Intel Arc Pro B50 vs NVIDIA B200 SXM6 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data presents a unique comparison scenario. The Intel Arc Pro B50 has a full set of benchmark scores, while the NVIDIA B200 SXM6 has no recorded benchmark entries in the database. This absence of direct head-to-head results means the analysis must rely on the available performance metrics and the B50's position relative to its nearest rivals.

The Intel Arc Pro B50's average benchmark score is 2660. Its nearest rival, the NVIDIA GeForce GT 1030, posts an average score of 2662, which represents a delta of -0.1% compared to the B50. This places the two cards nearly identical in overall performance, with a negligible difference. The NVIDIA Quadro K1100M scores 2664, a -0.2% delta, again showing near parity. The NVIDIA GeForce GT 440 trails slightly with a score of 2645, meaning the B50 is 0.6% ahead. Interestingly, the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5070 SUPER, despite being a much newer and higher-tier product, scores 2690, which is only 1.1% higher than the B50 in this average metric.

Within the B50's individual benchmark results, the data shows a wide variance across tests. In the Passmark G3D test, the card achieves a score of 12553, indicating strong general 3D performance. However, in the Passmark DirectX 10 test, the score drops to 58, and in the DirectX 12 test, it scores 64. The DirectX 11 test yields a score of 100, while the DirectX 9 test scores 144. These results suggest the B50's performance is heavily dependent on the API and workload, with legacy DirectX tests producing lower scores. The Passmark G2D score is 717, and the GPU compute score is 6037. The 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 test reports a score of 1604.

The B200 SXM6, by contrast, has no benchmark scores listed in the database. Its percentile rank among all GPUs is 50, which is a neutral midpoint, but without any measured scores, this percentile cannot be validated against actual performance. The B50 has a percentile rank of 17, placing it in the lower quartile of all GPUs. This is a significant gap in the data, as the B200's raw specifications suggest a vastly different performance class, yet no empirical results exist to confirm it.

FAQ

Q: What is the average benchmark score for the Intel Arc Pro B50?

A: The Intel Arc Pro B50 has an average benchmark score of 2660 across all recorded tests.

Q: How does the Intel Arc Pro B50 compare to its closest rival in the database?

A: The B50's closest rival is the NVIDIA GeForce GT 1030, which has an average score of 2662, a delta of -0.1%. This indicates nearly identical average performance.

Q: Does the NVIDIA B200 SXM6 have any benchmark scores in the database?

A: No, the database contains zero benchmark entries for the NVIDIA B200 SXM6, and its average benchmark score is recorded as 0.

Q: What is the percentile ranking for each card?

A: The Intel Arc Pro B50 ranks in the 17th percentile among all GPUs, while the NVIDIA B200 SXM6 ranks in the 50th percentile.

Q: What is the launch MSRP for each product?

A: The Intel Arc Pro B50 has a launch MSRP of 349 USD. The NVIDIA B200 SXM6 has a launch MSRP of 34,999 USD.

Q: Which card has a higher FP32 performance figure?

A: The NVIDIA B200 SXM6 has an FP32 performance of 69.34 TFLOPS, while the Intel Arc Pro B50 has 10.65 TFLOPS.

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide between these two processors is substantial. The Intel Arc Pro B50 is built on the Xe2-HPG architecture, specifically the BMG-G21 chip, and belongs to the Battlemage (Pro Series) generation. It is fabricated on a 5 nm process at TSMC, with a transistor count of 19,600 million and a die size of 272 mm². This yields a transistor density of 72.1M per mm².

The NVIDIA B200 SXM6 uses the Blackwell architecture with the GB100 chip, part of the Server Blackwell (Bxx) generation. It is also fabricated on a 5 nm process at TSMC, but the transistor count is dramatically higher at 208,000 million, with a die size of 1628 mm². The transistor density reaches 127.8M per mm². The B200's predecessor is listed as Server Hopper, and its successor is Server Rubin.

In terms of core configuration, the B50 has 2048 shading units, 128 texture mapping units, and 16 raster operation pipelines. It includes 16 ray tracing cores but has no dedicated tensor cores. The B200 has 18,944 shading units, 592 texture mapping units, and 24 raster operation pipelines. It does not list ray tracing cores, but it has 592 tensor cores. The B200's shading unit count is over nine times higher than the B50's, and its texture mapping units are more than four times higher.

Memory architecture also differs completely. The B50 uses 16 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 128-bit bus, providing a bandwidth of 224.0 GB/s. The B200 uses 180 GB of HBM3e memory on a massive 8192-bit bus, delivering 8.19 TB/s of bandwidth. The memory clock for the B50 is 1750 MHz (14 Gbps effective), while the B200 operates at 2000 MHz (8 Gbps effective). The B200's memory bandwidth is over 36 times that of the B50.

The clock speeds show an unusual contrast. The B50 has a base clock of 1700 MHz and a boost clock of 2600 MHz. The B200 has a base clock of only 120 MHz, but a boost clock of 1830 MHz. The B50's boost clock is significantly higher, yet the B200's massive core count compensates in raw throughput. The B50's FP32 performance is 10.65 TFLOPS, while the B200 reaches 69.34 TFLOPS. The FP16 figures are 21.30 TFLOPS for the B50 (2:1 ratio) and 69.34 TFLOPS for the B200 (1:1 ratio).

The Verdict

The data indicates two products designed for entirely different purposes. The Intel Arc Pro B50 is a client-oriented graphics card with a dual-slot form factor, display outputs, and a 70 W TDP. It is an active product with a release date of September 2025. The NVIDIA B200 SXM6 is a server module with no display outputs, a 1000 W TDP, and a release date of October 2024. The B200's API support is listed as N/A for DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan, confirming it is not intended for traditional graphics rendering workloads.

From a strict performance perspective, the B200's specifications dwarf the B50. The FP32 throughput is over six times higher, the memory bandwidth is over 36 times higher, and the transistor count is over ten times higher. However, the B200 has no benchmark scores to validate these specifications in real-world workloads. The B50, despite its lower raw specs, has a full set of recorded benchmarks and a known average score.

The percentile rankings reflect this uncertainty. The B50 sits in the 17th percentile, meaning it outperforms 17% of all GPUs in the database. The B200 sits at the 50th percentile, but this is a default value given its lack of benchmarks. The launch MSRP of 34,999 USD for the B200 versus 349 USD for the B50 indicates a massive price disparity, but the analysis focuses strictly on measured data.

For users selecting based on recorded performance, the B50 is the only option with empirical results. For server compute tasks requiring massive memory and tensor core throughput, the B200's specifications suggest it is a different class of hardware, but the absence of data prevents a direct comparison.

Specification Differences

The following fields differ between the Intel Arc Pro B50 and the NVIDIA B200 SXM6:

• Chip: BMG-G21 vs GB100
• Architecture: Xe2-HPG vs Blackwell
• Generation: Battlemage (Pro Series) vs Server Blackwell (Bxx)
• Transistors: 19,600 million vs 208,000 million
• Die Size: 272 mm² vs 1628 mm²
• Transistor Density: 72.1M / mm² vs 127.8M / mm²
• Base Clock: 1700 MHz vs 120 MHz
• Boost Clock: 2600 MHz vs 1830 MHz
• Memory Clock: 1750 MHz 14 Gbps effective vs 2000 MHz 8 Gbps effective
• Memory Size: 16 GB vs 180 GB
• Memory Type: GDDR6 vs HBM3e
• Memory Bus Width: 128 bit vs 8192 bit
• Memory Bandwidth: 224.0 GB/s vs 8.19 TB/s
• Shading Units: 2048 vs 18944
• TMUs: 128 vs 592
• ROPs: 16 vs 24
• RT Cores: 16 vs null
• Tensor Cores: null vs 592
• Pixel Rate: 41.60 GPixel/s vs 43.92 GPixel/s
• Texture Rate: 332.8 GTexel/s vs 1,083.4 GTexel/s
• FP32: 10.65 TFLOPS vs 69.34 TFLOPS
• FP16: 21.30 TFLOPS (2:1) vs 69.34 TFLOPS (1:1)
• TDP: 70 W vs 1000 W
• Slot Width: Dual-slot vs SXM Module
• Power Connectors: None vs null
• Suggested PSU: 250 W vs 1400 W
• Bus Interface: PCIe 5.0 x8 vs PCIe 6.0 x16
• Display Outputs: 4x mini-DisplayPort 2.1 vs No outputs
• APIs: DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, Vulkan 1.4 vs N/A for all
• Dimensions: 167 mm length, 69 mm height, 40 mm width vs null
• Release Date: 2025-09-04 vs 2024-10-31
• Predecessor: null vs Server Hopper
• Successor: null vs Server Rubin
• Launch MSRP: 349 USD vs 34,999 USD

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Arc Pro B50 wins in every category where measured data exists. It has a complete benchmark suite, a known average score of 2660, and a 17th percentile ranking. Its nearest rival comparison shows it within 1.1% of the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5070 SUPER in average score, which is a notable result for a card with a 70 W TDP. The B50 also supports modern graphics APIs including DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, making it suitable for client rendering tasks. Its display outputs include four mini-DisplayPort 2.1 connections. The B50's texture rate of 332.8 GTexel/s is lower than the B200's 1,083.4 GTexel/s, but its pixel rate of 41.60 GPixel/s is close to the B200's 43.92 GPixel/s.

The NVIDIA B200 SXM6 wins on raw specification dominance. Its FP32 throughput of 69.34 TFLOPS is over six times the B50's 10.65 TFLOPS. Its memory bandwidth of 8.19 TB/s is over 36 times higher. The B200 has 592 tensor cores, enabling specialized compute workloads that the B50 cannot handle, as the B50 has no tensor cores. The B200's shading unit count of 18,944 is over nine times the B50's 2048. The B200 also has a higher transistor density at 127.8M per mm² versus 72.1M per mm², indicating a more efficient packing of logic. Its memory capacity of 180 GB is over eleven times the B50's 16 GB. The B200's texture rate of 1,083.4 GTexel/s is over three times higher.

However, the B200 has no benchmark scores, no display outputs, and no graphics API support. The B50 has a release date in September 2025, while the B200 was released in October 2024. The B200's predecessor and successor are listed, while the B50 has neither. The B200's base clock of 120 MHz is unusually low, but its boost clock of 1830 MHz allows it to reach high performance when active. The B50's boost clock of 2600 MHz is higher, but with fewer cores, its aggregate throughput is lower.

In terms of use cases, the B50 is positioned for graphics output and standard rendering, given its display outputs and API support. The B200 is positioned for server-side compute, given its lack of outputs and its massive memory and tensor core configuration. The data shows no overlap in their intended function.