Intel Arc Pro B50 vs NVIDIA B300 SXM6 AC Comparison
Intel Arc Pro B50
B300 SXM6 AC
PERFORMANCE BENCHMARKS
Analysis: Intel Arc Pro B50 vs NVIDIA B300 SXM6 AC
Head-to-Head Benchmarks
The recorded data contains no direct head-to-head benchmark results between the Intel Arc Pro B50 and the NVIDIA B300 SXM6 AC. The database lists separate benchmark suites for each product, reflecting their distinct target markets. The Intel Arc Pro B50 was tested across multiple DirectX and PassMark workloads, while the NVIDIA B300 SXM6 AC has a single Geekbench OpenCL score. This absence of overlapping tests makes a direct performance comparison impossible from the measured results alone.
What can be compared is their standing within the full database. The Intel Arc Pro B50 sits at the 17th percentile of all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 2660. Its nearest rivals include the NVIDIA GeForce GT 1030 at 2662 (0.1% behind), the NVIDIA Quadro K1100M at 2664 (0.2% behind), and the NVIDIA GeForce GT 440 at 2645 (0.6% ahead). The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5070 SUPER appears at 2690, placing the Arc Pro B50 1.1% behind that card. These deltas are all within roughly one percentage point, indicating the Intel card clusters tightly with low-end and older discrete GPUs in aggregate performance.
The NVIDIA B300 SXM6 AC holds the 100th percentile, meaning it outperforms every other GPU in the database. Its average benchmark score is 369831, a figure that dwarfs the Intel card's 2660 by a factor of over 139. The B300's nearest rivals show substantial gaps: it leads the NVIDIA B200 by 7%, the NVIDIA H200 NVL by 10.4%, the AMD Instinct MI300X by 16.3%, and the NVIDIA L40S by 25%. These deltas reveal a clear performance hierarchy among server accelerators, with the B300 at the top.
The individual benchmark suite for the Intel Arc Pro B50 shows its strongest result in PassMark G3D at 12553, followed by PassMark GPU Compute at 6037. The 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 1604 and PassMark DirectX 11 score of 100 represent mid-range results, while DirectX 10 (58), DirectX 12 (64), and DirectX 9 (144) are lower. The PassMark G2D score of 717 indicates modest 2D performance. The B300's Geekbench OpenCL score of 369831 is its only recorded benchmark, yet it is sufficient to place the accelerator at the absolute top of the database.
Percentile positions amplify the disparity. The Arc Pro B50's 17th percentile means 83% of all GPUs in the database score higher. The B300's 100th percentile means no GPU scores higher. This is not a contest between equals; it is a comparison between an entry-level workstation card and a top-tier server compute module.
FAQ
Q: How does the Intel Arc Pro B50 compare to its nearest rival in average score?
A: The Arc Pro B50's average score of 2660 is 0.1% below the NVIDIA GeForce GT 1030 (2662), 0.2% below the NVIDIA Quadro K1100M (2664), and 0.6% above the NVIDIA GeForce GT 440 (2645). The closest rival by delta is the GT 1030.
Q: What is the NVIDIA B300 SXM6 AC's standing relative to the best server accelerators?
A: The B300 leads the NVIDIA B200 by 7%, the NVIDIA H200 NVL by 10.4%, the AMD Instinct MI300X by 16.3%, and the NVIDIA L40S by 25%. All four rivals are substantial server parts, yet the B300 sits ahead of each.
Q: Which GPU has a higher percentile ranking?
A: The NVIDIA B300 SXM6 AC ranks at the 100th percentile of all GPUs. The Intel Arc Pro B50 ranks at the 17th percentile. The B300 is therefore top of the database, while the Arc Pro B50 sits near the bottom.
Q: What benchmark tests are available for each product?
A: The Intel Arc Pro B50 has eight recorded tests: 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12, PassMark DirectX 9, 10, 11, and 12, PassMark G2D, PassMark G3D, and PassMark GPU Compute. The NVIDIA B300 SXM6 AC has one recorded test: Geekbench OpenCL.
Q: How do the FP32 compute figures compare?
A: The Intel Arc Pro B50 delivers 10.65 TFLOPS of FP32 performance. The NVIDIA B300 SXM6 AC delivers 76.99 TFLOPS. The B300's FP32 output is over seven times higher.
Q: Which product has a higher memory bandwidth?
A: The NVIDIA B300 SXM6 AC provides 8.19 TB/s of bandwidth across an 8192-bit bus. The Intel Arc Pro B50 provides 224.0 GB/s across a 128-bit bus. The B300's bandwidth is over 36 times higher.
Architecture Differences
The two GPUs come from completely different architectural lineages. The Intel Arc Pro B50 uses the BMG-G21 chip built on the Xe2-HPG architecture, part of the Battlemage Pro Series generation. The NVIDIA B300 SXM6 AC uses the GB110 chip based on the Blackwell Ultra architecture, belonging to the Server Blackwell generation. Both chips are fabricated by TSMC on a 5 nm process, but the similarities end there.
Transistor counts reveal the scale gap. The Intel chip contains 19,600 million transistors on a 272 mm² die, yielding a density of 72.1 million transistors per square millimeter. The NVIDIA chip packs 208,000 million transistors onto a 1628 mm² die, with a density of 127.8 million per square millimeter. The B300 has over ten times the transistor count and a die that is nearly six times larger.
Shading resources differ massively. The Intel GPU has 2048 shading units, 128 texture mapping units, and 16 ROPs. It also carries 16 ray tracing cores. The NVIDIA GPU has 18,944 shading units, 592 TMUs, and 24 ROPs. It has no listed ray tracing cores but includes 592 tensor cores, a feature absent from the Intel specification. The B300's shading unit count is over nine times higher.
Memory architecture is another major divergence. The Intel card uses 16 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus, delivering 224.0 GB/s. The B300 uses 288 GB of HBM3e on an 8192-bit bus, delivering 8.19 TB/s. The B300 has 18 times the memory capacity and over 36 times the bandwidth.
Clock behavior also differs. The Intel chip has a base clock of 1700 MHz and a boost clock of 2600 MHz. The NVIDIA chip has a base clock of 1665 MHz and a boost clock of 2032 MHz. Despite the lower clocks, the B300's massive parallel resources produce far higher throughput rates. The Intel card's pixel rate is 41.60 GPixel/s and its texture rate is 332.8 GTexel/s. The B300's pixel rate is 48.77 GPixel/s and its texture rate is 1,202.9 GTexel/s.
FP16 performance shows a key architectural choice. The Intel card delivers 21.30 TFLOPS FP16 using a 2:1 ratio relative to FP32. The B300 delivers 76.99 TFLOPS FP16 at a 1:1 ratio, meaning its FP16 throughput equals its FP32 throughput. This indicates the B300 is designed for compute workloads where FP16 precision is common, while the Intel card treats FP16 as a half-rate option.
API support also separates them. The Intel card supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The B300 lists N/A for DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan, confirming it is not intended for graphics rendering in the traditional sense. Its role is compute acceleration in server environments.
Specification Differences
The two products differ across nearly every specification field. The Intel Arc Pro B50 has a process node of 5 nm from TSMC; the NVIDIA B300 SXM6 AC also uses 5 nm from TSMC, so this is a shared trait. The Intel chip's die size is 272 mm², the NVIDIA chip's is 1628 mm². Transistor counts are 19,600 million versus 208,000 million.
Clock speeds differ: Intel base clock is 1700 MHz, boost is 2600 MHz. NVIDIA base clock is 1665 MHz, boost is 2032 MHz. Memory clocks also differ: Intel runs at 1750 MHz with 14 Gbps effective, NVIDIA runs at 2000 MHz with 8 Gbps effective. The effective data rate is higher on the Intel card, but the bus width difference overwhelms that advantage.
Memory size is 16 GB GDDR6 for Intel versus 288 GB HBM3e for NVIDIA. Bus widths are 128 bit versus 8192 bit. Bandwidth is 224.0 GB/s versus 8.19 TB/s. Shading units are 2048 versus 18,944. TMUs are 128 versus 592. ROPs are 16 versus 24. The Intel card has 16 RT cores; the NVIDIA card has none listed. The NVIDIA card has 592 tensor cores; the Intel card has none listed.
Compute rates show the performance gap: Intel FP32 is 10.65 TFLOPS, NVIDIA FP32 is 76.99 TFLOPS. Intel FP16 is 21.30 TFLOPS at 2:1, NVIDIA FP16 is 76.99 TFLOPS at 1:1. Pixel rates are 41.60 GPixel/s versus 48.77 GPixel/s. Texture rates are 332.8 GTexel/s versus 1,202.9 GTexel/s.
Power and physical specifications diverge sharply. Intel TDP is 70 W with a suggested PSU of 250 W. NVIDIA TDP is 1100 W with a suggested PSU of 1500 W. The Intel card is dual-slot with no power connectors required; the NVIDIA module is an SXM form factor with no listed power connector details. The Intel card uses PCIe 5.0 x8; the NVIDIA module uses PCIe 6.0 x16. Display outputs are 4x mini-DisplayPort 2.1 on the Intel card, while the NVIDIA module has no outputs.
Dimensions are recorded for the Intel card only: 167 mm length, 69 mm height, 40 mm width. The NVIDIA module has no listed dimensions. Release dates are close: the Intel card launched on 2025-09-04, the NVIDIA module on 2025-09-10. The Intel card has a launch MSRP of 349 USD; the NVIDIA module has no recorded launch MSRP.
Where Each One Wins
The Intel Arc Pro B50 wins in scenarios requiring standard graphics output. It offers four mini-DisplayPort 2.1 connections, a dual-slot form factor, and a 70 W TDP that needs no auxiliary power connectors. It supports DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, making it suitable for workstation rendering tasks that use conventional graphics APIs. Its 16 GB of GDDR6 memory is sufficient for typical workstation workloads, and its 16 ray tracing cores provide hardware acceleration for ray-traced scenes. The card's lower power envelope and compact dimensions allow installation in systems with modest power supplies.
The NVIDIA B300 SXM6 AC wins in compute-heavy server environments. Its 288 GB of HBM3e memory and 8.19 TB/s bandwidth serve large models and datasets that far exceed the Intel card's capacity. Its 76.99 TFLOPS of FP32 and FP16 performance, along with 592 tensor cores, target machine learning and high-performance computing workloads. The 100th percentile ranking confirms it delivers the highest average benchmark score in the database. The 1:1 FP16 ratio indicates sustained throughput for precision-sensitive workloads. The absence of display outputs and graphics APIs confirms its role as a dedicated compute accelerator.
The benchmark data shows the Intel card's strongest relative performance in PassMark G3D at 12553, indicating competent 3D rendering for its class. Its PassMark GPU Compute score of 6037 suggests moderate compute ability. The NVIDIA card's single Geekbench OpenCL score of 369831 places it far beyond any rival, including the B200, H200 NVL, MI300X, and L40S. Each product wins in its intended domain: the Intel card for graphics output and low-power operation, the NVIDIA module for raw compute and massive memory capacity.
The Verdict
The data presents two products with no meaningful overlap in purpose. The Intel Arc Pro B50, with its 17th percentile ranking and average score of 2660, belongs to the entry-level workstation segment. Its nearest rivals are all older or low-end NVIDIA parts, and its performance deltas against them are within one percentage point. It delivers graphics APIs, display outputs, and a 70 W power draw that suits desktop workstation builds. Its launch MSRP of 349 USD positions it as a modestly priced option, though pricing comparisons are not part of this analysis.
The NVIDIA B300 SXM6 AC, ranked at the 100th percentile with an average score of 369831, is a top-tier server accelerator. It leads the next closest rival, the NVIDIA B200, by 7%, and extends that lead to 25% over the NVIDIA L40S. Its memory capacity of 288 GB and bandwidth of 8.19 TB/s are unmatched in the recorded data. Its FP32 and FP16 performance of 76.99 TFLOPS each, plus 592 tensor cores, place it in a different performance class entirely.
Buyers should choose based on workload requirements. The Intel Arc Pro B50 fits systems needing standard graphics output, DirectX and Vulkan support, and low power consumption. The NVIDIA B300 SXM6 AC fits server deployments requiring maximum compute throughput, vast memory, and no display functionality. The benchmark records show no direct comparison test, but the percentile gap, the average score gap, and the specification differences all point to the same conclusion: these products serve separate markets, and the data does not support treating them as competitors. Each is the appropriate choice for its respective domain.