Intel Arc Pro B390 vs NVIDIA RTX 3000 Mobile Ada Generation Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The recorded data splits these two mobile graphics processors into distinct use cases. The Intel Arc Pro B390 is built around a shared-memory architecture with a 3 nm process and a boost clock of 2500 MHz. Its 1536 shading units and 12 ray tracing cores deliver 7.680 TFLOPS of FP32 performance. This makes it suitable for lightweight, power-conscious workloads where system memory is shared flexibly.

The NVIDIA RTX 3000 Mobile Ada Generation takes a different approach. It uses a dedicated 8 GB GDDR6 memory pool on a 128 bit bus, delivering 256.0 GB/s of bandwidth. With 4608 shading units, 144 tensor cores, and 36 ray tracing cores, its FP32 throughput reaches 15.62 TFLOPS. The advantage here is clear: the RTX 3000 Mobile has roughly double the shading units and more than double the FP32 compute.

In terms of raw compute wins, the RTX 3000 Mobile leads on pixel rate, 81.36 GPixel/s versus 60.00 GPixel/s. It also leads on texture rate, 244.1 GTexel/s versus 120.0 GTexel/s. Those numbers indicate that the NVIDIA part handles fill-rate-heavy scenes, such as high-resolution textures and complex geometry, with more headroom.

The Intel part wins on power efficiency per the data. Its TDP is 80 W, while the NVIDIA part runs at 115 W. For thin-and-light laptops where sustained load matters, the Intel Arc Pro B390 draws less power and runs at a lower 300 MHz base clock. That lower base clock suggests it can idle or run light tasks with less energy draw. The boost clock of 2500 MHz on the Intel part is higher than the NVIDIA boost of 1695 MHz, which indicates the Intel design can ramp up quickly when needed.

For memory flexibility, the Intel Arc Pro B390 uses system shared memory. That means it has no fixed memory size; it borrows from the system RAM. This can be advantageous for workloads that do not need massive dedicated VRAM, as the memory pool scales with the system. The NVIDIA RTX 3000 Mobile is fixed at 8 GB GDDR6, which is sufficient for most mobile workloads but cannot exceed its own pool.

The data indicates the NVIDIA part is the choice for compute-heavy tasks, including ray tracing and AI inference, given its 144 tensor cores and 36 RT cores. The Intel part has 12 RT cores but no listed tensor cores, so AI acceleration is absent. For creators using ray-traced rendering or deep learning tools, the NVIDIA part holds a clear functional advantage.

The Intel Arc Pro B390 targets integrated graphics territory, with a bus interface of IGP and no power connectors. The NVIDIA part also uses IGP slot width and no power connectors, but its bus interface is PCIe 4.0 x16. That difference matters for data transfer between the GPU and the system. PCIe 4.0 x16 offers a dedicated high-bandwidth path, while the Intel IGP relies on the same bus as the CPU.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different foundries and process nodes. Intel builds the Arc Pro B390 on a 3 nm node at Intel. NVIDIA builds the RTX 3000 Mobile on a 5 nm node at TSMC. The smaller node typically allows higher transistor density and lower power per transistor, though the Intel part does not list its transistor count or die size. The NVIDIA part lists 22,900 million transistors on a 188 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 121.8M per mm².

The chip designations also differ. Intel uses the Panther Lake chip with the Xe3-LPG architecture, part of the Arc Graphics-WM generation. NVIDIA uses the AD106 chip with Ada Lovelace architecture, part of the Ada-MW generation. The Intel architecture is newer in release timeline, with a release date of 2026-01-26, while the NVIDIA part released on 2023-03-20.

Memory architecture is a major split. The Intel Arc Pro B390 has no dedicated VRAM; it uses system shared memory with a type of system shared and a bus width of system shared. Bandwidth is listed as system dependent, meaning it varies with the host system's memory configuration. The NVIDIA part has 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 128 bit bus with fixed 256.0 GB/s bandwidth. That fixed bandwidth is predictable and high, whereas the Intel part's bandwidth depends entirely on the laptop's system memory speed and channel configuration.

Compute resources differ sharply. The Intel part has 1536 shading units, 48 texture mapping units, and 24 ROPs. The NVIDIA part has 4608 shading units, 144 TMUs, and 48 ROPs. That is a 3x difference in shading units and TMUs, and a 2x difference in ROPs. The RT core count also favors NVIDIA, 36 versus 12. NVIDIA adds 144 tensor cores, which the Intel part lacks entirely.

Clock behavior shows a different design philosophy. Intel's base clock is 300 MHz with a boost of 2500 MHz. NVIDIA's base clock is 1395 MHz with a boost of 1695 MHz. The Intel part has a much wider clock range, suggesting it can idle very low and boost relatively high. The NVIDIA part runs at a higher floor, which suits sustained workloads but may draw more power during lighter tasks.

FP16 performance also differs in ratio. The Intel part delivers 15.36 TFLOPS FP16 with a 2:1 ratio relative to FP32. The NVIDIA part delivers 15.62 TFLOPS FP16 with a 1:1 ratio. That means NVIDIA does not gain a speedup when switching to FP16, while Intel doubles its throughput. For workloads that can use FP16, the Intel part becomes more competitive, though it still trails slightly in absolute FP16 numbers.

Both parts support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. This means modern graphics APIs are fully covered on both sides. The production status for both is active. The NVIDIA part has a predecessor, Ampere-MW, and a successor, Blackwell-MW. The Intel part has a predecessor, HD Graphics-WM, but no successor listed.

The Verdict

The data points to distinct buyers. The Intel Arc Pro B390 suits systems where power draw is a priority and where dedicated VRAM is not required. Its 80 W TDP and system shared memory fit ultraportable laptops with unified memory designs. The 3 nm process and high boost clock of 2500 MHz indicate it can handle bursts of graphics work without a large power envelope. The absence of tensor cores and a dedicated memory bus means it is not the tool for heavy AI or high-bandwidth workloads.

The NVIDIA RTX 3000 Mobile Ada Generation is the pick for dedicated graphics performance. Its 8 GB GDDR6 with 256.0 GB/s bandwidth, 4608 shading units, and 144 tensor cores make it a complete package for gaming, 3D rendering, and AI inference. The 115 W TDP is higher, but the performance data justifies that power draw. The PCIe 4.0 x16 interface also gives it a dedicated data path, which helps when moving large textures or datasets.

For users who prioritize battery life and light workloads, the Intel part is the data-supported choice. For users who prioritize raw throughput and feature set, the NVIDIA part wins. The benchmark database shows equal percentile rankings at 50, but that percentile does not reflect the absolute performance gap. The NVIDIA part delivers more than double the FP32 throughput, 15.62 TFLOPS versus 7.680 TFLOPS, and more than double the texture rate, 244.1 GTexel/s versus 120.0 GTexel/s.

The RTX 3000 Mobile is the stronger all-around mobile GPU in this comparison. The Arc Pro B390 is a capable integrated solution with competitive clock speeds and a modern 3 nm node. Neither part has a launch MSRP listed, so pricing is not a deciding factor in this analysis.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher FP32 compute performance?

A: The NVIDIA RTX 3000 Mobile Ada Generation delivers 15.62 TFLOPS FP32, while the Intel Arc Pro B390 delivers 7.680 TFLOPS FP32. The NVIDIA part is roughly double the Intel part in this metric.

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

A: No. It uses system shared memory for both size and type, with a bus width of system shared and bandwidth listed as system dependent. The NVIDIA RTX 3000 Mobile has 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 128 bit bus with 256.0 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Which GPU supports tensor cores for AI workloads?

A: Only the NVIDIA RTX 3000 Mobile Ada Generation lists 144 tensor cores. The Intel Arc Pro B390 has no tensor cores listed, so AI acceleration is not available on the Intel part.

Q: What is the power draw difference between the two?

A: The Intel Arc Pro B390 has a TDP of 80 W. The NVIDIA RTX 3000 Mobile has a TDP of 115 W. The Intel part draws less power, which can benefit battery life in mobile systems.

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. There is no difference in API support between the two.

Q: Which GPU has a higher boost clock?

A: The Intel Arc Pro B390 boosts to 2500 MHz, while the NVIDIA RTX 3000 Mobile boosts to 1695 MHz. The Intel part has the higher boost clock, but the NVIDIA part has a much higher base clock at 1395 MHz versus 300 MHz.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head benchmark table is empty in the database, so no direct benchmark scores are available. However, the recorded specifications allow for a meaningful comparison of theoretical peak performance.

The largest win for the NVIDIA RTX 3000 Mobile is in FP32 compute. It delivers 15.62 TFLOPS versus 7.680 TFLOPS for the Intel Arc Pro B390. That is a 103% advantage in raw shader throughput. For gaming and rendering workloads that rely on FP32, this is the dominant metric.

Texture rate shows a similar gap. The NVIDIA part achieves 244.1 GTexel/s, while the Intel part achieves 120.0 GTexel/s. That is more than double the texel fill rate, which matters for detailed surfaces and high-resolution textures. The NVIDIA part has 144 TMUs versus 48 TMUs on the Intel part, explaining the difference.

Pixel rate also favors NVIDIA. The RTX 3000 Mobile reaches 81.36 GPixel/s, while the Arc Pro B390 reaches 60.00 GPixel/s. This is a 35.6% advantage for NVIDIA. With 48 ROPs versus 24 ROPs, the NVIDIA part can fill more pixels per second, which helps at high resolutions and with heavy post-processing effects.

Ray tracing is another decisive area. The NVIDIA part has 36 RT cores, three times the 12 RT cores on the Intel part. This suggests the RTX 3000 Mobile can handle ray-traced scenes with significantly more parallel ray processing. The Intel part has RT support, but the core count is lower.

Memory bandwidth is where the NVIDIA part wins most clearly. The 256.0 GB/s fixed bandwidth on the RTX 3000 Mobile is a known quantity. The Intel part has no fixed bandwidth; it is system dependent. In a typical laptop with dual-channel DDR5, the shared memory bandwidth might approach similar levels, but the data does not confirm that. The NVIDIA part's dedicated GDDR6 ensures consistent bandwidth regardless of system memory speed.

The Intel Arc Pro B390 wins on clock speed. Its 2500 MHz boost clock is 47.5% higher than the NVIDIA's 1695 MHz boost. This does not translate to a compute win due to the lower core count, but it does indicate the Intel part can spike to higher clock rates for short bursts. The 300 MHz base clock also gives it a very low idle state, which helps with power consumption.

The FP16 comparison is close. The Intel part delivers 15.36 TFLOPS FP16 with a 2:1 ratio. The NVIDIA part delivers 15.62 TFLOPS FP16 with a 1:1 ratio. The NVIDIA part is only 1.7% higher in absolute FP16 throughput. For workloads that use FP16, the Intel part is nearly competitive despite its lower FP32 performance, because it doubles its rate while NVIDIA does not.

Specification Differences

The following fields differ between the Intel Arc Pro B390 and the NVIDIA RTX 3000 Mobile Ada Generation:

• Manufacturer: Intel versus NVIDIA
• Chip: Panther Lake versus AD106
• Architecture: Xe3-LPG versus Ada Lovelace
• Generation: Arc Graphics-WM (Panther Lake) versus Ada-MW
• Process node: 3 nm versus 5 nm
• Foundry: Intel versus TSMC
• Transistors: unknown versus 22,900 million
• Die size: unknown versus 188 mm²
• Transistor density: not listed versus 121.8M / mm²
• Base clock: 300 MHz versus 1395 MHz
• Boost clock: 2500 MHz versus 1695 MHz
• Memory clock: system shared versus 2000 MHz, 16 Gbps effective
• Memory size: system shared versus 8 GB
• Memory type: system shared versus GDDR6
• Memory bus width: system shared versus 128 bit
• Memory bandwidth: system dependent versus 256.0 GB/s
• Shading units: 1536 versus 4608
• TMUs: 48 versus 144
• ROPs: 24 versus 48
• RT cores: 12 versus 36
• Tensor cores: not listed versus 144
• Pixel rate: 60.00 GPixel/s versus 81.36 GPixel/s
• Texture rate: 120.0 GTexel/s versus 244.1 GTexel/s
• FP32 performance: 7.680 TFLOPS versus 15.62 TFLOPS
• FP16 performance: 15.36 TFLOPS (2:1) versus 15.62 TFLOPS (1:1)
• TDP: 80 W versus 115 W
• Bus interface: IGP versus PCIe 4.0 x16
• Release date: 2026-01-26 versus 2023-03-20
• Predecessor: HD Graphics-WM versus Ampere-MW
• Successor: not listed versus Blackwell-MW

Both parts share the same slot width (IGP), power connectors (none), display outputs (portable device dependent), and API support (DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, Vulkan 1.4). Neither has a listed launch MSRP or dimensions. Both are marked as active in production.