Intel Arc Pro B390 vs NVIDIA RTX 5000 Max-Q Ada Generation Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The recorded data splits these two mobile graphics solutions into distinct roles. The Intel Arc Pro B390 is an integrated graphics processor, sharing system memory and relying entirely on the host platform's resources. The NVIDIA RTX 5000 Max-Q Ada Generation is a discrete-class mobile GPU with dedicated 16 GB of GDDR6 memory and its own PCIe 4.0 x16 interface. This fundamental separation drives where each part excels.

For compute-heavy workloads that scale with raw shader throughput, the NVIDIA part dominates. Its FP32 performance is rated at 32.69 TFLOPS, which is over four times the Intel part's 7.680 TFLOPS. The NVIDIA GPU also carries 9728 shading units compared to 1536 on the Intel chip, giving it a massive parallel execution advantage. Texture work follows the same pattern: the NVIDIA solution delivers 510.7 GTexel/s versus 120.0 GTexel/s on the Intel side. Pixel throughput shows a 188.2 GPixel/s rating for NVIDIA versus 60.00 GPixel/s for Intel.

The NVIDIA part's 304 tensor cores and 76 RT cores provide dedicated hardware for AI acceleration and ray tracing. The Intel chip has 12 RT cores and no tensor core field recorded. For any workload involving neural networks, machine learning inference, or real-time ray tracing, the NVIDIA GPU is the only option with specialized silicon.

The Intel Arc Pro B390 wins in power efficiency and integration. Its 80 W TDP compares favorably to the NVIDIA part's 120 W TDP, and it requires no power connectors. The NVIDIA part also requires no power connectors, but the Intel chip operates as an IGP with no separate bus interface, meaning it needs no PCIe slot and consumes no additional board space. The Intel part's 300 MHz base clock and 2500 MHz boost clock show a wide dynamic range, while the NVIDIA part runs at 930 MHz base and 1680 MHz boost.

For memory bandwidth, the NVIDIA part is categorically superior. Its 576.0 GB/s bandwidth through a 256-bit bus with 2250 MHz GDDR6 memory stands against the Intel part's system-dependent shared memory with no dedicated bandwidth figure. The Intel solution's performance in memory-bound tasks will hinge entirely on the host system's RAM configuration.

Architecture Differences

The two chips come from different foundries and process nodes. Intel uses its own 3 nm process for the Panther Lake chip, built on the Xe3-LPG architecture. NVIDIA's AD103 chip is fabricated by TSMC on a 5 nm process, using the Ada Lovelace architecture. The Intel part belongs to the Arc Graphics-WM generation, while the NVIDIA part is part of the Ada-MW generation.

The NVIDIA chip contains 45,900 million transistors on a 379 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 121.1M per mm². The Intel chip's transistor count and die size are recorded as unknown. This difference in physical scale explains the compute gap: the NVIDIA chip allocates thousands of execution units across a large die, while the Intel chip is designed for tight integration into a processor package.

Clock behavior differs significantly. The Intel part starts at a very low 300 MHz base and boosts to 2500 MHz, a ratio of over 8x. The NVIDIA part runs at 930 MHz base and 1680 MHz boost, a far narrower range. The Intel chip's aggressive boost suggests it spends most of its time at low power and ramps up only when needed. The NVIDIA part operates at a more sustained frequency profile.

Memory architecture is the largest architectural divergence. The Intel part uses system shared memory for both capacity and bandwidth, with the bus width also shared. The NVIDIA part has 16 GB of dedicated GDDR6 on a 256-bit bus, delivering 576.0 GB/s. The Intel solution's bandwidth is system dependent, meaning its performance varies with the host platform's memory subsystem.

The API support is identical at the feature level: both parts support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. However, the hardware underneath differs. The NVIDIA part has 304 tensor cores and 76 RT cores. The Intel part has 12 RT cores and no tensor core field. The NVIDIA part's FP16 throughput is 32.69 TFLOPS at 1:1 ratio, meaning it matches FP32. The Intel part's FP16 is 15.36 TFLOPS at 2:1 ratio, meaning it is exactly double its FP32 rate.

FAQ

Q: Which part has more shading units?

A: The NVIDIA RTX 5000 Max-Q Ada Generation has 9728 shading units. The Intel Arc Pro B390 has 1536 shading units.

Q: How does memory bandwidth compare?

A: The NVIDIA part provides 576.0 GB/s of dedicated bandwidth through a 256-bit bus with 16 GB of GDDR6. The Intel part uses system shared memory with bandwidth that is system dependent and has no dedicated figure.

Q: What is the power draw difference?

A: The Intel Arc Pro B390 has a TDP of 80 W. The NVIDIA RTX 5000 Max-Q Ada Generation has a TDP of 120 W. Neither part requires external power connectors.

Q: Do both parts support the same graphics APIs?

A: Yes, both support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The underlying hardware differs, with NVIDIA offering 304 tensor cores and 76 RT cores, while Intel offers 12 RT cores and no tensor cores.

Q: Which chip is newer?

A: The Intel Arc Pro B390 has a release date of January 26, 2026. The NVIDIA RTX 5000 Max-Q Ada Generation was released on March 20, 2023.

Q: What process nodes are used?

A: The Intel chip is built on a 3 nm process by Intel foundry. The NVIDIA chip is built on a 5 nm process by TSMC.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Arc Pro B390 | NVIDIA RTX 5000 Max-Q Ada Generation |

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

| Chip | Panther Lake | AD103 |

| Architecture | Xe3-LPG | Ada Lovelace |

| Process Node | 3 nm | 5 nm |

| Foundry | Intel | TSMC |

| Transistors | unknown | 45,900 million |

| Die Size | unknown | 379 mm² |

| Transistor Density | null | 121.1M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 300 MHz | 930 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 2500 MHz | 1680 MHz |

| Memory Size | System Shared | 16 GB |

| Memory Type | System Shared | GDDR6 |

| Memory Bus Width | System Shared | 256 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | System Dependent | 576.0 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 1536 | 9728 |

| TMUs | 48 | 304 |

| ROPs | 24 | 112 |

| RT Cores | 12 | 76 |

| Tensor Cores | null | 304 |

| Pixel Rate | 60.00 GPixel/s | 188.2 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 120.0 GTexel/s | 510.7 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 7.680 TFLOPS | 32.69 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | 15.36 TFLOPS (2:1) | 32.69 TFLOPS (1:1) |

| TDP | 80 W | 120 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 |

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded benchmark data contains no actual head-to-head benchmark scores, but the specification-level compute rates provide a clear performance hierarchy. The NVIDIA part's FP32 throughput of 32.69 TFLOPS is 4.26 times the Intel part's 7.680 TFLOPS. This means for every floating-point operation the Intel chip completes, the NVIDIA chip completes roughly four more in the same time window.

Texture rate shows a similar ratio. The NVIDIA part's 510.7 GTexel/s is 4.26 times the Intel part's 120.0 GTexel/s. The identical ratio to FP32 reflects that texture throughput scales directly with shader count in both architectures. Pixel rate differs slightly: the NVIDIA part's 188.2 GPixel/s is 3.14 times the Intel part's 60.00 GPixel/s. The lower ratio for pixels suggests the Intel chip's 24 ROPs provide proportionally more pixel throughput per ROP than the NVIDIA chip's 112 ROPs.

The shading unit count ratio is 9728 to 1536, which is 6.33x. The FP32 ratio is lower at 4.26x, indicating the Intel chip achieves higher clock-normalized throughput per shader. The NVIDIA part's boost clock of 1680 MHz versus the Intel part's 2500 MHz explains part of this: the Intel shaders run faster even though there are fewer of them.

Ray tracing hardware shows a 76 to 12 RT core advantage for NVIDIA, a 6.33x ratio. Tensor cores exist only on the NVIDIA part with 304 units. The Intel part has no tensor core record at all. For machine learning workloads, the NVIDIA part provides dedicated hardware while the Intel part must rely on general-purpose shaders.

Memory bandwidth is the most decisive gap. The NVIDIA part's 576.0 GB/s is a fixed, dedicated resource. The Intel part has no fixed bandwidth because it uses system shared memory. In a best-case platform with high-speed system RAM, the Intel part might approach usable bandwidth, but the recorded data shows no such figure. The NVIDIA part's bandwidth advantage is absolute and unconditional.

FP16 performance shows a different ratio pattern. The NVIDIA part delivers 32.69 TFLOPS at 1:1 ratio, meaning FP16 throughput equals FP32. The Intel part delivers 15.36 TFLOPS at 2:1 ratio, meaning FP16 is double FP32. The raw FP16 gap is 32.69 to 15.36, a 2.13x advantage for NVIDIA. The NVIDIA part's FP16 advantage is smaller than its FP32 advantage because the Intel architecture pairs two FP16 operations per FP32 unit.

The Verdict

The data supports a clear division of roles. The NVIDIA RTX 5000 Max-Q Ada Generation is the performance leader by every measurable compute metric. Its 32.69 TFLOPS FP32, 576.0 GB/s memory bandwidth, 304 tensor cores, and 76 RT cores make it the only choice for demanding graphics, AI, and ray-traced workloads. The 120 W TDP reflects the cost of that performance.

The Intel Arc Pro B390 serves a different purpose. Its 80 W TDP, IGP form factor, and system shared memory make it suitable for integrated platforms where discrete GPUs cannot fit. The 2500 MHz boost clock and 7.680 TFLOPS FP32 provide competent baseline graphics capability without dedicated memory or PCIe slot requirements. The 3 nm process node and 2026 release date place it as a newer, more power-efficient design.

The production status for both parts is Active. The NVIDIA part's predecessor is Ampere-MW and its successor is Blackwell-MW, indicating an established product line. The Intel part's predecessor is HD Graphics-WM with no recorded successor.

For users who need maximum compute throughput, the NVIDIA part is the only option with the recorded data to support it. For users who need integrated graphics with no discrete GPU slot, the Intel part is the only option that fits that form factor. The 4.26x FP32 gap and 576.0 GB/s versus system-dependent bandwidth define the performance boundary between these two parts.