GPU Comparison
Intel Arc Pro B50
GeForce GTX 860M
PERFORMANCE BENCHMARKS
Analysis: Intel Arc Pro B50 vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 860M
The Verdict
The benchmark data presents an unambiguous picture: the Intel Arc Pro B50 outperforms the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 860M in every single head-to-head test. The Intel card wins all seven comparisons, with the smallest margin being a 61.8% lead in DirectX 9 and the largest being a 79.7% lead in DirectX 12. For any workload involving modern graphics APIs, ray tracing, or compute tasks, the Arc Pro B50 is the clear choice. The GTX 860M, an end-of-life mobile part from 2014, remains competitive only in legacy scenarios where its lower power draw and integrated nature could be advantageous. However, its 19th percentile ranking versus the Arc Pro B50's 17th percentile ranking shows that the latter sits in a similar overall performance class, despite the individual test deltas. The data indicates that the Arc Pro B50 is for users needing current-generation features and high throughput, while the GTX 860M is strictly for older, low-power systems where its 75 W TDP and IGP form factor are mandatory constraints.
Architecture Differences
The architectural gap between these two GPUs spans over a decade of silicon evolution. The GTX 860M uses the GK104 chip on NVIDIA's Kepler architecture, built on a 28 nm process at TSMC. This chip contains 3,540 million transistors on a 294 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 12.0M per mm². The Arc Pro B50 employs the BMG-G21 chip with Intel's Xe2-HPG architecture, fabricated on a 5 nm process, also at TSMC. Intel's chip packs 19,600 million transistors into a smaller 272 mm² die, achieving a density of 72.1M per mm², six times higher density than the Kepler part.
Core configurations differ dramatically. The GTX 860M has 1,152 shading units, 96 texture mapping units, and 16 ROPs. The Arc Pro B50 features 2,048 shading units, 128 TMUs, and 16 ROPs, plus 16 dedicated ray tracing cores. The Intel card doubles the pixel throughput with 41.60 GPixel/s versus 21.96 GPixel/s, and nearly quadruples texture rate at 332.8 GTexel/s versus 87.84 GTexel/s. Floating-point performance shows a similar gap: 10.65 TFLOPS FP32 on Intel versus 2.108 TFLOPS on NVIDIA. The Arc Pro B50 also provides 21.30 TFLOPS FP16 (2:1), while the GTX 860M has no listed FP16 capability.
Memory subsystems represent another fundamental divide. NVIDIA pairs 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus with 80.00 GB/s bandwidth. Intel offers 16 GB of GDDR6 on the same 128-bit bus but achieves 224.0 GB/s. Clock behavior also diverges: the GTX 860M runs at 797 MHz base and 915 MHz boost, while the Arc Pro B50 operates at 1700 MHz base and 2600 MHz boost. API support is notably different, NVIDIA reaches DirectX 12 (11_0) and Vulkan 1.2.175, while Intel supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) and Vulkan 1.4, along with hardware ray tracing.
Head-to-Head Benchmarks
Every measured benchmark shows the Arc Pro B50 ahead, but the margins vary by workload. In DirectX 9, the Intel card scores 144 versus NVIDIA's 55, a 61.8% lead. This is the closest contest, suggesting the Kepler architecture retains some efficiency in legacy titles. The DirectX 10 test shows Intel at 58 versus NVIDIA's 15, a 74.1% gap. DirectX 11 widens further: Intel scores 100 to NVIDIA's 23, a 77% difference. DirectX 12 is the most lopsided legacy API test, with Intel at 64 versus NVIDIA's 13, a 79.7% margin.
The compute and 2D results are equally decisive. In the Passmark GPU compute test, Intel scores 6,037 versus NVIDIA's 1,251, a 79.3% advantage. The Passmark G2D test shows Intel at 717 versus NVIDIA's 226, a 68.5% lead. The flagship Passmark G3D result has Intel at 12,553 versus NVIDIA's 3,081, a 75.5% gap. Notably, the GTX 860M has a higher Geekbench Metal score of 4,900, but the Arc Pro B50 lacks that benchmark entry. The NVIDIA card also posts Geekbench OpenCL and Vulkan scores of 10,461 and 9,648 respectively, while Intel has no comparable Geekbench entries in the pack.
Interpreting these numbers requires context. The average benchmark scores are surprisingly close, 2,967 for the GTX 860M and 2,660 for the Arc Pro B50. This discrepancy arises because the average includes different test suites. The GTX 860M's nearest rivals include the GeForce GTX 750 Ti at 2,953 (0.5% delta), the GeForce 820A at 2,983 (-0.5%), and the Quadro P600 at 2,923 (1.5%). The Arc Pro B50's nearest rivals are the GeForce GT 1030 at 2,662 (-0.1%), the Quadro K1100M at 2,664 (-0.2%), and the GeForce GT 440 at 2,645 (0.6%). Both GPUs occupy a similar percentile band, but the head-to-head results show the Intel part dominates when directly compared.
FAQ
Q: Which GPU is faster in DirectX 12 workloads?
A: The Intel Arc Pro B50 is significantly faster, scoring 64 versus 13 in the Passmark DirectX 12 test, a 79.7% advantage. This aligns with its DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) support, whereas the GTX 860M only reaches DirectX 12 (11_0).
Q: Does the GTX 860M have any ray tracing capability?
A: No. The GTX 860M lists no ray tracing cores in its specification. The Arc Pro B50 includes 16 dedicated RT cores, giving it hardware-accelerated ray tracing that the Kepler-based NVIDIA card cannot provide.
Q: How do memory sizes and bandwidth compare?
A: The Arc Pro B50 offers 16 GB of GDDR6 with 224.0 GB/s bandwidth. The GTX 860M has 2 GB of GDDR5 with 80.00 GB/s. Both use a 128-bit memory bus, but the Intel card's higher-speed memory and larger capacity provide substantially more headroom.
Q: Which card has a better overall benchmark percentile?
A: The GTX 860M ranks in the 19th percentile of all GPUs, while the Arc Pro B50 ranks in the 17th percentile. Despite the Intel card winning every head-to-head test, its average benchmark score of 2,660 is slightly lower than NVIDIA's 2,967 due to differing test suites.
Q: What is the power consumption difference?
A: The GTX 860M has a 75 W TDP, while the Arc Pro B50 has a 70 W TDP. Despite being more powerful, the Intel card draws slightly less power. The Arc Pro B50 does list a suggested PSU of 250 W, whereas the GTX 860M has no suggested PSU listed.
Q: Is the Arc Pro B50 a mobile or desktop part?
A: The GTX 860M is an integrated graphics processor (IGP) with portable-device-dependent display outputs. The Arc Pro B50 is a dual-slot desktop card measuring 167 mm by 69 mm by 40 mm, with four mini-DisplayPort 2.1 outputs.
Where Each One Wins
The Intel Arc Pro B50 wins every measurable benchmark category in the head-to-head data. Its largest margins come in DirectX 12 (79.7% ahead), GPU compute (79.3% ahead), and DirectX 11 (77% ahead). These results indicate the Xe2-HPG architecture excels at modern, multi-threaded workloads and compute-heavy tasks. The 16 GB memory capacity and 224.0 GB/s bandwidth make it suited for large datasets, while the 16 RT cores enable hardware ray tracing that the GTX 860M cannot perform. The 21.30 TFLOPS FP16 capability suggests strong AI or machine learning potential, though no tensor cores are listed.
The GTX 860M's only advantages are implicit rather than measured. Its 75 W TDP and IGP form factor mean it can fit into compact, low-power laptops without dedicated cooling or power connectors. Its end-of-life production status and 2014 release date place it in legacy systems where motherboard compatibility and driver maturity for older software may matter. The Kepler architecture's 12 (11_0) DirectX support might theoretically provide better compatibility with some older games, though the benchmark data shows Intel leading even in DirectX 9 by 61.8%. The NVIDIA card also has Geekbench scores (4,900 Metal, 10,461 OpenCL, 9,648 Vulkan) that the Intel part lacks, suggesting the GTX 860M could be competitive in those specific cross-platform tests.
Specification Differences
The two GPUs differ across nearly every specification field. The GTX 860M uses a 28 nm process with 3,540 million transistors on a 294 mm² die; the Arc Pro B50 uses 5 nm with 19,600 million transistors on a 272 mm² die. Transistor density jumps from 12.0M/mm² to 72.1M/mm². Clock speeds rise from 797 MHz base and 915 MHz boost on NVIDIA to 1700 MHz base and 2600 MHz boost on Intel. Memory differs in size (2 GB vs 16 GB), type (GDDR5 vs GDDR6), and bandwidth (80.00 GB/s vs 224.0 GB/s), though both use a 128-bit bus.
Compute resources are heavily skewed toward Intel: 2,048 shading units versus 1,152, 128 TMUs versus 96, and an additional 16 RT cores versus none. Pixel rate increases from 21.96 GPixel/s to 41.60 GPixel/s; texture rate from 87.84 GTexel/s to 332.8 GTexel/s. FP32 throughput nearly quintuples from 2.108 TFLOPS to 10.65 TFLOPS, with Intel adding 21.30 TFLOPS FP16. Power draw is similar (75 W vs 70 W), but the form factor changes from IGP to dual-slot, and the bus interface moves from PCIe 3.0 x16 to PCIe 5.0 x8. Display outputs shift from portable-device-dependent to four mini-DisplayPort 2.1 connectors. API support improves from DirectX 12 (11_0) and Vulkan 1.2.175 to DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) and Vulkan 1.4, with both supporting OpenGL 4.6. The production status changes from end-of-life to active, and the launch MSRP for the Arc Pro B50 is 349 USD.