts have 24 ROPs. The Intel part has 12 ray tracing cores; the H100 lists none. The H100 has 528 tensor cores; the Intel part lists none.

FP32 throughput is 7.680 TFLOPS on the Intel part versus 62.08 TFLOPS on the H100. FP16 is 15.36 TFLOPS (2:1) versus 248.3 TFLOPS (4:1). Pixel rate favors the Intel part at 60.00 GPixel/s versus 44.09 GPixel/s, while texture rate heavily favors the H100 at 969.9 GTexel/s versus 120.0 GTexel/s.

Power consumption is 80 W for the Intel part versus 700 W for the H100. The Intel part is an IGP with no power connectors, while the H100 is a dual-slot card requiring an 8-pin EPS connector and a suggested 1100 W PSU. The H100 measures 268 mm (10.6 inches) in length and 111 mm (4.4 inches) in height. The Intel part has no listed dimensions.

The H100 uses PCIe 5.0 x16, while the Intel part uses IGP. The H100 has no display outputs, while the Intel part is portable device dependent. Release dates differ: the Intel part launched on 2026-01-26, while the H100 launched on 2023-03-20. The H100's predecessor is Server Ada and its successor is Server Blackwell, while the Intel part's predecessor is HD Graphics-WM and it has no listed successor.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher FP32 compute performance?

A: The NVIDIA H100 PCIe 96 GB delivers 62.08 TFLOPS of FP32, which is approximately 8.1 times the 7.680 TFLOPS of the Intel Arc Pro B390.

Q: Does the Intel Arc Pro B390 have dedicated memory?

A: No, it uses system shared memory with no dedicated size, type, bus width, or bandwidth. Its memory bandwidth is listed as "System Dependent."

Q: What is the memory capacity of the NVIDIA H100 PCIe 96 GB?

A: It has 96 GB of HBM3 memory on a 5120-bit bus with 3.36 TB/s of bandwidth.

Q: Which GPU has ray tracing cores?

A: The Intel Arc Pro B390 includes 12 ray tracing cores, while the NVIDIA H100 PCIe 96 GB does not list any ray tracing cores in the database.

Q: What is the power consumption difference?

A: The Intel Arc Pro B390 has a TDP of 80 W and uses no power connectors. The NVIDIA H100 PCIe 96 GB has a TDP of 700 W and requires an 8-pin EPS connector with a suggested 1100 W PSU.

Q: Which GPU has tensor cores?

A: The NVIDIA H100 PCIe 96 GB includes 528 tensor cores, while the Intel Arc Pro B390 does not list any tensor cores.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA H100 PCIe 96 GB wins decisively in compute throughput. Its 62.08 TFLOPS FP32 and 248.3 TFLOPS FP16 make it the clear choice for AI training, scientific simulation, and any workload that can utilize tensor cores. The 528 tensor cores are a dedicated feature for matrix operations, and the 3.36 TB/s memory bandwidth ensures those compute units stay fed. The 96 GB HBM3 capacity supports large models and datasets that would not fit in shared system memory.

The Intel Arc Pro B390 wins in pixel fill rate, posting 60.00 GPixel/s against the H100's 44.09 GPixel/s. This comes from its higher 2500 MHz boost clock. It also wins on power efficiency in absolute terms, drawing 80 W versus 700 W, though the H100's far higher compute output means efficiency per watt favors NVIDIA heavily. The Intel part's integrated nature, with no power connectors and an IGP bus interface, makes it suitable for compact systems where a discrete card cannot fit.

For ray tracing, the Intel part has 12 dedicated cores while the H100 has none listed. For display output, the Intel part supports portable device dependent displays, while the H100 has no outputs. The Intel part supports DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, making it viable for graphics rendering; the H100 lists no graphics API support.

The H100's 16896 shading units and 528 TMUs give it a 11x and 11x advantage respectively over the Intel part's 1536 shading units and 48 TMUs. Texture rate of 969.9 GTexel/s versus 120.0 GTexel/s further confirms the NVIDIA card's dominance in texture-heavy workloads. The H100's transistor count of 80,000 million on a 814 mm² die shows a purpose-built compute chip, while the Intel part remains an integrated solution with unknown silicon dimensions.

The release timeline also separates them: the H100 launched on 2023-03-20 and has a successor in Server Blackwell, while the Arc Pro B390 launched on 2026-01-26 with no successor listed. The H100 is built on TSMC's 5 nm process, while the Intel part uses Intel's 3 nm node. Both are currently listed as Active in production status.

In practical terms, the H100 PCIe 96 GB is for server racks where compute density and memory bandwidth are critical. The Arc Pro B390 is for a laptop or portable device where an integrated GPU with modest 3D capability and display output is required. The data does not suggest any overlap in their intended deployment scenarios.