Intel Arc Pro B390 vs NVIDIA RTX 5000 Mobile Ada Generation Comparison

# The Verdict

The Intel Arc Pro B390 and NVIDIA RTX 5000 Mobile Ada Generation occupy entirely different performance classes. Based on the recorded data, the RTX 5000 Mobile Ada Generation delivers substantially higher compute throughput, memory bandwidth, and rendering capability. The Intel part, with a percentile ranking of 50 against all GPUs and no recorded benchmark scores, sits in the middle of the database distribution, while the NVIDIA part ranks at the 21st percentile with a 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 3596. That score places it within 1.5 percent of several older desktop cards, including the AMD Radeon HD 6770 at 3649 and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 at 3629. The Intel Arc Pro B390 has no benchmark entries in the database, so direct numerical comparison is limited to architectural and specification differences.

For workloads that require maximum raw performance, the RTX 5000 Mobile Ada Generation is the clear choice. It provides 41.15 TFLOPS of FP32 compute, 576.0 GB/s of memory bandwidth, and 16 GB of dedicated GDDR6 memory. The Intel Arc Pro B390 offers 7.680 TFLOPS of FP32 compute, uses system-shared memory with bandwidth that depends on the host system, and has 1536 shading units compared to the NVIDIA part's 9728. The data indicates a 5.4x difference in FP32 throughput in favor of NVIDIA. That is a broad performance gulf that no architectural feature on the Intel side can close.

For systems where power draw and integration simplicity matter, the Intel Arc Pro B390 uses an 80 W TDP, while the RTX 5000 Mobile Ada Generation uses 120 W. Both are integrated graphics packages with no power connectors, but the Intel part's lower power envelope and 3 nm process node suggest a more efficient design for light workloads. The RTX 5000 Mobile Ada Generation, built on a 5 nm TSMC process, uses 45,900 million transistors on a 379 mm² die, reflecting a much larger and more complex chip.

# Where Each One Wins

The RTX 5000 Mobile Ada Generation wins in every measured compute category. Its FP32 throughput of 41.15 TFLOPS dwarfs the Intel part's 7.680 TFLOPS. Its FP16 output is also 41.15 TFLOPS at a 1:1 ratio, whereas the Intel part reaches 15.36 TFLOPS at a 2:1 ratio. Texture rate favors NVIDIA at 643.0 GTexel/s versus 120.0 GTexel/s. Pixel rate favors NVIDIA at 236.9 GPixel/s versus 60.00 GPixel/s. The NVIDIA part includes 304 tensor cores and 76 ray tracing cores; the Intel part has 12 ray tracing cores and no tensor cores listed. For AI-accelerated workloads and ray-traced rendering, the NVIDIA part has dedicated hardware that the Intel part lacks entirely.

The Intel Arc Pro B390 wins in power efficiency and process technology. It uses a 3 nm node from Intel, whereas the NVIDIA part uses a 5 nm node from TSMC. The Intel part's base clock is 300 MHz with a boost of 2500 MHz, while the NVIDIA part has a base clock of 1425 MHz and a boost of 2115 MHz. The Intel part's lower base clock and lower TDP of 80 W versus 120 W suggest it is designed for sustained light-duty operation rather than peak performance. The Intel part also uses system-shared memory, which eliminates the need for dedicated VRAM and can reduce system cost and complexity, although this makes performance dependent on the host memory subsystem.

The RTX 5000 Mobile Ada Generation has a dedicated 16 GB GDDR6 memory pool on a 256-bit bus. That configuration delivers 576.0 GB/s of bandwidth, a figure the Intel part cannot match because its bandwidth is system-dependent. For large datasets, high-resolution textures, or memory-intensive compute tasks, the NVIDIA part's dedicated memory provides predictable performance, while the Intel part's shared-memory approach introduces variability based on the host platform.

# Architecture Differences

The Intel Arc Pro B390 uses the Panther Lake chip with Xe3-LPG architecture, part of the Arc Graphics-WM (Panther Lake) generation. It is built on a 3 nm process at Intel's foundry. The chip has 1536 shading units, 48 texture mapping units, 24 raster output units, and 12 ray tracing cores. The architecture supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The memory subsystem is entirely system-shared, meaning there is no dedicated VRAM, no fixed memory bus width, and no independent bandwidth rating. The bus interface is IGP, and the slot width is listed as IGP, confirming its integrated nature.

The NVIDIA RTX 5000 Mobile Ada Generation uses the AD103 chip with Ada Lovelace architecture, part of the Ada-MW generation. It is built on a 5 nm process at TSMC. The chip contains 45,900 million transistors on a 379 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 121.1M per mm². The architecture includes 9728 shading units, 304 texture mapping units, 112 raster output units, 76 ray tracing cores, and 304 tensor cores. The memory subsystem uses 16 GB of GDDR6 on a 256-bit bus with 576.0 GB/s bandwidth. The bus interface is PCIe 4.0 x16, which provides a dedicated connection to the host system.

The tensor core count is a major architectural differentiator. The RTX 5000 Mobile Ada Generation has 304 tensor cores, which support FP16, FP32, and integer matrix operations. The Intel Arc Pro B390 lists no tensor cores, meaning AI inference and training workloads that rely on tensor operations will either run on the shading units at reduced efficiency or not at all. The ray tracing core count also differs dramatically: 76 on the NVIDIA part versus 12 on the Intel part. That difference affects real-time ray-traced rendering performance, where the NVIDIA part has more parallel traversal and intersection hardware.

The process node difference matters for transistor density and power characteristics. The Intel part uses 3 nm, which is denser than the 5 nm node used by the NVIDIA part. However, the NVIDIA part uses a much larger die area, 379 mm² versus an unknown die size for the Intel part, and packs far more transistors. The Intel part's smaller node does not compensate for the NVIDIA part's massive architectural advantage in raw compute resources.

# FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher FP32 compute performance?

A: The NVIDIA RTX 5000 Mobile Ada Generation delivers 41.15 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, while the Intel Arc Pro B390 delivers 7.680 TFLOPS. That is a 5.4x advantage for the NVIDIA part.

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

A: No. The Intel part uses system-shared memory for both size and type, and its memory bandwidth is listed as system-dependent. The NVIDIA part has 16 GB of dedicated GDDR6 memory with 576.0 GB/s bandwidth.

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

A: The Intel Arc Pro B390 uses an 80 W TDP, and the NVIDIA RTX 5000 Mobile Ada Generation uses a 120 W TDP. The Intel part is rated for 40 W less power consumption.

Q: Does the Intel part have tensor cores?

A: The database lists no tensor cores for the Intel Arc Pro B390. The NVIDIA RTX 5000 Mobile Ada Generation includes 304 tensor cores.

Q: How does the RTX 5000 Mobile Ada Generation compare to its nearest rivals in benchmark scores?

A: Its 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score is 3596. It is 0.1% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce GT 545 (3594), 0.6% behind the NVIDIA GeForce GT 735M (3616), 0.9% behind the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 (3629), and 1.5% behind the AMD Radeon HD 6770 (3649).

Q: Which GPU supports newer API features?

A: Both GPUs support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. There is no API-level difference between the two in the recorded data.

# Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains no direct head-to-head benchmark entries between the Intel Arc Pro B390 and the NVIDIA RTX 5000 Mobile Ada Generation. The Intel part has no benchmark scores recorded at all, and its average benchmark score is 0. The NVIDIA part has a single recorded benchmark: 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 with a score of 3596. That score positions the NVIDIA part at the 21st percentile of all GPUs in the database, meaning 79 percent of recorded GPUs score higher. The Intel part sits at the 50th percentile, but with no actual benchmark data, that percentile likely reflects its position in the database's specification-based ranking rather than measured performance.

The absence of benchmark data for the Intel part means numerical performance comparison must rely on specification-derived metrics. The FP32 throughput difference is the most direct comparison: 41.15 TFLOPS versus 7.680 TFLOPS. The texture rate difference is 643.0 GTexel/s versus 120.0 GTexel/s. The pixel rate difference is 236.9 GPixel/s versus 60.00 GPixel/s. Each of these metrics points to the NVIDIA part being roughly 4 to 5.4 times faster in raw throughput.

The NVIDIA part's nearest rivals in the database provide context for its measured performance. Its Steel Nomad score of 3596 is nearly identical to the GeForce GT 545 at 3594, a card from a much older generation. The GT 735M scores 3616, the GTX 1050 scores 3629, and the Radeon HD 6770 scores 3649. These delta percentages range from 0.1% to 1.5%, indicating that the RTX 5000 Mobile Ada Generation's benchmark performance is closely clustered with these older desktop parts. That is a notable result for a modern mobile workstation GPU: its measured performance in this specific test does not exceed these legacy cards by a meaningful margin.

The Intel Arc Pro B390's lack of benchmark scores means it cannot be placed in a similar comparison. Its 50th percentile rank suggests it is an average performer in the database's overall distribution, but without a measured score, that rank is not actionable for performance prediction.

# Specification Differences

The following fields differ between the two GPUs in the recorded data:

• Process node: Intel Arc Pro B390 uses 3 nm; NVIDIA RTX 5000 Mobile Ada Generation uses 5 nm.
• Foundry: Intel for the Intel part; TSMC for the NVIDIA part.
• Transistor count: Unknown for the Intel part; 45,900 million for the NVIDIA part.
• Die size: Unknown for the Intel part; 379 mm² for the NVIDIA part.
• Transistor density: Not listed for the Intel part; 121.1M per mm² for the NVIDIA part.
• Base clock: 300 MHz for the Intel part; 1425 MHz for the NVIDIA part.
• Boost clock: 2500 MHz for the Intel part; 2115 MHz for the NVIDIA part.
• Memory size: System Shared for the Intel part; 16 GB for the NVIDIA part.
• Memory type: System Shared for the Intel part; GDDR6 for the NVIDIA part.
• Memory bus width: System Shared for the Intel part; 256 bit for the NVIDIA part.
• Memory bandwidth: System Dependent for the Intel part; 576.0 GB/s for the NVIDIA part.
• Shading units: 1536 for the Intel part; 9728 for the NVIDIA part.
• Texture mapping units: 48 for the Intel part; 304 for the NVIDIA part.
• Raster output units: 24 for the Intel part; 112 for the NVIDIA part.
• Ray tracing cores: 12 for the Intel part; 76 for the NVIDIA part.
• Tensor cores: None listed for the Intel part; 304 for the NVIDIA part.
• Pixel rate: 60.00 GPixel/s for the Intel part; 236.9 GPixel/s for the NVIDIA part.
• Texture rate: 120.0 GTexel/s for the Intel part; 643.0 GTexel/s for the NVIDIA part.
• FP32 performance: 7.680 TFLOPS for the Intel part; 41.15 TFLOPS for the NVIDIA part.
• FP16 performance: 15.36 TFLOPS (2:1) for the Intel part; 41.15 TFLOPS (1:1) for the NVIDIA part.
• TDP: 80 W for the Intel part; 120 W for the NVIDIA part.
• Bus interface: IGP for the Intel part; PCIe 4.0 x16 for the NVIDIA part.
• Release date: 2026-01-26 for the Intel part; 2023-03-20 for the NVIDIA part.
• Predecessor: HD Graphics-WM for the Intel part; Ampere-MW for the NVIDIA part.
• Successor: None listed for the Intel part; Blackwell-MW for the NVIDIA part.
• Percentile vs all GPUs: 50 for the Intel part; 21 for the NVIDIA part.

The two GPUs share several specifications: both are integrated graphics packages (IGP slot width), both have no power connectors, both support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, and both have display outputs listed as portable device dependent. Neither has a launch MSRP recorded in the database. The Intel part's architecture is Xe3-LPG on the Panther Lake chip, while the NVIDIA part uses Ada Lovelace on the AD103 chip.

The specification sheet confirms that the NVIDIA part is designed for high-performance mobile workstations, with a large die, dedicated memory, and extensive compute resources. The Intel part is a lower-power integrated solution with shared memory and a fraction of the compute units. The release dates are nearly three years apart, with the Intel part coming later, yet the NVIDIA part remains the stronger performer in every measured category.