GPU Comparison

The NVIDIA GeForce 820A and the Intel Arc Pro B50 represent two extreme ends of the GPU spectrum, separated by over a decade of silicon evolution. The 820A is an end-of-life mobile-class part from 2014, built on a 28 nm process with 585 million transistors, while the Arc Pro B50 is an active professional desktop card from 2025, built on a 5 nm process with 19,600 million transistors. The data shows a fundamental mismatch in capabilities, with the Arc Pro B50 delivering 10.65 TFLOPS of FP32 compute against the 820A's 240.0 GFLOPS, yet the older card holds a higher percentile ranking (19th vs 17th) due to the nature of the benchmark databases. This analysis breaks down the architectural, performance, and practical differences between these two very different products.

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark results paint a stark picture of specialization. The NVIDIA GeForce 820A is not a competitive performer in any modern workload, but its single Geekbench OpenCL score of 2983 places it slightly ahead of the Intel Arc Pro B50's average benchmark score of 2660. This is a case where the 820A wins on a narrow metric: the specific Geekbench OpenCL test, where it edges out the Arc Pro B50 by roughly 12% (2983 vs 2660). However, this is the only benchmark available for the 820A, and it reflects a legacy compute workload rather than modern graphics rendering.

The Intel Arc Pro B50 wins decisively across every other measurable dimension. Its Passmark G3D score of 12553 dwarfs anything the 820A could produce, and its Passmark GPU Compute score of 6037 indicates serious parallel processing capability. The Arc Pro B50 also supports modern DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) and Vulkan 1.4, whereas the 820A is limited to DirectX 12 (11_0) with no Vulkan support at all. For any task involving current game engines, ray tracing, or professional 3D applications, the Arc Pro B50 is the only viable option. The 820A wins only in the narrow historical context of its single OpenCL benchmark, which is an artifact of the test suite rather than a real-world advantage.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two GPUs is generational. The NVIDIA GeForce 820A uses the GF117 chip based on Fermi 2.0 architecture, manufactured on a 28 nm TSMC process with 585 million transistors on a 116 mm² die. This yields a transistor density of 5.0 million per mm². The Fermi architecture dates back to 2010, and the 820A's 96 shading units, 16 TMUs, and 8 ROPs reflect that age. It has no ray tracing cores, no tensor cores, and supports only a 64-bit memory bus with 1 GB of DDR3 memory providing 16.02 GB/s of bandwidth.

In contrast, the Intel Arc Pro B50 is built on the Xe2-HPG architecture (Battlemage generation), using the BMG-G21 chip on a 5 nm TSMC process. This chip packs 19,600 million transistors into a 272 mm² die, achieving a density of 72.1 million per mm², over 14 times denser than the 820A. The Arc Pro B50 features 2048 shading units, 128 TMUs, 16 ROPs, and 16 dedicated ray tracing cores. Its memory subsystem is vastly superior: 16 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus delivering 224.0 GB/s. The Arc Pro B50 also includes hardware support for DirectX 12 Ultimate, which mandates features like mesh shaders and variable rate shading, none of which exist in the Fermi-based 820A. The process node advantage alone (28 nm vs 5 nm) explains most of the performance gap, but the architectural improvements in compute throughput, memory bandwidth, and feature support are equally decisive.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the Intel Arc Pro B50 is the superior product for any modern workload. Its FP32 compute of 10.65 TFLOPS is over 44 times higher than the 820A's 240.0 GFLOPS. Its texture fill rate of 332.8 GTexel/s is 33 times higher than the 820A's 10.00 GTexel/s, and its pixel rate of 41.60 GPixel/s is over 16 times higher. The Arc Pro B50 also has 16 GB of GDDR6 memory versus 1 GB of DDR3, and its 224.0 GB/s bandwidth is 14 times higher. For anyone choosing between these two for a current system, the Arc Pro B50 is the only rational choice.

However, the percentile data introduces a nuance. The 820A sits at the 19th percentile of all GPUs, while the Arc Pro B50 sits at the 17th percentile. This suggests that the 820A's single OpenCL score of 2983 is relatively better positioned among all historical GPUs than the Arc Pro B50's average of 2660. The nearest rivals for the 820A include the GeForce GTX 860M (delta 0.5%) and GTX 750 Ti (delta 1%), indicating it performs at a level comparable to entry-level desktop cards from its era. The Arc Pro B50's nearest rivals include the GeForce GT 1030 (delta -0.1%) and Quadro K1100M (delta -0.2%), which places it in a similar entry-level bracket despite its modern architecture. This suggests that the Arc Pro B50, despite its massive architectural advantages, is benchmarked in a way that doesn't fully capture its capabilities, or that its drivers are not yet optimized for the legacy benchmarks used in the database. The practical verdict is clear: pick the Arc Pro B50 for any real work, but the 820A holds a quirk of higher percentile ranking in this specific database.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has more shading units?

A: The Intel Arc Pro B50 has 2048 shading units, while the NVIDIA GeForce 820A has only 96 shading units.

Q: What is the memory capacity difference?

A: The Intel Arc Pro B50 comes with 16 GB of GDDR6 memory, while the NVIDIA GeForce 820A has 1 GB of DDR3 memory.

Q: Does the NVIDIA GeForce 820A support ray tracing?

A: No, the 820A has no ray tracing cores. The Intel Arc Pro B50 includes 16 dedicated ray tracing cores.

Q: What are the average benchmark scores for each GPU?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce 820A has an average benchmark score of 2983, while the Intel Arc Pro B50 has an average of 2660.

Q: Which GPU has a higher FP32 compute performance?

A: The Intel Arc Pro B50 delivers 10.65 TFLOPS of FP32 compute, compared to the NVIDIA GeForce 820A's 240.0 GFLOPS.

Q: What is the process node for each chip?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce 820A uses a 28 nm TSMC process, while the Intel Arc Pro B50 uses a 5 nm TSMC process.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head benchmark data is empty, but the individual benchmark results provide clear points of comparison. The NVIDIA GeForce 820A's only benchmark is Geekbench OpenCL, scoring 2983. This score places it 0.5% above the GeForce GTX 860M and 1% above the GTX 750 Ti. The Intel Arc Pro B50's most relevant comparison comes from its Passmark G3D score of 12553, which is 4.2 times higher than its own Passmark DirectX 11 score of 100, illustrating that the G3D test measures overall graphics performance rather than a single API.

The biggest win for the Arc Pro B50 is in raw compute. Its Passmark GPU Compute score of 6037 is more than double its own DirectX 12 score of 64, and its FP32 throughput of 10.65 TFLOPS is orders of magnitude higher than the 820A's 240.0 GFLOPS. In memory bandwidth, the Arc Pro B50's 224.0 GB/s is 14 times the 820A's 16.02 GB/s. The 820A's single win comes from the Geekbench OpenCL test, where its score of 2983 exceeds the Arc Pro B50's average of 2660 by 12.1%. This is a curious result, as the Arc Pro B50's Passmark G3D score of 12553 is vastly higher, suggesting that Geekbench OpenCL may be measuring a specific compute pattern that favors the older Fermi architecture's simpler design. The Arc Pro B50 also has a 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 1604, which has no equivalent on the 820A, and its Passmark DirectX 9 score of 144 is higher than its DirectX 11 score of 100, indicating legacy API performance is still respectable.

Specification Differences

The specification differences between these two GPUs are extensive and define their respective market positions. The NVIDIA GeForce 820A uses the GF117 chip with Fermi 2.0 architecture, while the Intel Arc Pro B50 uses the BMG-G21 chip with Xe2-HPG architecture. The process node differs dramatically: 28 nm for the 820A versus 5 nm for the Arc Pro B50. Transistor counts are 585 million versus 19,600 million, and die sizes are 116 mm² versus 272 mm². The transistor density of 5.0M/mm² for the 820A is dwarfed by the Arc Pro B50's 72.1M/mm².

The clock speeds tell a similar story. The 820A has no base or boost clock listed, with a memory clock of 1001 MHz (2 Gbps effective). The Arc Pro B50 has a base clock of 1700 MHz and a boost clock of 2600 MHz, with a memory clock of 1750 MHz (14 Gbps effective). Memory specifications are radically different: 1024 MB of DDR3 on a 64-bit bus for the 820A versus 16 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus for the Arc Pro B50. Bandwidth is 16.02 GB/s versus 224.0 GB/s.

The compute resources scale accordingly. The 820A has 96 shading units, 16 TMUs, and 8 ROPs, while the Arc Pro B50 has 2048 shading units, 128 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. The Arc Pro B50 adds 16 ray tracing cores, which the 820A lacks entirely. Pixel rate is 2.500 GPixel/s versus 41.60 GPixel/s, and texture rate is 10.00 GTexel/s versus 332.8 GTexel/s. FP32 compute is 240.0 GFLOPS versus 10.65 TFLOPS, and only the Arc Pro B50 lists FP16 performance at 21.30 TFLOPS.

Power and physical characteristics also diverge. The 820A has a 15 W TDP and is an IGP (integrated graphics processor) with no power connectors, while the Arc Pro B50 has a 70 W TDP, is a dual-slot card with no power connectors, and suggests a 250 W PSU. The bus interface is PCIe 2.0 x16 for the 820A versus PCIe 5.0 x8 for the Arc Pro B50. Display outputs are "Portable Device Dependent" for the 820A, while the Arc Pro B50 offers 4x mini-DisplayPort 2.1. The Arc Pro B50 has physical dimensions of 167 mm length, 69 mm height, and 40 mm width, while the 820A lists no dimensions. The 820A supports DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6 but no Vulkan, while the Arc Pro B50 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The 820A is end-of-life with a release date in 2014, while the Arc Pro B50 is active with a release date in 2025 and a launch MSRP of 349 USD.