GPU Comparison

The NVIDIA Quadro P1000 and Intel Arc Pro B50 represent two very different eras of professional graphics. The P1000 is a long-discontinued Pascal-era board, while the B50 is an active, current-generation Battlemage product. The benchmark data shows a decisive shift in performance, but the full picture involves more than just raw speed.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Intel Arc Pro B50 wins every single head-to-head benchmark in the dataset, taking all 7 comparisons. The margins are substantial and consistent across all DirectX versions, compute workloads, and 2D tests.

In the Passmark DirectX 11 test, the B50 scores 100 points against the P1000's 31, a delta of -69% (meaning the P1000 is 69% behind). The DirectX 12 gap is even steeper: the B50 posts 64 points versus 19 for the P1000, a -70.3% delta. This suggests the B50's architecture is far better suited to modern graphics APIs.

The legacy DirectX 9 test shows the smallest relative gap, but the B50 still leads with 144 points against 79 for the P1000, a -45.1% delta. Even in the older API where the Pascal card might be expected to hold its own, it loses by a wide margin.

The 3D gaming and rendering performance gap is the most dramatic. In Passmark G3D, the B50 scores 12,553 points, dwarfing the P1000's 4,512 points. That is a -64.1% delta, meaning the P1000 delivers only about a third of the B50's performance in this metric. The raw compute gap is similar: Passmark GPU Compute shows 6,037 for the B50 against 1,891 for the P1000, a -68.7% delta.

Even the 2D performance, often a point of parity between cards, favors the newer Intel part. The B50 scores 717 in Passmark G2D versus 589 for the P1000, a -17.9% delta. While this is the closest contest, the B50 still comes out ahead.

The B50 also has a 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 1,604, a test the P1000 does not appear in the dataset for. This is a modern stress test, and its presence indicates the B50 is designed for contemporary workloads. The P1000's percentile ranking of 20 versus the B50's 17 is misleading; it reflects the entire GPU database, not this direct comparison. In every direct head-to-head, the B50 is the clear winner.

FAQ

Q: Is the Intel Arc Pro B50 faster than the NVIDIA Quadro P1000 in every benchmark?

A: Yes. The B50 wins all 7 head-to-head tests, covering DirectX 9, 10, 11, 12, G2D, G3D, and compute workloads. The P1000 does not win a single test.

Q: What is the biggest performance gap between the two cards?

A: The largest delta is in the Passmark DirectX 12 test, where the P1000 scores 19 against the B50's 64, a -70.3% difference. The DirectX 11 test is nearly as large at -69%.

Q: How does the memory configuration affect performance?

A: The B50 has 16 GB of GDDR6 memory with 224.0 GB/s of bandwidth, while the P1000 has 4 GB of GDDR5 with 80.19 GB/s. The B50's memory bandwidth is nearly three times higher, which directly contributes to its large compute and 3D performance advantages.

Q: Which card has better compute performance?

A: The B50 is overwhelmingly faster. In Passmark GPU Compute, it scores 6,037 against the P1000's 1,891, a -68.7% delta. The B50 also has 10.65 TFLOPS of FP32 performance versus 1.894 TFLOPS for the P1000.

Q: Are these cards comparable in size and power requirements?

A: The B50 is dual-slot and 167 mm long, while the P1000 is single-slot and 150 mm long. The B50 has a 70 W TDP and a suggested 250 W PSU, while the P1000 has a 47 W TDP and a suggested 200 W PSU. Neither requires a power connector.

Q: What is the production status of each card?

A: The P1000 is end-of-life, having been released in 2017. The B50 is an active product, released in 2025. This is a critical consideration for long-term driver support and warranty.

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide between these two GPUs is vast. The P1000 uses the Pascal architecture on a 14 nm process from Samsung, while the B50 uses the Xe2-HPG architecture on a 5 nm process from TSMC. This node difference alone explains much of the performance and efficiency gap.

The P1000's chip, GP107, contains 3,300 million transistors on a 132 mm² die, resulting in a transistor density of 25.0M / mm². The B50's chip, BMG-G21, packs 19,600 million transistors on a 272 mm² die, achieving a density of 72.1M / mm². The B50 has nearly six times the transistor count and almost triple the density.

The B50 introduces hardware features that the P1000 simply lacks. It has 16 ray tracing cores, which the P1000 does not have at all. The B50 also supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), while the P1000 is limited to DirectX 12 (12_1). This means the B50 is ready for hardware-accelerated ray tracing and mesh shaders, features that are becoming standard in modern professional applications.

The compute capabilities are also fundamentally different. The B50's FP16 performance is 21.30 TFLOPS, achieved at a 2:1 ratio with FP32, indicating dedicated FP16 hardware. The P1000's FP16 is a paltry 29.60 GFLOPS at a 1:64 ratio, meaning it has no meaningful half-precision support. This makes the B50 far more suitable for AI inference and other workloads that leverage FP16.

The P1000's shader configuration is 640 shading units, 40 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. The B50 has 2,048 shading units, 128 TMUs, and only 16 ROPs. While the B50 has more shaders and texture units, its lower ROP count is reflected in its pixel rate of 41.60 GPixel/s, which is actually lower than the P1000's 47.36 GPixel/s. This is an unusual divergence, but the B50's texture rate of 332.8 GTexel/s versus 59.20 GTexel/s shows where its strengths lie.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ on nearly every specification. The process node is a clear generational leap: 14 nm for the P1000 versus 5 nm for the B50. This leads to a massive difference in transistor count, with the B50 holding 19,600 million against the P1000's 3,300 million.

Memory is another major differentiator. The P1000 has 4 GB of GDDR5 with a 128-bit bus and 80.19 GB/s bandwidth. The B50 has 16 GB of GDDR6, also on a 128-bit bus, but with 224.0 GB/s bandwidth. The B50 has four times the capacity and nearly three times the bandwidth.

Clocks are substantially higher on the B50. Its base clock is 1700 MHz and boost is 2600 MHz, compared to 1266 MHz base and 1480 MHz boost for the P1000. The memory clocks also differ, with the B50 running at 1750 MHz (14 Gbps effective) versus 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective) for the P1000.

The interface and physical footprint differ. The P1000 uses PCIe 3.0 x16, while the B50 uses PCIe 5.0 x8. The B50 is larger at 167 mm long, 69 mm high, and 40 mm wide, and it occupies a dual-slot bracket. The P1000 is 150 mm long, 69 mm high, and is single-slot. The B50's TDP is 70 W with a suggested 250 W PSU, while the P1000 draws 47 W with a suggested 200 W PSU.

Display outputs are also different generations. The P1000 offers 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a, while the B50 offers 4x mini-DisplayPort 2.1. The B50's newer standard supports higher resolutions and refresh rates, which is relevant for high-end display setups.

Where Each One Wins

The data is unambiguous: the Intel Arc Pro B50 wins in every measurable category. For 3D rendering, it is 64.1% faster in Passmark G3D. For compute workloads, it is 68.7% faster in Passmark GPU Compute. For DirectX 11 and 12 gaming or professional applications, it is 69% and 70.3% faster, respectively.

The B50's 16 GB of memory makes it suitable for larger datasets, texture-heavy workloads, and multi-application workflows that would exhaust the P1000's 4 GB frame buffer. Its ray tracing cores and DirectX 12 Ultimate support make it the only choice for any workload that uses these modern features.

The P1000 has no wins in the head-to-head benchmarks. Its only advantages are physical: it is single-slot, shorter at 150 mm, and consumes less power at 47 W versus 70 W. It also has a higher pixel rate of 47.36 GPixel/s versus 41.60 GPixel/s, though this does not translate into a benchmark win. For a system with extreme space constraints or a strict power budget, the P1000 might fit where the B50 cannot, but this is a niche scenario.

The B50's higher ROP count deficiency is notable, but its massive lead in shader and texture throughput overcomes it. The B50 is the better choice for any modern professional workload, from CAD to video editing to AI inference. The P1000 is a legacy part that is only relevant for supporting older systems or specific single-slot constraints.

The Verdict

The choice between these two is not a difficult one if performance is the primary criterion. The Intel Arc Pro B50 is faster in every single benchmark, often by margins exceeding 60%. Its 16 GB of memory, ray tracing support, and modern API compliance make it a future-proof investment. Its launch MSRP is 349 USD, and it is an active product with ongoing support.

The NVIDIA Quadro P1000 is an end-of-life product from 2017. It offers no performance advantage in any test, and its 4 GB of memory is a severe limitation for current professional software. Its only redeeming qualities are its single-slot design and lower power draw, which may be critical in very specific industrial or embedded systems.

For a professional user building a new workstation, the B50 is the clear recommendation. It delivers over 2.5 times the 3D performance and over 3 times the compute performance of the P1000, based on the Passmark scores. The data shows no scenario where the P1000 is the better buy for a new system.

The P1000 should only be considered if you have a legacy system that requires a single-slot card with a 47 W TDP, and even then, the performance penalty is steep. The B50's dual-slot footprint and 70 W TDP are modest increases that buy a generational leap in capability. Choose the B50 for any new build or upgrade where the physical dimensions can accommodate it.