Intel Arc Pro B50 vs NVIDIA H20 NVL16 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data contains no direct head-to-head benchmark comparisons between the Intel Arc Pro B50 and the NVIDIA H20 NVL16. The head-to-head benchmark table is empty, and the win counters for both products are set to zero. This absence of comparative test results means any direct performance verdict must be drawn from the individual benchmark scores and architectural specifications available in the database.

The Intel Arc Pro B50 has a full set of recorded benchmark results. Its 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score is 1604. In Passmark tests, the card records 58 in DirectX 10, 100 in DirectX 11, 64 in DirectX 12, and 144 in DirectX 9. The 2D graphics score is 717, while the 3D graphics score reaches 12553. The GPU compute score is 6037. The average benchmark score across all recorded tests is 2660, placing the Arc Pro B50 at the 17th percentile among all GPUs in the database.

The NVIDIA H20 NVL16 has no recorded benchmark scores. Its average benchmark score is listed as 0, and its nearest rivals array is empty. The percentile ranking of 50 reflects its position in the database, but without actual test scores, there is no numerical basis for comparing its raw performance to the Arc Pro B50. The data shows that the Arc Pro B50 delivers a measurable compute result of 6037 in Passmark GPU compute, but no equivalent figure exists for the H20 NVL16.

The nearest rivals for the Intel Arc Pro B50 provide context for its average score. The NVIDIA GeForce GT 1030 averages 2662, which is 0.1% higher. The NVIDIA Quadro K1100M averages 2664, 0.2% higher. The NVIDIA GeForce GT 440 averages 2645, which is 0.6% lower. The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5070 SUPER averages 2690, 1.1% higher. These deltas indicate the Arc Pro B50 sits within a narrow band of roughly 1% performance difference from these four comparison points. The data shows no such context for the H20 NVL16.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Arc Pro B50 wins in every category where recorded benchmark data exists, simply because it is the only one of the two with benchmark scores in the database. The H20 NVL16 has no scores, so it cannot claim a benchmark win. However, the architectural differences point toward distinct use cases that the data supports.

The Arc Pro B50 delivers 10.65 TFLOPS of FP32 performance and 21.30 TFLOPS of FP16 performance. It has 16 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 128-bit bus, yielding 224.0 GB/s of bandwidth. This combination suits graphics-oriented workloads. The card has 2048 shading units, 128 texture mapping units, 16 ROPs, and 16 ray tracing cores. Its pixel rate is 41.60 GPixel/s, and its texture rate is 332.8 GTexel/s. The presence of 4x mini-DisplayPort 2.1 outputs confirms a display-focused product.

The NVIDIA H20 NVL16 is a server module with no display outputs. Its FP32 throughput is 39.54 TFLOPS, and FP16 reaches 79.07 TFLOPS. It has 9984 shading units, 312 TMUs, 24 ROPs, and 312 tensor cores. Memory is 96 GB of HBM3 on a 6144-bit bus, delivering 4.03 TB/s of bandwidth. The pixel rate is 47.52 GPixel/s, and the texture rate is 617.8 GTexel/s. These specifications point toward compute-heavy server deployments. The data indicates the H20 NVL16 has roughly 3.7 times the FP32 throughput of the Arc Pro B50, and its memory bandwidth is about 18 times higher. Those differences come directly from the recorded specification values.

Architecture Differences

The two products use fundamentally different architectures from their respective manufacturers. The Intel Arc Pro B50 uses the Xe2-HPG architecture with the BMG-G21 chip, belonging to the Battlemage (Pro Series) generation. The NVIDIA H20 NVL16 uses the Hopper architecture with the GH100 chip, belonging to the Server Hopper (Hxx) generation.

Both are fabricated by TSMC on a 5 nm process. The transistor counts differ sharply. The Arc Pro B50 has 19,600 million transistors on a 272 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 72.1 million per mm². The H20 NVL16 has 80,000 million transistors on an 814 mm² die, with a density of 98.3 million per mm². The H20 NVL16 packs more than four times the transistors onto roughly three times the die area.

The ray tracing and tensor core configurations show opposite priorities. The Arc Pro B50 has 16 dedicated ray tracing cores and no tensor core count listed. The H20 NVL16 has no ray tracing cores listed but carries 312 tensor cores. This reflects the Intel card's graphics-first design versus the NVIDIA card's compute-first design. The API support also differs: the Arc Pro B50 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, while the H20 NVL16 lists N/A for DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan.

The memory architectures are entirely different classes. The Arc Pro B50 uses GDDR6 with a 128-bit bus and 224.0 GB/s bandwidth. The H20 NVL16 uses HBM3 with a 6144-bit bus and 4.03 TB/s bandwidth. The HBM3 configuration is 48 times wider on the bus and delivers roughly 18 times the bandwidth. The clock behavior also diverges: the Arc Pro B50 boosts to 2600 MHz from a 1700 MHz base, while the H20 NVL16 boosts to 1980 MHz from a 1830 MHz base. The Arc Pro B50 has a higher boost clock, but the H20 NVL16 has a higher base clock.

Specification Differences

The two products differ across nearly every recorded specification field. The Intel Arc Pro B50 has a base clock of 1700 MHz and a boost clock of 2600 MHz. The NVIDIA H20 NVL16 has a base clock of 1830 MHz and a boost clock of 1980 MHz. Memory clocks are 1750 MHz (14 Gbps effective) for the Arc Pro B50 and 1313 MHz (5.3 Gbps effective) for the H20 NVL16.

Memory capacity and type are major differentiators. The Arc Pro B50 has 16 GB of GDDR6, while the H20 NVL16 has 96 GB of HBM3. Bus widths are 128-bit versus 6144-bit. Bandwidth is 224.0 GB/s versus 4.03 TB/s. The shading unit counts are 2048 versus 9984. TMUs are 128 versus 312. ROPs are 16 versus 24. The Arc Pro B50 has 16 ray tracing cores and no tensor cores listed; the H20 NVL16 has no ray tracing cores and 312 tensor cores.

Pixel rate is 41.60 GPixel/s for the Arc Pro B50 and 47.52 GPixel/s for the H20 NVL16. Texture rate is 332.8 GTexel/s versus 617.8 GTexel/s. FP32 throughput is 10.65 TFLOPS versus 39.54 TFLOPS. FP16 throughput is 21.30 TFLOPS versus 79.07 TFLOPS. The Arc Pro B50 has a TDP of 70 W with a suggested PSU of 250 W. The H20 NVL16 has a TDP of 400 W with a suggested PSU of 800 W.

The physical and interface specifications also differ. The Arc Pro B50 is a dual-slot card with no power connectors, using PCIe 5.0 x8, and measures 167 mm in length, 69 mm in height, and 40 mm in width. It has 4x mini-DisplayPort 2.1 outputs. The H20 NVL16 is an SXM module with no power connector data, no display outputs, and no recorded dimensions, using PCIe 5.0 x16. The Arc Pro B50 has a launch MSRP of 349 USD. The H20 NVL16 has no launch MSRP recorded. The Arc Pro B50 released on 2025-09-04, while the H20 NVL16 released on 2025-09-01. The H20 NVL16 has a predecessor listed as Server Ada and a successor as Server Blackwell; the Arc Pro B50 has neither.

FAQ

Q: Which product has higher FP32 compute performance?

A: The NVIDIA H20 NVL16 delivers 39.54 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, compared to the Intel Arc Pro B50's 10.65 TFLOPS. The H20 NVL16 is roughly 3.7 times higher in this metric.

Q: What memory configurations do the two products use?

A: The Intel Arc Pro B50 uses 16 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus with 224.0 GB/s bandwidth. The NVIDIA H20 NVL16 uses 96 GB of HBM3 on a 6144-bit bus with 4.03 TB/s bandwidth.

Q: Do both products support the same graphics APIs?

A: No. The Intel Arc Pro B50 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The NVIDIA H20 NVL16 lists N/A for DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan, and it has no display outputs.

Q: How do the transistor counts compare?

A: The Intel Arc Pro B50 has 19,600 million transistors on a 272 mm² die. The NVIDIA H20 NVL16 has 80,000 million transistors on an 814 mm² die. The H20 NVL16 has over four times the transistor count.

Q: What is the average benchmark score for each product?

A: The Intel Arc Pro B50 has an average benchmark score of 2660 across its recorded tests. The NVIDIA H20 NVL16 has an average benchmark score of 0, as no benchmark scores are recorded in the database.

Q: Which product has tensor cores?

A: The NVIDIA H20 NVL16 has 312 tensor cores. The Intel Arc Pro B50 does not have a tensor core count listed, but it has 16 ray tracing cores, which the H20 NVL16 lacks.

The Verdict

The data supports a clear split based on workload type. The Intel Arc Pro B50 is the only one of the two with recorded benchmark scores, and its average of 2660 places it at the 17th percentile. Its nearest rivals all fall within approximately 1% of its average score, indicating that its performance sits in a narrow competitive band. The Arc Pro B50 is a display-capable graphics card with 4x mini-DisplayPort 2.1 outputs, DirectX 12 Ultimate support, and a 70 W TDP. Its 16 GB of GDDR6 memory and 224.0 GB/s bandwidth are sufficient for graphics tasks, and its 16 ray tracing cores indicate some ray tracing capability.

The NVIDIA H20 NVL16 has no benchmark scores, so the database cannot confirm its real-world performance. However, its specifications point to a compute-oriented server module. The 96 GB of HBM3 memory with 4.03 TB/s bandwidth, 312 tensor cores, and 39.54 TFLOPS of FP32 performance indicate a design for large-scale compute workloads. The absence of display outputs and graphics API support confirms this product is not intended for rendering to a screen.

For users seeking a graphics card with display output, DirectX support, and a low 70 W power draw, the Intel Arc Pro B50 is the only option between these two that the data supports. For users deploying server-side compute workloads that require high memory bandwidth, tensor core acceleration, and massive FP32 throughput, the NVIDIA H20 NVL16's specifications position it as the stronger choice, though its lack of recorded benchmark scores means the database does not yet confirm its performance. The H20 NVL16 also carries a 400 W TDP and an 800 W suggested PSU, which indicates a much larger power footprint than the Arc Pro B50. The data does not provide enough evidence to declare an overall winner, but it clearly defines which product fits which purpose.