Intel Arc Pro B390 vs NVIDIA RTX 3500 Embedded Ada Generation Comparison

FAQ

Q: What are the core architectural differences between the Intel Arc Pro B390 and the NVIDIA RTX 3500 Embedded Ada Generation?

A: The Intel Arc Pro B390 uses the Panther Lake chip with Xe3-LPG architecture on a 3 nm process from Intel. The NVIDIA RTX 3500 Embedded Ada Generation uses the AD104 chip with Ada Lovelace architecture on a 5 nm process from TSMC.

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

A: The Intel Arc Pro B390 uses system-shared memory with system-dependent bandwidth, while the NVIDIA RTX 3500 Embedded Ada Generation has 12 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 192-bit bus with 432.0 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: What are the compute unit counts for each GPU?

A: The Intel Arc Pro B390 has 1536 shading units, 48 texture mapping units, 24 ROPs, and 12 RT cores. The NVIDIA RTX 3500 Embedded Ada Generation has 5120 shading units, 160 texture mapping units, 64 ROPs, and 40 RT cores.

Q: How do the power requirements compare?

A: The Intel Arc Pro B390 has a TDP of 80 W with no power connectors. The NVIDIA RTX 3500 Embedded Ada Generation has a TDP of 100 W, also with no power connectors, but its suggested PSU is 300 W.

Q: What are the floating-point performance figures for each GPU?

A: The Intel Arc Pro B390 delivers 7.680 TFLOPS FP32 and 15.36 TFLOPS FP16 (2:1). The NVIDIA RTX 3500 Embedded Ada Generation delivers 23.04 TFLOPS FP32 and 23.04 TFLOPS FP16 (1:1).

Q: What is the release timeline for these products?

A: The Intel Arc Pro B390 was released on 2026-01-26, while the NVIDIA RTX 3500 Embedded Ada Generation was released on 2023-03-20. The NVIDIA part is now Active in production status, and its successor is Blackwell-MW.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Arc Pro B390 and the NVIDIA RTX 3500 Embedded Ada Generation occupy very different positions in the database. The Intel part is an integrated graphics processor (IGP) designed for portable devices, as indicated by its display outputs being "Portable Device Dependent" and its bus interface being IGP. The NVIDIA part is a discrete embedded GPU with a PCIe 4.0 x16 bus interface and no display outputs, meaning it is intended for systems where the host handles display duties separately.

The Intel Arc Pro B390 wins in power efficiency, with an 80 W TDP compared to the NVIDIA part's 100 W TDP. This lower power envelope, combined with its integrated nature, makes it suited for compact or mobile form factors where space and thermal constraints are tight. Its 3 nm process node from Intel also suggests a modern manufacturing advantage in density, though transistor counts are listed as unknown for the Intel part.

The NVIDIA RTX 3500 Embedded Ada Generation wins decisively in raw compute capability. Its FP32 throughput of 23.04 TFLOPS is exactly three times the Intel part's 7.680 TFLOPS. The NVIDIA GPU also has significantly more shading units (5120 versus 1536), more TMUs (160 versus 48), more ROPs (64 versus 24), and more RT cores (40 versus 12). For workloads that depend on parallel compute, rasterization, or ray tracing, the NVIDIA part is the clear choice.

The NVIDIA part also wins on memory isolation and bandwidth. With 12 GB of dedicated GDDR6 memory and 432.0 GB/s of bandwidth, it avoids the system-dependent memory performance of the Intel part, which shares system memory and has bandwidth that varies with the host platform. The NVIDIA GPU's 192-bit bus width provides a fixed, high-throughput path for data.

The Intel part wins on clock speed in terms of boost frequency, reaching 2500 MHz versus the NVIDIA part's 2250 MHz boost. However, the NVIDIA part has a much higher base clock at 1725 MHz versus the Intel part's 300 MHz base clock, which means the NVIDIA GPU sustains higher performance under load without needing to ramp up as aggressively.

Architecture Differences

The Intel Arc Pro B390 is built on the Panther Lake chip with Xe3-LPG architecture, belonging to the Arc Graphics-WM (Panther Lake) generation. It uses a 3 nm process from Intel's foundry. The architecture supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The GPU has 1536 shading units, 48 TMUs, 24 ROPs, and 12 RT cores. It does not list tensor cores, which means AI acceleration features common in NVIDIA parts are not specified in the data.

The NVIDIA RTX 3500 Embedded Ada Generation is built on the AD104 chip with Ada Lovelace architecture, from the Ada-MW generation. It uses a 5 nm process from TSMC, with 35,800 million transistors on a 294 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 121.8M per mm². The architecture also supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. It has 5120 shading units, 160 TMUs, 64 ROPs, 40 RT cores, and 160 tensor cores.

The most striking architectural difference is the presence of tensor cores in the NVIDIA part, with 160 of them. These tensor cores enable specialized matrix math for AI and deep learning workloads. The Intel part does not list tensor cores in the database, so any AI acceleration capability is unquantified. The RT core counts also differ significantly, with the NVIDIA part having 40 RT cores versus the Intel part's 12, meaning the NVIDIA GPU can handle ray tracing workloads with substantially more parallel hardware.

The FP16 compute ratio also differs. The Intel part achieves 15.36 TFLOPS FP16 with a 2:1 ratio relative to FP32, indicating it uses packed math for half-precision. The NVIDIA part achieves 23.04 TFLOPS FP16 with a 1:1 ratio, meaning it does not gain extra throughput from half-precision operations, but its absolute FP16 performance is still 50% higher than the Intel part's.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ across nearly every recorded specification field. The process nodes differ: Intel uses 3 nm, NVIDIA uses 5 nm. Transistor counts are unknown for Intel, while NVIDIA lists 35,800 million transistors on a 294 mm² die with 121.8M transistors per mm² density.

Clock speeds differ in both base and boost: Intel runs at 300 MHz base and 2500 MHz boost, while NVIDIA runs at 1725 MHz base and 2250 MHz boost. Memory configurations are fundamentally different: Intel uses system-shared memory with system-dependent bandwidth, while NVIDIA has 12 GB of GDDR6 on a 192-bit bus with 432.0 GB/s bandwidth.

Compute unit counts differ substantially: 1536 shading units, 48 TMUs, 24 ROPs, and 12 RT cores for Intel; 5120 shading units, 160 TMUs, 64 ROPs, 40 RT cores, and 160 tensor cores for NVIDIA. Pixel rate is 60.00 GPixel/s for Intel and 144.0 GPixel/s for NVIDIA. Texture rate is 120.0 GTexel/s for Intel and 360.0 GTexel/s for NVIDIA. FP32 is 7.680 TFLOPS for Intel and 23.04 TFLOPS for NVIDIA. FP16 is 15.36 TFLOPS (2:1) for Intel and 23.04 TFLOPS (1:1) for NVIDIA.

Power specifications differ: Intel has an 80 W TDP, NVIDIA has a 100 W TDP. Both are IGP slot width with no power connectors, but NVIDIA lists a suggested PSU of 300 W while Intel does not suggest a PSU. Bus interfaces differ: Intel is IGP, NVIDIA is PCIe 4.0 x16. Display outputs differ: Intel is "Portable Device Dependent", NVIDIA has no outputs.

Release dates differ: Intel was released on 2026-01-26, NVIDIA on 2023-03-20. The NVIDIA part has a predecessor (Ampere-MW) and a successor (Blackwell-MW), while the Intel part has a predecessor (HD Graphics-WM) and no listed successor.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains no direct head-to-head benchmark scores for these two GPUs, and neither has an average benchmark score recorded. Both are listed at the 50th percentile versus all GPUs. This means the comparison must rely on the recorded specification data, which favors the NVIDIA part in most raw performance metrics.

The largest single-specification win for the NVIDIA part is FP32 compute, where 23.04 TFLOPS is exactly three times the Intel part's 7.680 TFLOPS. This ratio is mirrored in shading unit counts, where 5120 is more than three times 1536. The texture rate of 360.0 GTexel/s is also exactly three times the Intel part's 120.0 GTexel/s, and the pixel rate of 144.0 GPixel/s is 2.4 times the Intel part's 60.00 GPixel/s.

The NVIDIA part's 432.0 GB/s memory bandwidth is a major advantage over the Intel part's system-dependent bandwidth. With 12 GB of dedicated GDDR6 memory, the NVIDIA GPU can sustain high-throughput data movement without contending with the host CPU for memory access. The Intel part's system-shared memory means its effective bandwidth depends entirely on the host platform's memory configuration, which the database records as "System Dependent."

The RT core count difference is another significant gap: 40 RT cores for NVIDIA versus 12 for Intel, a 3.33x advantage. The tensor core count of 160 on the NVIDIA part has no counterpart on the Intel part, as Intel does not list tensor cores.

The Intel part does hold advantages in a few areas. Its boost clock of 2500 MHz is 250 MHz higher than the NVIDIA part's 2250 MHz boost. Its 3 nm process node is more advanced than the NVIDIA part's 5 nm node, which could imply better transistor density, though Intel's transistor count is unknown. The Intel part's 80 W TDP is 20 W lower than the NVIDIA part's 100 W TDP, indicating lower power draw.

In terms of release timing, the Intel part is nearly three years newer, released on 2026-01-26 versus the NVIDIA part's 2023-03-20. The newer process node and architecture generation suggest the Intel part benefits from more recent design techniques, but the recorded specifications still show the NVIDIA part with a large compute advantage.

The Verdict

The data indicates a clear split in purpose and capability. The Intel Arc Pro B390 is an integrated GPU with system-shared memory, a portable-device-dependent display output, and an 80 W TDP. It targets systems where power efficiency, integration, and a smaller footprint are priorities. Its 3 nm process and 2500 MHz boost clock are modern, but its 1536 shading units and 7.680 TFLOPS FP32 place it in a lower compute tier.

The NVIDIA RTX 3500 Embedded Ada Generation is a discrete GPU with 12 GB of dedicated GDDR6 memory, 432.0 GB/s bandwidth, 5120 shading units, and 23.04 TFLOPS FP32. Its 160 tensor cores and 40 RT cores give it substantial AI and ray tracing capabilities. The 100 W TDP is higher but still within an embedded-class power envelope, and the suggested 300 W PSU indicates system-level power planning.

Users or systems requiring maximum compute throughput, dedicated memory bandwidth, or tensor core acceleration should select the NVIDIA part. The recorded specifications show it outperforms the Intel part by 3x in FP32, texture rate, and shading units, and by 2.4x in pixel rate. The 432.0 GB/s memory bandwidth versus system-dependent memory further solidifies its advantage for data-intensive workloads.

Users or systems prioritizing lower power draw, a more advanced process node, or integrated graphics without a discrete card should select the Intel part. Its 80 W TDP, 3 nm process, and IGP bus interface make it suitable for compact portable devices where the NVIDIA part's higher power and PCIe form factor are impractical. The Intel part's newer release date also indicates a more recent design generation.

The lack of recorded benchmark scores means the performance comparison rests entirely on specification data. Both GPUs sit at the 50th percentile versus all GPUs, which places them in the middle of the overall distribution. The NVIDIA part's specification sheet, however, shows a dominant position in every raw compute metric except boost clock and process node. For applications that can use the NVIDIA part's tensor cores, RT cores, and dedicated memory, it is the stronger choice. For applications constrained by power and physical space, the Intel part is the appropriate selection.