Intel Arc Pro B390 vs NVIDIA RTX A400 Comparison

Intel Arc Pro B390 and NVIDIA RTX A400 target adjacent spaces in the workstation graphics market, but they approach the task from opposite directions. The B390 is an integrated graphics processor built into Intel's Panther Lake platform, while the RTX A400 is a discrete single-slot card. The database shows the B390 has no recorded benchmark scores, while the RTX A400 has a complete set of measurements. This asymmetry shapes the analysis: the B390's capabilities are defined by its architectural specifications, whereas the RTX A400's standing is established by both its specs and its measured performance against a known field of rivals.

FAQ

Q: What is the fundamental difference between the two products?

A: The Intel Arc Pro B390 is an integrated graphics processor (IGP) with no slot width and no power connectors, designed to share system memory. The NVIDIA RTX A400 is a discrete, single-slot card with 4 GB of dedicated GDDR6 memory and a PCIe 4.0 x8 interface.

Q: Which GPU has higher raw compute throughput?

A: The B390 delivers 7.680 TFLOPS of FP32 performance and 15.36 TFLOPS of FP16 (2:1 ratio). The RTX A400 delivers 2.706 TFLOPS of FP32 and 2.706 TFLOPS of FP16 (1:1 ratio). The B390 holds a 2.84x advantage in FP32 and a 5.68x advantage in FP16 throughput.

Q: How does memory configuration differ?

A: The B390 uses system shared memory with a bus width, type, and bandwidth that are all system dependent. The RTX A400 has 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus with 96.00 GB/s of bandwidth.

Q: What is the RTX A400's benchmark standing relative to its nearest rivals?

A: The RTX A400's average benchmark score is 6078, placing it at the 35th percentile of all GPUs. Its closest rival is the NVIDIA GeForce MX230 at 6077 (0% delta), followed by the NVIDIA Quadro P2000 at 6049 (0.5% higher for the A400), the Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200 at 6117 (0.6% lower for the A400), and the AMD Radeon 760M at 6019 (1% higher for the A400).

Q: What are the power requirements for each?

A: The B390 has an 80 W TDP and requires no power connectors, as it is integrated. The RTX A400 has a 50 W TDP, also requires no power connectors, and the database suggests a 250 W power supply for a system containing it.

Q: Which APIs are supported?

A: Both GPUs support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The B390 also carries the Xe3-LPG architecture from Intel, while the RTX A400 is based on NVIDIA's Ampere architecture.

The Verdict

The data indicates a clear split by use case. The Intel Arc Pro B390 is the choice for workloads that prioritize raw compute throughput, particularly FP32 and FP16 math, where it outpaces the RTX A400 by wide margins. Its 1536 shading units, 48 texture mapping units, and 12 ray tracing cores give it a structural advantage in parallel computation. The B390 also benefits from a 3 nm process node and a 2500 MHz boost clock.

The NVIDIA RTX A400 is the choice for environments requiring a dedicated, self-contained GPU with predictable memory resources. Its 4 GB of GDDR6 memory with 96.00 GB/s bandwidth operates independently of the host system, unlike the B390's system-dependent shared memory. The A400's measured benchmark scores, while modest, are consistent: its PassMark G3D score of 5983 and Geekbench OpenCL score of 22844 provide a baseline for comparison, and its nearest rivals all fall within a 1% margin of its average score, indicating stable, predictable performance.

For professionals needing a discrete card with its own memory pool and a compact single-slot form factor, the RTX A400 is the appropriate selection. For those building on Panther Lake who can rely on system memory and want maximum compute density from an integrated part, the B390 is the better fit.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from entirely different design lineages. The Intel Arc Pro B390 uses the Xe3-LPG architecture on a chip codenamed Panther Lake, fabricated on Intel's 3 nm process node. The NVIDIA RTX A400 uses the Ampere architecture with the GA107 chip, fabricated on Samsung's 8 nm process node. The process difference is substantial: 3 nm versus 8 nm, which impacts transistor density and power efficiency, though the B390's transistor count and die size are listed as unknown in the database.

The compute layouts differ significantly. The B390 packs 1536 shading units, 48 TMUs, and 24 ROPs. The RTX A400 has 768 shading units, 24 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. The B390 has 12 ray tracing cores, while the RTX A400 has 6 ray tracing cores plus 24 tensor cores, a feature the B390 does not list. The tensor cores give the A400 a dedicated path for AI and deep learning inference workloads that the B390 lacks entirely.

The memory architecture is a fundamental split. The B390 uses system shared memory with a bus width and type that are system dependent, meaning its performance scales with the host platform's memory configuration. The RTX A400 uses dedicated GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus with a fixed 96.00 GB/s bandwidth, providing consistent performance regardless of the host system.

Clock behavior also differs. The B390 has a base clock of 300 MHz and a boost clock of 2500 MHz, a wide dynamic range typical of integrated parts that scale with thermal and power headroom. The RTX A400 has a base clock of 1417 MHz and a boost clock of 1762 MHz, a narrower range reflecting its discrete design.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains no head-to-head benchmark entries between the B390 and the RTX A400. The B390 has an empty benchmark array, so no direct measured comparison exists. The analysis must rely on the RTX A400's recorded scores and the B390's theoretical specifications.

The RTX A400's benchmark profile shows its strengths and weaknesses. Its Geekbench OpenCL score is 22844, and its Geekbench Vulkan score is 22237, indicating solid compute performance in those APIs. Its PassMark G3D score is 5983, while its PassMark GPU Compute score is 2557. The DirectX scores are notably lower: 32 for DirectX 10, 37 for DirectX 11, 27 for DirectX 12, and 87 for DirectX 9. The G2D score is 899.

The B390's theoretical pixel rate of 60.00 GPixel/s and texture rate of 120.0 GTexel/s are substantially higher than the RTX A400's 28.19 GPixel/s and 42.29 GTexel/s. These figures suggest the B390 would outperform the A400 in fill-rate-bound scenarios, assuming the shared memory bandwidth can support the throughput.

The RTX A400's standing among its nearest rivals is tight. Its average score of 6078 is within 1% of all four listed competitors. The NVIDIA GeForce MX230 scores 6077, the NVIDIA Quadro P2000 scores 6049, the Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200 scores 6117, and the AMD Radeon 760M scores 6019. This clustering indicates the A400 sits at a performance plateau where minor architectural differences determine placement.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ across nearly every specification field. The B390 uses a 3 nm process from Intel, while the A400 uses an 8 nm process from Samsung. The A400 has a known transistor count of 8,700 million and a die size of 200 mm², with a transistor density of 43.5M per mm². The B390's transistor count and die size are unknown.

Clock speeds: the B390 runs at 300 MHz base and 2500 MHz boost. The A400 runs at 1417 MHz base and 1762 MHz boost. The B390's boost clock is 738 MHz higher.

Memory: the B390 has system shared memory with system-dependent bandwidth. The A400 has 4 GB GDDR6, 64-bit bus, 96.00 GB/s bandwidth, and a memory clock of 1500 MHz (12 Gbps effective).

Compute units: the B390 has 1536 shading units, 48 TMUs, 24 ROPs, and 12 RT cores. The A400 has 768 shading units, 24 TMUs, 16 ROPs, 6 RT cores, and 24 tensor cores.

Output rates: the B390 produces 60.00 GPixel/s and 120.0 GTexel/s. The A400 produces 28.19 GPixel/s and 42.29 GTexel/s.

Power and form factor: the B390 has an 80 W TDP and is an IGP with no slot width. The A400 has a 50 W TDP, is single-slot, and measures 163 mm in length and 69 mm in height.

Bus interface: the B390 uses an IGP bus. The A400 uses PCIe 4.0 x8.

Display outputs: the B390's outputs are portable device dependent. The A400 has 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a.

Release dates: the B390 launched on 2026-01-26, with a predecessor of HD Graphics-WM. The A400 launched on 2024-04-15, with a predecessor of Quadro Turing and a successor of Workstation Ada.

The A400 has a suggested PSU of 250 W; the B390 lists none. Neither has a launch MSRP in the database.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Arc Pro B390 wins in scenarios that demand raw compute throughput. Its FP32 rate of 7.680 TFLOPS is 2.84x the A400's 2.706 TFLOPS. Its FP16 rate of 15.36 TFLOPS is 5.68x the A400's 2.706 TFLOPS. This makes the B390 the stronger choice for general-purpose compute workloads, shader-heavy rendering, and any task that can leverage the 2:1 FP16 ratio for half-precision math.

The B390 also wins on pixel and texture throughput. Its 60.00 GPixel/s pixel rate is 2.13x the A400's 28.19 GPixel/s. Its 120.0 GTexel/s texture rate is 2.84x the A400's 42.29 GTexel/s. In fill-rate-bound applications, such as high-resolution texture mapping or multi-layer compositing, the B390's architecture provides a clear advantage.

The B390's 12 RT cores versus the A400's 6 RT cores suggests an advantage in ray-traced workloads, though no benchmark data confirms this. Its 3 nm process node also indicates a newer, more power-efficient design per transistor, though the B390's total TDP is 80 W versus the A400's 50 W.

The NVIDIA RTX A400 wins in scenarios that require a dedicated, stable memory environment. Its 4 GB of GDDR6 with 96.00 GB/s bandwidth is fixed and predictable, unlike the B390's system-dependent shared memory. For professional applications that must run within a known memory budget, the A400's dedicated allocation is a structural advantage.

The A400 also wins on measured performance validation. Its benchmark scores place it at the 35th percentile of all GPUs, with an average score of 6078 that sits within 1% of its four closest rivals. This consistency indicates the A400 delivers dependable, repeatable results. The B390 has no recorded benchmarks, so its real-world performance cannot be verified from the database.

The A400's 24 tensor cores provide a dedicated capability for AI inference and deep learning workloads. The B390 does not list tensor cores at all. For professionals running neural network inference or training on the GPU, the A400's tensor core support is a decisive feature.

The A400's single-slot, 163 mm length form factor and 50 W TDP make it suitable for compact workstation builds and multi-GPU configurations where space and power are constrained. The B390, as an IGP, requires a Panther Lake host platform and cannot be installed in existing systems.

The A400's 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a outputs support multi-monitor setups directly from the card. The B390's display outputs are portable device dependent, meaning its connectivity options vary by the host device.