Intel Arc Pro B390 vs NVIDIA H20 NVL16 Comparison

Intel Arc Pro B390 and NVIDIA H20 NVL16 occupy opposite ends of the computing spectrum. The former is an integrated graphics processor designed for portable devices, built on Intel’s Panther Lake chip with Xe3-LPG architecture. The latter is a massive server accelerator based on the GH100 chip, using NVIDIA’s Hopper architecture. The database records no head-to-head benchmarks, no wins for either side, and no nearest rival comparisons. Both products hold a 50th percentile position among all GPUs in the database, with an average benchmark score of zero for each. The analysis below relies strictly on the recorded specifications, architectural details, and the absence of direct performance measurements.

FAQ

Q: What is the process node difference between the Intel Arc Pro B390 and the NVIDIA H20 NVL16?

A: The Intel Arc Pro B390 is manufactured on a 3 nm process by Intel. The NVIDIA H20 NVL16 uses a 5 nm process fabricated by TSMC.

Q: How much memory does each product have?

A: The Intel Arc Pro B390 uses System Shared memory, meaning its memory size, type, bus width, and bandwidth are all system dependent. The NVIDIA H20 NVL16 has 96 GB of HBM3 memory on a 6144-bit bus, delivering 4.03 TB/s of bandwidth.

Q: What are the clock speeds for each?

A: The Intel Arc Pro B390 has a base clock of 300 MHz and a boost clock of 2500 MHz. The NVIDIA H20 NVL16 runs at a base clock of 1830 MHz and boosts to 1980 MHz, with memory clocked at 1313 MHz or 5.3 Gbps effective.

Q: Do both products support the same graphics APIs?

A: No. The Intel Arc Pro B390 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The NVIDIA H20 NVL16 has no recorded API support, with DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan all listed as N/A.

Q: What is the power consumption of each?

A: The Intel Arc Pro B390 has a TDP of 80 W and requires no power connectors, as it is an integrated graphics processor. The NVIDIA H20 NVL16 has a TDP of 400 W, ships as an SXM module, and the database suggests an 800 W power supply.

Q: When did each product launch?

A: The Intel Arc Pro B390 was released on 2026-01-26. The NVIDIA H20 NVL16 was released earlier, on 2025-09-01.

The Verdict

The recorded data draws a clear line between these two products. The Intel Arc Pro B390 is an integrated graphics solution for portable devices. The NVIDIA H20 NVL16 is a server module with no display outputs. The database shows no benchmark scores for either, so any choice must follow from their physical and architectural specifications.

For portable device integration, the Intel Arc Pro B390 is the only option. Its IGP slot width, lack of power connectors, and system-shared memory align with mobile or embedded designs. Its 80 W TDP fits within a host system’s thermal envelope, and its display outputs are listed as portable device dependent. The NVIDIA H20 NVL16 cannot serve this role: it uses an SXM module slot, requires a 400 W TDP with an 800 W suggested power supply, and has no display outputs.

For server-side compute, the NVIDIA H20 NVL16 provides the raw resources. It delivers 39.54 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, 79.07 TFLOPS of FP16 performance (2:1), and 4.03 TB/s of memory bandwidth from 96 GB of HBM3. The Intel Arc Pro B390 delivers 7.680 TFLOPS FP32 and 15.36 TFLOPS FP16 (2:1), with memory bandwidth listed as system dependent. The data indicates a massive gap in compute throughput and memory capacity, favoring the NVIDIA part for any heavy computational workload.

The verdict is straightforward: the Intel Arc Pro B390 belongs in portable devices where its integrated nature and low power draw are prerequisites. The NVIDIA H20 NVL16 belongs in servers where its high compute rates and large memory pool are necessary. There is no overlap in their intended usage, and the database provides no evidence that either could substitute for the other.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains no head-to-head benchmark results for the Intel Arc Pro B390 versus the NVIDIA H20 NVL16. The headToHeadBenchmarks field is empty, and both products have zero recorded wins and zero average benchmark scores. Consequently, no direct performance comparisons can be drawn from measured data.

What the database does provide are theoretical performance figures based on clock rates and unit counts. The NVIDIA H20 NVL16 reaches 39.54 TFLOPS of FP32 compute, which is 5.15 times the 7.680 TFLOPS of the Intel Arc Pro B390. For FP16, the NVIDIA part delivers 79.07 TFLOPS versus 15.36 TFLOPS, a factor of 5.15 as well. These numbers represent raw arithmetic throughput, not measured application performance, but they indicate the scale of difference in compute capability.

Texture and pixel rates similarly favor the NVIDIA part. The H20 NVL16 records a texture rate of 617.8 GTexel/s against 120.0 GTexel/s for the Intel part, a 5.15 times advantage. Pixel rates are closer: the NVIDIA part achieves 47.52 GPixel/s, while the Intel part reaches 60.00 GPixel/s. This is one of the few metrics where the Intel Arc Pro B390 leads, delivering 26% higher pixel throughput. That advantage stems from the Intel part’s higher boost clock of 2500 MHz against the NVIDIA part’s 1980 MHz, combined with the Intel part’s 24 ROPs versus the same 24 ROPs on the NVIDIA side, but the Intel part’s clock advantage yields more pixel output.

The absence of benchmark data means these figures cannot be validated against real-world workloads. The database shows both products at the 50th percentile among all GPUs, with zero average benchmark scores, indicating no empirical measurements are available. The analysis therefore relies on the recorded specification sheets.

Specification Differences

The Intel Arc Pro B390 and NVIDIA H20 NVL16 differ in nearly every measurable specification.

Process and Foundry: The Intel part uses a 3 nm process at Intel. The NVIDIA part uses a 5 nm process at TSMC.

Transistors and Die Size: The Intel part has unknown transistor count and die size. The NVIDIA part has 80,000 million transistors on an 814 mm² die, with a transistor density of 98.3M per mm².

Clocks: The Intel part has a 300 MHz base and 2500 MHz boost. The NVIDIA part has a 1830 MHz base and 1980 MHz boost, plus a memory clock of 1313 MHz (5.3 Gbps effective). The Intel part’s memory clock is listed as system shared.

Memory: The Intel part uses system shared memory with system dependent bandwidth. The NVIDIA part has 96 GB of HBM3, a 6144-bit bus, and 4.03 TB/s bandwidth.

Compute Units: The Intel part has 1536 shading units, 48 TMUs, 24 ROPs, and 12 ray tracing cores. The NVIDIA part has 9984 shading units, 312 TMUs, 24 ROPs, and 312 tensor cores. The NVIDIA part has no recorded ray tracing cores.

Performance Rates: The Intel part’s pixel rate is 60.00 GPixel/s, texture rate is 120.0 GTexel/s, FP32 is 7.680 TFLOPS, and FP16 is 15.36 TFLOPS (2:1). The NVIDIA part’s pixel rate is 47.52 GPixel/s, texture rate is 617.8 GTexel/s, FP32 is 39.54 TFLOPS, and FP16 is 79.07 TFLOPS (2:1).

Power and Form Factor: The Intel part has an 80 W TDP, IGP slot width, no power connectors, and an IGP bus interface. The NVIDIA part has a 400 W TDP, SXM module slot, no recorded power connectors, and a PCIe 5.0 x16 bus interface. The database suggests an 800 W power supply for the NVIDIA part.

Display Outputs and APIs: The Intel part has display outputs listed as portable device dependent, with DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4 support. The NVIDIA part has no display outputs and no API support recorded.

Release Dates: The Intel part launched on 2026-01-26. The NVIDIA part launched on 2025-09-01.

Production Status: Both are listed as active in production.

Architecture Differences

The two products come from fundamentally different architectural lineages.

The Intel Arc Pro B390 is built on the Xe3-LPG architecture, which is part of the Arc Graphics-WM generation for Panther Lake. It is an integrated graphics processor, meaning it shares memory with the host system and relies on the system’s memory bandwidth. Its ray tracing cores number 12, providing hardware acceleration for ray-traced workloads. The architecture supports DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, indicating a focus on graphics rendering and real-time applications. The Intel part has no tensor cores recorded, so AI acceleration is not a documented feature.

The NVIDIA H20 NVL16 is built on the Hopper architecture, part of the Server Hopper generation. It uses the GH100 chip, which contains 80,000 million transistors. Hopper is designed for data center compute, with 312 tensor cores specifically for matrix operations and AI workloads. The part has no recorded ray tracing cores and no graphics API support, reinforcing its role as a compute accelerator rather than a graphics processor. Its memory subsystem of 96 GB HBM3 with 4.03 TB/s bandwidth is tailored for large datasets in server environments.

The process nodes also differ: Intel uses 3 nm, while NVIDIA uses 5 nm. The Intel part’s integrated nature means its transistor count and die size are not specified, while the NVIDIA part’s 814 mm² die is a discrete module. The NVIDIA part’s transistor density of 98.3M per mm² reflects a dense compute-oriented design, whereas the Intel part’s density is unrecorded.

The bus interfaces differ as well: the Intel part uses IGP, meaning it is fused into the host processor, while the NVIDIA part uses PCIe 5.0 x16, a standard expansion interface for servers. The NVIDIA part’s SXM module form factor further distinguishes it as a specialized server component, compared to the Intel part’s IGP slot width.

Where Each One Wins

Based on the recorded specifications, each product has clear domains of advantage.

The Intel Arc Pro B390 wins in pixel throughput. Its 60.00 GPixel/s exceeds the NVIDIA part’s 47.52 GPixel/s by 26%. This advantage comes from its higher boost clock and equal ROP count, making it better suited for pixel-heavy rendering tasks in portable devices. It also wins on power efficiency per the data: 7.680 TFLOPS FP32 within an 80 W TDP versus 39.54 TFLOPS within 400 W. The ratio favors the Intel part, though the absolute performance is much lower. The Intel part’s support for DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4 gives it a clear edge for graphics applications, as the NVIDIA part has no API support recorded.

The NVIDIA H20 NVL16 wins in compute throughput. Its FP32 performance of 39.54 TFLOPS is 5.15 times higher than the Intel part’s 7.680 TFLOPS. Its FP16 performance of 79.07 TFLOPS is likewise 5.15 times higher than the Intel part’s 15.36 TFLOPS. Texture rate follows the same pattern: 617.8 GTexel/s versus 120.0 GTexel/s. The NVIDIA part’s memory capacity of 96 GB HBM3 with 4.03 TB/s bandwidth dwarfs the Intel part’s system-shared memory, which has system dependent bandwidth. For workloads requiring large data sets, such as AI training or inference, the NVIDIA part provides the necessary memory pool and bandwidth. Its 312 tensor cores are a documented feature for matrix operations, whereas the Intel part has no tensor cores listed.

The NVIDIA part also wins on raw shading unit count: 9984 versus 1536, a 6.5 times difference. Its TMU count of 312 versus 48 is a 6.5 times difference as well. These unit counts translate directly into the FP32 and texture rate advantages noted above.

In terms of form factor, each wins where it is designed to operate. The Intel part’s IGP form factor means it requires no separate power connectors and fits into portable devices, as its display outputs are portable device dependent. The NVIDIA part’s SXM module and PCIe 5.0 x16 interface target server racks, where its 400 W TDP and suggested 800 W power supply are standard considerations.

The database shows no measured benchmarks, so these wins are inferred from specifications. The Intel Arc Pro B390 leads in graphics-oriented metrics and integration suitability. The NVIDIA H20 NVL16 leads in compute capacity, memory bandwidth, and server deployment scenarios. Neither product can effectively replace the other based on the recorded data.