Intel Arc Pro B390 vs NVIDIA RTX 1000 Mobile Ada Generation Comparison

FAQ

Q: What are the architectural foundations of the Intel Arc Pro B390 and NVIDIA RTX 1000 Mobile Ada Generation?

A: The Intel Arc Pro B390 uses the Panther Lake chip with Xe3-LPG architecture, built on a 3 nm process at Intel. The NVIDIA RTX 1000 Mobile Ada Generation uses the AD107 chip with Ada Lovelace architecture, built on a 5 nm process at TSMC.

Q: How do the memory configurations differ between these two GPUs?

A: The Intel Arc Pro B390 uses system shared memory, with its type, bus width, and bandwidth all listed as "System Shared" or "System Dependent". The NVIDIA RTX 1000 Mobile Ada Generation has 6 GB of dedicated GDDR6 memory on a 96-bit bus, delivering 192.0 GB/s of bandwidth.

Q: What are the clock speed profiles for each GPU?

A: The Intel Arc Pro B390 has a base clock of 300 MHz and a boost clock of 2500 MHz. The NVIDIA RTX 1000 Mobile Ada Generation has a base clock of 1485 MHz and a boost clock of 2025 MHz, with memory clocked at 2000 MHz or 16 Gbps effective.

Q: Which GPU has a higher FP32 compute throughput?

A: The NVIDIA RTX 1000 Mobile Ada Generation delivers 10.37 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, which is higher than the Intel Arc Pro B390's 7.680 TFLOPS. The NVIDIA GPU also matches its FP16 at 10.37 TFLOPS (1:1), while the Intel GPU reaches 15.36 TFLOPS FP16 (2:1).

Q: How do the power requirements compare?

A: The Intel Arc Pro B390 has a TDP of 80 W, while the NVIDIA RTX 1000 Mobile Ada Generation has a TDP of 35 W. Both are integrated-class GPUs (IGP slot width) with no power connectors required.

Q: What is the release timeline for these products?

A: The NVIDIA RTX 1000 Mobile Ada Generation was released on 2026-01-26, while the Intel Arc Pro B390 was released on 2024-02-25. The NVIDIA product's predecessor is Ampere-MW and its successor is Blackwell-MW, while the Intel product's predecessor is HD Graphics-WM.

Architecture Differences

The Intel Arc Pro B390 and NVIDIA RTX 1000 Mobile Ada Generation represent fundamentally different design philosophies. The Intel part uses the Panther Lake chip with Xe3-LPG architecture, fabricated on a 3 nm process at Intel's own foundry. The NVIDIA part uses the AD107 chip with Ada Lovelace architecture, fabricated on a 5 nm process at TSMC. These process differences have direct implications for transistor density and die size, though the Intel chip's transistor count and die size are listed as unknown in the database. The NVIDIA chip contains 18,900 million transistors on a 159 mm² die, resulting in a density of 118.9M transistors per mm².

The compute resource allocation differs substantially. The Intel Arc Pro B390 fields 1536 shading units, 48 texture mapping units, and 24 raster output units. The NVIDIA RTX 1000 Mobile Ada Generation fields 2560 shading units, 80 texture mapping units, and 48 raster output units. For ray tracing, the Intel GPU has 12 RT cores, while the NVIDIA GPU has 20 RT cores. The NVIDIA GPU also includes 80 tensor cores, while the Intel GPU lists no tensor core count.

Memory architecture is another major divergence. The Intel Arc Pro B390 relies entirely on system shared memory, with bandwidth described as "System Dependent". The NVIDIA RTX 1000 Mobile Ada Generation uses 6 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 96-bit bus, providing a fixed 192.0 GB/s of bandwidth. This makes the NVIDIA part's memory performance predictable and consistent, while the Intel part's memory performance depends entirely on the host system's memory configuration.

The clock behavior also differs meaningfully. The Intel GPU has a low 300 MHz base clock but boosts to 2500 MHz, indicating a wide dynamic range. The NVIDIA GPU has a higher 1485 MHz base clock but a lower 2025 MHz boost clock, suggesting a narrower operating envelope. The Intel GPU's FP16 throughput of 15.36 TFLOPS (2:1) exceeds its FP32 throughput, whereas the NVIDIA GPU's FP16 matches its FP32 at 10.37 TFLOPS (1:1). Both GPUs support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4.

The bus interface differs as well: the Intel part uses an integrated graphics processor (IGP) interface, while the NVIDIA part uses PCIe 4.0 x8. Both are classified as IGP slot width with no power connectors. The TDP values are 80 W for the Intel GPU and 35 W for the NVIDIA GPU, a significant difference given both are integrated-class solutions.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database records no head-to-head benchmark results between the Intel Arc Pro B390 and NVIDIA RTX 1000 Mobile Ada Generation. Both GPUs have zero average benchmark scores and zero wins in the head-to-head comparison. Their percentile rankings against all GPUs are identical at the 50th percentile, placing both in the middle of the database's performance distribution.

Despite the absence of measured benchmark scores, the recorded specifications provide a basis for comparing theoretical performance. The NVIDIA RTX 1000 Mobile Ada Generation holds clear advantages in raw throughput metrics. Its FP32 compute of 10.37 TFLOPS exceeds the Intel Arc Pro B390's 7.680 TFLOPS by approximately 35%. The texture fill rate favors NVIDIA as well: 162.0 GTexel/s versus 120.0 GTexel/s. Pixel fill rate also favors NVIDIA at 97.20 GPixel/s versus 60.00 GPixel/s.

The memory bandwidth gap is substantial. The NVIDIA GPU's 192.0 GB/s dedicated GDDR6 bandwidth contrasts with the Intel GPU's system-dependent shared memory, which has no fixed bandwidth figure in the database. For workloads that are bandwidth-sensitive, the NVIDIA part's dedicated memory provides a structural advantage that cannot be matched by the Intel part's shared memory approach.

The Intel Arc Pro B390 does show strengths in certain specifications. Its 2500 MHz boost clock is higher than the NVIDIA GPU's 2025 MHz boost clock. Its FP16 throughput of 15.36 TFLOPS (2:1) exceeds the NVIDIA GPU's 10.37 TFLOPS (1:1), though this advantage applies only to workloads that can utilize the 2:1 FP16 path. The Intel GPU also has a lower base clock of 300 MHz versus 1485 MHz, which may indicate more aggressive power management at idle or low load states.

The TDP difference is notable: the Intel GPU consumes 80 W versus the NVIDIA GPU's 35 W. This means the NVIDIA part delivers higher FP32, texture, pixel, and memory performance while consuming less than half the power budget. The efficiency ratio strongly favors NVIDIA based on the recorded data.

Both GPUs share identical API support: DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. This means software compatibility at the API level is equivalent, and any performance differences will stem from hardware execution resources rather than feature support gaps.

Neither GPU has nearest rivals listed in the database, and both have zero average benchmark scores. The percentile ranking of 50th for both indicates the database places them at the median of all recorded GPUs, though this ranking is derived from incomplete benchmark data.

Specification Differences

The following specification fields differ between the Intel Arc Pro B390 and NVIDIA RTX 1000 Mobile Ada Generation:

• Chip: Panther Lake versus AD107
• Architecture: Xe3-LPG versus Ada Lovelace
• Generation: Arc Graphics-WM (Panther Lake) versus Ada-MW (x000A)
• Process Node: 3 nm versus 5 nm
• Foundry: Intel versus TSMC
• Transistors: unknown versus 18,900 million
• Die Size: unknown versus 159 mm²
• Transistor Density: not listed versus 118.9M / mm²
• Base Clock: 300 MHz versus 1485 MHz
• Boost Clock: 2500 MHz versus 2025 MHz
• Memory Clock: System Shared versus 2000 MHz 16 Gbps effective
• Memory Size: System Shared versus 6 GB
• Memory Type: System Shared versus GDDR6
• Memory Bus Width: System Shared versus 96 bit
• Memory Bandwidth: System Dependent versus 192.0 GB/s
• Shading Units: 1536 versus 2560
• TMUs: 48 versus 80
• ROPs: 24 versus 48
• RT Cores: 12 versus 20
• Tensor Cores: not listed versus 80
• Pixel Rate: 60.00 GPixel/s versus 97.20 GPixel/s
• Texture Rate: 120.0 GTexel/s versus 162.0 GTexel/s
• FP32: 7.680 TFLOPS versus 10.37 TFLOPS
• FP16: 15.36 TFLOPS (2:1) versus 10.37 TFLOPS (1:1)
• TDP: 80 W versus 35 W
• Bus Interface: IGP versus PCIe 4.0 x8
• Release Date: 2026-01-26 versus 2024-02-25
• Predecessor: HD Graphics-WM versus Ampere-MW
• Successor: not listed versus Blackwell-MW

Fields that are identical include: slot width (IGP), power connectors (None), display outputs (Portable Device Dependent), DirectX (12 Ultimate 12_2), OpenGL (4.6), Vulkan (1.4), production status (Active), and launch MSRP (not provided for either).

The Verdict

The recorded data shows a clear specification-level advantage for the NVIDIA RTX 1000 Mobile Ada Generation across most performance metrics. It delivers 35% higher FP32 compute, 35% higher texture fill rate, 62% higher pixel fill rate, and a fixed 192.0 GB/s of dedicated memory bandwidth versus the Intel Arc Pro B390's system-dependent shared memory. The NVIDIA part achieves these advantages while consuming 35 W versus 80 W, making it substantially more efficient per watt according to the recorded figures.

The Intel Arc Pro B390 does hold specific advantages. Its 2500 MHz boost clock exceeds the NVIDIA part's 2025 MHz, its FP16 throughput of 15.36 TFLOPS (2:1) is higher, and its 3 nm process node is more advanced than the NVIDIA part's 5 nm node. The Intel GPU also has a later release date of 2026-01-26 versus 2024-02-25, indicating a more recent design.

For workloads that leverage FP16 with a 2:1 ratio, the Intel Arc Pro B390 may offer competitive throughput. For workloads that depend on FP32 compute, texture filtering, pixel throughput, or dedicated memory bandwidth, the NVIDIA RTX 1000 Mobile Ada Generation appears better suited based on the specification data. The NVIDIA part's inclusion of 80 tensor cores also provides acceleration capabilities that the Intel part does not list.

The database shows no benchmark scores for either product, so these conclusions rest entirely on specification-level comparisons. The identical 50th percentile rankings and zero average benchmark scores indicate that neither product has established a measured performance profile in the database yet. The NVIDIA GPU's higher resource counts, dedicated memory, and lower power draw make it the stronger choice on paper for most compute-intensive applications. The Intel GPU's higher boost clock and 2:1 FP16 capability make it potentially attractive for specific mixed-precision workloads, though its higher TDP and shared memory architecture present inherent constraints.