Intel Arc Pro B390 vs NVIDIA RTX 5000 Embedded Ada Generation X2 Comparison

The Verdict

The database comparison between the Intel Arc Pro B390 and the NVIDIA RTX 5000 Embedded Ada Generation X2 reveals two fundamentally different mobile graphics solutions. The Intel part is an integrated graphics processor built on the Panther Lake platform, while the NVIDIA part is a discrete-class embedded GPU using the Ada Lovelace architecture. The recorded data shows that the NVIDIA RTX 5000 Embedded Ada Generation X2 delivers substantially higher raw compute performance across every measured metric, while the Intel Arc Pro B390 offers a much lower power envelope and a newer manufacturing process.

Looking strictly at the numbers, the NVIDIA RTX 5000 Embedded Ada Generation X2 is the clear performance leader. Its FP32 throughput of 32.69 TFLOPS is more than four times the Intel Arc Pro B390's 7.680 TFLOPS. The pixel rate of the NVIDIA part reaches 188.2 GPixel/s versus 60.00 GPixel/s for the Intel part, a difference of roughly 3.1 times. Texture rate shows a similar gap, with the NVIDIA GPU delivering 510.7 GTexel/s compared to 120.0 GTexel/s on the Intel solution.

The Intel Arc Pro B390 does hold advantages in specific areas. It uses a 3 nm process node compared to the 5 nm node of the NVIDIA chip, which contributes to its significantly lower 80 W TDP versus 150 W for the NVIDIA part. The Intel GPU also boosts to 2500 MHz, which is notably higher than the NVIDIA boost clock of 1680 MHz. However, the NVIDIA part compensates with a much larger shader array, featuring 9728 shading units against 1536 on the Intel side.

For system integrators and portable device manufacturers, the choice depends entirely on the performance target and power budget. The data indicates that the NVIDIA RTX 5000 Embedded Ada Generation X2 is designed for workloads requiring maximum compute throughput, while the Intel Arc Pro B390 suits scenarios where power efficiency and integrated packaging are priorities. Both parts are listed as Active production status, and both use the IGP slot width with no power connectors, indicating they are intended for embedded or mobile implementations.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA RTX 5000 Embedded Ada Generation X2 wins decisively in every raw performance category recorded in the database. Its FP32 compute of 32.69 TFLOPS dwarfs the Intel part's 7.680 TFLOPS, making it suitable for demanding graphics and compute workloads. The pixel rate advantage, 188.2 GPixel/s versus 60.00 GPixel/s, indicates faster rasterization throughput for high-resolution rendering. The texture rate of 510.7 GTexel/s versus 120.0 GTexel/s suggests superior fill-rate performance in texture-heavy scenes.

The NVIDIA GPU also holds a massive advantage in memory resources. It features 16 GB of dedicated GDDR6 memory on a 256-bit bus with 576.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The Intel Arc Pro B390 relies on System Shared memory with bandwidth described as System Dependent, meaning its memory performance varies with the host system configuration. This is a fundamental architectural difference that favors the NVIDIA part in memory-intensive applications.

The NVIDIA RTX 5000 Embedded Ada Generation X2 also leads in specialized hardware resources. It includes 76 ray tracing cores and 304 tensor cores, while the Intel part has 12 ray tracing cores and no listed tensor cores. The shading unit count of 9728 versus 1536, TMUs of 304 versus 48, and ROPs of 112 versus 24 all point to the NVIDIA part being in a completely different performance class.

The Intel Arc Pro B390 wins in power efficiency and manufacturing technology. Its 80 W TDP is nearly half the 150 W TDP of the NVIDIA part. The 3 nm process node from Intel Foundry represents a more advanced manufacturing technology than the 5 nm TSMC node used for the NVIDIA chip. The Intel GPU also operates at a higher boost clock, 2500 MHz versus 1680 MHz, which partially compensates for its smaller shader array. The Intel part's base clock of 300 MHz is substantially lower than the NVIDIA base clock of 930 MHz, but the higher boost clock indicates different power management characteristics.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from completely different architectural lineages. The Intel Arc Pro B390 uses the Xe3-LPG architecture built on the Panther Lake chip, belonging to the Arc Graphics-WM generation. The NVIDIA RTX 5000 Embedded Ada Generation X2 uses the Ada Lovelace architecture built on the AD103 chip, belonging to the Ada-MW generation. These are distinct design philosophies aimed at different market segments.

The manufacturing processes differ significantly. Intel fabricates the Arc Pro B390 on a 3 nm node at Intel Foundry, while NVIDIA uses TSMC's 5 nm process for the AD103 chip. The Intel part does not report transistor counts or die size in the database, while the NVIDIA chip lists 45,900 million transistors on a 379 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 121.1M per mm². This suggests the NVIDIA chip is a large, complex design, while the Intel part's transistor budget remains unspecified.

Memory architecture represents another fundamental difference. The Intel Arc Pro B390 uses system shared memory, meaning it has no dedicated VRAM and relies on the host system's memory pool. The NVIDIA RTX 5000 Embedded Ada Generation X2 includes 16 GB of GDDR6 memory operating at 2250 MHz with 18 Gbps effective data rate on a 256-bit bus. The NVIDIA memory bandwidth of 576.0 GB/s is a fixed, dedicated resource, whereas the Intel part's bandwidth is System Dependent and cannot be quantified in the database.

The clock behavior also differs. The Intel part has a base clock of 300 MHz and a boost clock of 2500 MHz, showing a wide dynamic range for power management. The NVIDIA part operates at a base clock of 930 MHz and boosts to 1680 MHz, a narrower range that reflects its higher minimum performance floor. Both parts list their memory clock differently: the Intel part uses System Shared memory with no dedicated clock, while the NVIDIA part lists 2250 MHz with 18 Gbps effective.

The bus interfaces reflect their different integration levels. The Intel Arc Pro B390 uses an IGP bus interface, confirming its role as an integrated GPU. The NVIDIA RTX 5000 Embedded Ada Generation X2 uses PCIe 4.0 x16, indicating it connects as a discrete device even in embedded form factors. Both parts use the IGP slot width and have no power connectors, suggesting they are designed for soldered or embedded installations rather than user-replaceable expansion cards.

The API support is identical between the two parts. Both support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. This means software compatibility is not a differentiating factor in the database comparison.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher FP32 compute performance?

A: The NVIDIA RTX 5000 Embedded Ada Generation X2 delivers 32.69 TFLOPS of FP32 compute, which is approximately 4.3 times the 7.680 TFLOPS of the Intel Arc Pro B390.

Q: How do the power requirements compare?

A: The Intel Arc Pro B390 has a TDP of 80 W, while the NVIDIA RTX 5000 Embedded Ada Generation X2 has a TDP of 150 W. The Intel part consumes nearly half the power of the NVIDIA GPU.

Q: What memory configurations do the two GPUs use?

A: The Intel Arc Pro B390 uses System Shared memory with system-dependent bandwidth. The NVIDIA RTX 5000 Embedded Ada Generation X2 uses 16 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 256-bit bus with 576.0 GB/s of bandwidth.

Q: Which GPU has more ray tracing cores?

A: The NVIDIA RTX 5000 Embedded Ada Generation X2 includes 76 ray tracing cores, while the Intel Arc Pro B390 has 12 ray tracing cores.

Q: What manufacturing processes are used for each GPU?

A: The Intel Arc Pro B390 is fabricated on a 3 nm process at Intel Foundry. The NVIDIA RTX 5000 Embedded Ada Generation X2 is fabricated on a 5 nm process at TSMC.

Q: Do both GPUs support the same graphics APIs?

A: Yes, both the Intel Arc Pro B390 and the NVIDIA RTX 5000 Embedded Ada Generation X2 support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The performance gap between these two GPUs is stark across every recorded metric. The FP32 compute difference is the most dramatic: the NVIDIA RTX 5000 Embedded Ada Generation X2 produces 32.69 TFLOPS, which is 25.01 TFLOPS more than the Intel Arc Pro B390's 7.680 TFLOPS. This represents a 4.3x advantage for the NVIDIA part, indicating it is in a completely different performance tier for general compute workloads.

The FP16 compute comparison shows a different ratio. The NVIDIA part delivers 32.69 TFLOPS in FP16 with a 1:1 ratio to FP32, meaning it does not double throughput in half precision. The Intel part delivers 15.36 TFLOPS in FP16 with a 2:1 ratio, doubling its FP32 rate. This means the Intel Arc Pro B390 is closer to the NVIDIA part in FP16 performance, achieving 47% of the NVIDIA GPU's FP16 throughput. The Intel part's 2:1 FP16 ratio suggests it has dedicated half-precision hardware that the NVIDIA GPU does not utilize in the same way.

The pixel rate comparison shows the NVIDIA RTX 5000 Embedded Ada Generation X2 delivering 188.2 GPixel/s against 60.00 GPixel/s for the Intel Arc Pro B390. The NVIDIA part is 3.1 times faster in pixel throughput, which directly impacts fill-rate-limited scenarios such as high-resolution rendering with heavy overdraw. The texture rate follows a similar pattern, with the NVIDIA GPU achieving 510.7 GTexel/s versus 120.0 GTexel/s for the Intel part, a 4.3x advantage that reflects the much larger TMU count of 304 versus 48.

The shading resources show the largest architectural gap. The NVIDIA RTX 5000 Embedded Ada Generation X2 has 9728 shading units, 304 TMUs, and 112 ROPs. The Intel Arc Pro B390 has 1536 shading units, 48 TMUs, and 24 ROPs. These ratios are consistent with the compute and fill-rate differences, confirming that the NVIDIA part has roughly six times the shading hardware of the Intel part.

The clock speeds tell a different story. The Intel Arc Pro B390 boosts to 2500 MHz, which is 820 MHz higher than the NVIDIA part's 1680 MHz boost clock. Even the NVIDIA base clock of 930 MHz is higher than the Intel base clock of 300 MHz, but the Intel boost clock advantage shows that the smaller Intel GPU compensates for its fewer cores by running at higher frequencies. This is a typical design trade-off for integrated GPUs that need to balance performance with power constraints.

Memory bandwidth is another area of complete dominance for the NVIDIA part. The 576.0 GB/s of dedicated GDDR6 bandwidth is not directly comparable to the Intel part's System Dependent bandwidth, but the fixed nature of the NVIDIA memory subsystem provides predictable performance. The 16 GB memory capacity versus System Shared memory means the NVIDIA GPU can handle larger working sets without relying on system memory allocation.

The ray tracing resources show the NVIDIA RTX 5000 Embedded Ada Generation X2 with 76 ray tracing cores versus 12 on the Intel Arc Pro B390. This 6.3x difference in dedicated ray tracing hardware suggests the NVIDIA part is substantially better equipped for ray-traced workloads. The NVIDIA GPU also includes 304 tensor cores, while the Intel part lists no tensor cores, indicating a gap in AI-accelerated features.

The TDP difference of 70 W (150 W versus 80 W) places these GPUs in different power classes. The NVIDIA part consumes 87.5% more power than the Intel part, which is a significant consideration for embedded and portable designs where thermal management is critical. The Intel part's lower power envelope makes it suitable for thinner, lighter devices, while the NVIDIA part requires more substantial cooling solutions.

Specification Differences

The specification table reveals the following differences between the two GPUs:

• Chip: Intel Arc Pro B390 uses Panther Lake; NVIDIA RTX 5000 Embedded Ada Generation X2 uses AD103
• Architecture: Intel uses Xe3-LPG; NVIDIA uses Ada Lovelace
• Generation: Intel is Arc Graphics-WM (Panther Lake); NVIDIA is Ada-MW
• Process Node: Intel uses 3 nm; NVIDIA uses 5 nm
• Foundry: Intel uses Intel Foundry; NVIDIA uses TSMC
• Transistors: Intel does not report; NVIDIA reports 45,900 million
• Die Size: Intel does not report; NVIDIA reports 379 mm²
• Transistor Density: Intel does not report; NVIDIA reports 121.1M per mm²
• Base Clock: Intel at 300 MHz; NVIDIA at 930 MHz
• Boost Clock: Intel at 2500 MHz; NVIDIA at 1680 MHz
• Memory Clock: Intel uses System Shared; NVIDIA at 2250 MHz with 18 Gbps effective
• Memory Size: Intel uses System Shared; NVIDIA has 16 GB
• Memory Type: Intel uses System Shared; NVIDIA uses GDDR6
• Memory Bus Width: Intel uses System Shared; NVIDIA uses 256 bit
• Memory Bandwidth: Intel is System Dependent; NVIDIA is 576.0 GB/s
• Shading Units: Intel has 1536; NVIDIA has 9728
• TMUs: Intel has 48; NVIDIA has 304
• ROPs: Intel has 24; NVIDIA has 112
• Ray Tracing Cores: Intel has 12; NVIDIA has 76
• Tensor Cores: Intel does not list; NVIDIA has 304
• Pixel Rate: Intel at 60.00 GPixel/s; NVIDIA at 188.2 GPixel/s
• Texture Rate: Intel at 120.0 GTexel/s; NVIDIA at 510.7 GTexel/s
• FP32 Performance: Intel at 7.680 TFLOPS; NVIDIA at 32.69 TFLOPS
• FP16 Performance: Intel at 15.36 TFLOPS (2:1); NVIDIA at 32.69 TFLOPS (1:1)
• TDP: Intel at 80 W; NVIDIA at 150 W
• Bus Interface: Intel uses IGP; NVIDIA uses PCIe 4.0 x16
• Release Date: Intel released on 2026-01-26; NVIDIA released on 2023-03-20
• Predecessor: Intel's predecessor is HD Graphics-WM; NVIDIA's predecessor is Ampere-MW
• Successor: Intel lists none; NVIDIA's successor is Blackwell-MW

The shared specifications include the IGP slot width, no power connectors, portable device dependent display outputs, DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, Vulkan 1.4, Active production status, and a 50th percentile ranking among all GPUs in the database. Neither part has a launch MSRP listed, and neither has recorded benchmark scores or nearest rivals in the database.