Intel Arc Pro B390 vs NVIDIA RTX 2000 Max-Q Ada Generation Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains no recorded head-to-head benchmark results between the Intel Arc Pro B390 and the NVIDIA RTX 2000 Max-Q Ada Generation. Neither processor has any benchmark scores listed, and the wins count for each stands at zero. This absence of empirical data means the comparison must rely entirely on the recorded architectural and specification details rather than measured performance outcomes.

The theoretical compute figures, however, reveal a close contest. The Intel Arc Pro B390 delivers 7.680 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, while the NVIDIA RTX 2000 Max-Q Ada Generation reaches 8.940 TFLOPS. That difference represents a 16.4% advantage for the NVIDIA part in raw single-precision throughput. For FP16 workloads, the situation reverses dramatically: Intel lists 15.36 TFLOPS using a 2:1 ratio, while NVIDIA records 8.940 TFLOPS with a 1:1 ratio. Intel's FP16 figure is 71.8% higher, indicating a significant advantage for applications that leverage reduced precision.

Pixel and texture rates follow a similar pattern to FP32. NVIDIA leads in pixel fill with 69.84 GPixel/s against Intel's 60.00 GPixel/s, a 16.4% margin. Texture rate favors NVIDIA at 139.7 GTexel/s versus 120.0 GTexel/s, a 16.4% difference. These consistent deltas stem directly from the clock and shader configurations, not from any measured workload.

The shading unit count heavily favors NVIDIA. The RTX 2000 Max-Q Ada packs 3072 shading units, exactly double Intel's 1536. TMUs and ROPs also double: 96 versus 48, and 48 versus 24 respectively. Ray tracing cores follow the same doubling pattern, with NVIDIA at 24 and Intel at 12. Tensor cores exist only on the NVIDIA side, with 96 present, while Intel lists none. These structural differences suggest NVIDIA designed for parallel throughput while Intel optimized for per-clock efficiency.

Clock speeds tell a different story. Intel's base clock sits at 300 MHz with a boost of 2500 MHz. NVIDIA's base is 930 MHz, boosting to 1455 MHz. Intel's boost clock is 71.8% higher than NVIDIA's, yet NVIDIA still achieves higher FP32 throughput due to its doubled shader count. This indicates NVIDIA compensates for lower clocks with wider execution resources.

Memory configurations diverge completely. Intel uses system shared memory with system dependent bandwidth, while NVIDIA employs 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus delivering 256.0 GB/s. The memory clock for NVIDIA is listed at 2000 MHz with 16 Gbps effective. Intel's shared memory approach ties performance to the host system, making standalone comparison impossible.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Arc Pro B390 claims advantages in specific compute scenarios. Its FP16 throughput of 15.36 TFLOPS doubles NVIDIA's 8.940 TFLOPS, making it the stronger choice for workloads that use half-precision arithmetic, such as certain machine learning inference paths or graphics effects that operate in FP16. The 2:1 ratio means Intel can process two FP16 operations per FP32 operation, while NVIDIA processes them at 1:1. This architectural choice gives Intel a clear edge for mixed-precision tasks.

Intel also wins on clock ceiling. The 2500 MHz boost clock exceeds NVIDIA's 1455 MHz by 71.8%. Higher clocks generally benefit latency-sensitive workloads that cannot fully utilize parallel resources. Single-threaded graphics pipelines or lightly threaded compute kernels may extract more performance from Intel's faster clock rate.

Power consumption favors NVIDIA substantially. NVIDIA's TDP is 35 W while Intel's is 80 W. This 45 W difference means NVIDIA delivers its 8.940 TFLOPS at less than half the power envelope. For thermally constrained portable devices, NVIDIA's efficiency is a decisive advantage. The RTX 2000 Max-Q Ada achieves higher FP32 throughput while consuming 56.3% less power than Intel's part.

NVIDIA wins on memory bandwidth and capacity. The dedicated 8 GB GDDR6 pool with 256.0 GB/s bandwidth provides predictable performance independent of system memory. Intel's system shared memory offers no fixed bandwidth figure, making its performance dependent on the host platform's memory subsystem. Applications that require consistent memory latency or large working sets benefit from NVIDIA's dedicated VRAM.

NVIDIA also holds advantages in ray tracing and tensor operations. With 24 RT cores versus Intel's 12, NVIDIA doubles ray tracing throughput. The 96 tensor cores provide dedicated hardware for AI workloads that Intel lacks entirely. These features give NVIDIA a functional edge for ray-traced rendering and tensor-based applications.

Architecture Differences

Intel's Arc Pro B390 uses the Panther Lake chip built on Xe3-LPG architecture. The process node is 3 nm, fabricated by Intel itself. NVIDIA's RTX 2000 Max-Q Ada uses the AD107 chip with Ada Lovelace architecture, built on a 5 nm process at TSMC. The node difference suggests Intel's process offers higher transistor density, though Intel's transistor count and die size are listed as unknown.

NVIDIA provides full die details: 18,900 million transistors on a 159 mm² die, yielding a density of 118.9M per mm². Intel lists no transistor count or die size, preventing direct density comparison. However, the 3 nm node versus 5 nm node implies Intel's process generations are more recent, potentially allowing smaller feature sizes.

Intel's generation is labeled Arc Graphics-WM (Panther Lake), while NVIDIA's generation is Ada-MW. Intel's predecessor is HD Graphics-WM, indicating this part continues Intel's integrated graphics lineage. NVIDIA's predecessor is Ampere-MW and its successor is Blackwell-MW, showing a direct generational progression within NVIDIA's mobile workstation lineup.

The bus interfaces differ. Intel uses IGP (integrated graphics processor) with no external power connectors. NVIDIA also uses IGP slot width but connects via PCIe 4.0 x16. This means NVIDIA can communicate with the host through a dedicated 16-lane PCIe link, while Intel's IGP relies on the internal fabric. The PCIe interface affects data transfer rates for GPU workloads that stream data from system memory.

Display outputs are identical: both are listed as Portable Device Dependent. Both support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The API support parity indicates both can run modern graphics workloads, though the underlying hardware implementations differ.

Specification Differences

The specification table reveals several fields where the two parts differ:

| Specification | Intel Arc Pro B390 | NVIDIA RTX 2000 Max-Q Ada |

|---|---|---|

| Chip | Panther Lake | AD107 |

| Architecture | Xe3-LPG | Ada Lovelace |

| Process Node | 3 nm | 5 nm |

| Foundry | Intel | TSMC |

| Transistors | unknown | 18,900 million |

| Die Size | unknown | 159 mm² |

| Transistor Density | null | 118.9M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 300 MHz | 930 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 2500 MHz | 1455 MHz |

| Memory Size | System Shared | 8 GB |

| Memory Type | System Shared | GDDR6 |

| Memory Bus Width | System Shared | 128 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | System Dependent | 256.0 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 1536 | 3072 |

| TMUs | 48 | 96 |

| ROPs | 24 | 48 |

| RT Cores | 12 | 24 |

| Tensor Cores | null | 96 |

| Pixel Rate | 60.00 GPixel/s | 69.84 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 120.0 GTexel/s | 139.7 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 7.680 TFLOPS | 8.940 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | 15.36 TFLOPS (2:1) | 8.940 TFLOPS (1:1) |

| TDP | 80 W | 35 W |

| Bus Interface | IGP | PCIe 4.0 x16 |

| Release Date | 2026-01-26 | 2023-03-20 |

| Predecessor | HD Graphics-WM | Ampere-MW |

| Successor | null | Blackwell-MW |

The release dates differ by nearly three years, with Intel launching in January 2026 and NVIDIA in March 2023. NVIDIA's part is already superseded by Blackwell-MW, while Intel's has no successor listed. The production status for both is Active.

The power connector field is None for both, consistent with their integrated or mobile-oriented designs. Neither lists a suggested PSU. Dimensions are absent for both, and neither has a launch MSRP.

The Verdict

The recorded data shows two fundamentally different approaches to mobile graphics. NVIDIA's RTX 2000 Max-Q Ada Generation prioritizes raw throughput and efficiency. It delivers 8.940 TFLOPS FP32, 69.84 GPixel/s pixel fill, 139.7 GTexel/s texture rate, 256.0 GB/s memory bandwidth, and does so within a 35 W envelope. Every major throughput metric except FP16 favors NVIDIA.

Intel's Arc Pro B390 counters with a dramatically higher FP16 rate of 15.36 TFLOPS and a boost clock of 2500 MHz that exceeds NVIDIA's by 71.8%. The 3 nm process node suggests Intel leverages newer manufacturing, but the power budget of 80 W versus 35 W indicates lower efficiency. The system shared memory approach creates dependency on the host platform, unlike NVIDIA's dedicated 8 GB GDDR6.

For workloads that rely on FP32 compute, ray tracing, tensor operations, or consistent memory bandwidth, the data points to NVIDIA. The 3072 shading units, 96 TMUs, 48 ROPs, 24 RT cores, and 96 tensor cores provide a wider execution pipeline. The dedicated memory removes host dependency.

For workloads that exploit FP16 with a 2:1 ratio, Intel offers a theoretical advantage. The 15.36 TFLOPS FP16 figure doubles NVIDIA's capability. Applications tuned for half-precision arithmetic could see higher throughput on Intel's architecture, assuming the system shared memory does not bottleneck data flow.

The efficiency picture is unambiguous. NVIDIA achieves higher FP32 throughput at 35 W, while Intel requires 80 W for lower FP32 output. Any thermally constrained device would favor NVIDIA. The PCIe 4.0 x16 interface on NVIDIA also provides a dedicated host link, whereas Intel's IGP relies on internal routing.

The release timeline matters. NVIDIA's part is from March 2023 and already has a successor. Intel's part launches January 2026 with no successor listed. The newer Intel part uses a more advanced process node, but the performance metrics do not show a corresponding advantage in conventional workloads.

Users seeking maximum compute density per watt, dedicated VRAM, ray tracing hardware, or tensor acceleration should consider NVIDIA. Users prioritizing FP16 throughput or higher boost clocks may find Intel's offering relevant for specific applications. The absence of benchmark scores means these conclusions rest entirely on architectural specifications rather than measured outcomes.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher FP32 performance?

A: The NVIDIA RTX 2000 Max-Q Ada Generation delivers 8.940 TFLOPS FP32, which is 16.4% higher than the Intel Arc Pro B390's 7.680 TFLOPS.

Q: How do the FP16 capabilities compare?

A: Intel lists 15.36 TFLOPS FP16 with a 2:1 ratio, while NVIDIA lists 8.940 TFLOPS with a 1:1 ratio. Intel's FP16 throughput is 71.8% higher.

Q: What is the power consumption difference?

A: Intel's TDP is 80 W, while NVIDIA's is 35 W. NVIDIA consumes 56.3% less power while delivering higher FP32 throughput.

Q: Do both GPUs support the same graphics APIs?

A: Yes, both support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4.

Q: Which GPU has more shading units?

A: NVIDIA has 3072 shading units, exactly double Intel's 1536. NVIDIA also has double the TMUs, ROPs, and RT cores.

Q: What memory configurations do they use?

A: Intel uses system shared memory with system dependent bandwidth. NVIDIA uses 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus with 256.0 GB/s bandwidth.