Intel Arc Pro B60 Dual vs NVIDIA L4 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded benchmark data contains no direct head-to-head results between the Intel Arc Pro B60 Dual and the NVIDIA L4. However, the database does include two Geekbench scores for the NVIDIA L4, which provide a reference point for its compute capabilities. The L4 records an OpenCL score of 140,838 and a Vulkan score of 121,306, yielding an average benchmark score of 131,072. This places the L4 at the 95th percentile among all GPUs in the database.

For context, the L4's nearest rivals in the database are the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3090 Ti with an average score of 131,938 (0.7% ahead of the L4), the NVIDIA RTX 4000 Ada Generation with 135,218 (3.1% ahead), the NVIDIA A10M with 135,230 (3.1% ahead), and the AMD Radeon PRO W6800 with 135,396 (3.2% ahead). This means the L4 sits within a tight cluster of high-end workstation and server GPUs, trailing the top of that group by roughly three percentage points.

The Intel Arc Pro B60 Dual has no recorded benchmark scores and no percentile ranking in the database, listed with an average benchmark score of zero. The head-to-head benchmark array is empty, and neither product registers a win in the direct comparison category. Consequently, the quantitative comparison relies on the L4's measured scores and the architectural specifications of both cards.

Architecture Differences

The Intel Arc Pro B60 Dual uses the BMG-G21 chip built on TSMC's 5 nm process, belonging to the Xe2-HPG architecture and the Battlemage (Pro Series) generation. The die contains 19,600 million transistors on a 272 mm² area, resulting in a transistor density of 72.1 million per square millimeter. The NVIDIA L4 uses the AD104 chip, also on TSMC 5 nm, from the Ada Lovelace architecture and the Server Ada (Lxx) generation. Its die packs 35,800 million transistors into 294 mm², yielding a density of 121.8 million per square millimeter. The L4 therefore carries roughly 83% more transistors on a slightly larger die, reflecting a much denser design.

Clock behavior diverges sharply. The Intel card runs a base clock of 2000 MHz and a boost of 2400 MHz, while the NVIDIA part starts at a low 795 MHz base and boosts to 2040 MHz. The Intel GPU's higher boost clock, combined with its architecture, drives a pixel rate of 192.0 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 384.0 GTexel/s. The L4 counters with 489.6 GTexel/s texture throughput but falls behind in pixels at 163.2 GPixel/s.

Compute resources differ in scale and type. The Intel Arc Pro B60 Dual provides 2,560 shading units, 160 texture mapping units, 80 raster operations units, and 20 ray tracing cores. The NVIDIA L4 offers 7,424 shading units, 240 TMUs, 80 ROPs, 60 RT cores, and 240 tensor cores. The L4's shading unit count is nearly triple the Intel card's, and its tensor core count is substantial. Floating-point performance reflects this: the L4 delivers 30.29 TFLOPS FP32 and the same 30.29 TFLOPS FP16 with a 1:1 ratio. The Intel GPU produces 12.29 TFLOPS FP32 and 24.58 TFLOPS FP16 with a 2:1 ratio. The L4 leads in FP32 by a factor of roughly 2.5, while the Intel card's FP16 advantage over its own FP32 is exactly double.

Memory configurations match on capacity and bus width: both cards use 24 GB of GDDR6 across a 192-bit interface. Bandwidth differs notably, with the Intel card reaching 456.0 GB/s from a memory clock of 2375 MHz (19 Gbps effective), while the L4 achieves 300.1 GB/s from a 1563 MHz clock (12.5 Gbps effective). The Intel GPU's bandwidth advantage is about 52%.

Power and physical design contrast heavily. The Intel Arc Pro B60 Dual has a TDP of 400 W, requires a single 16-pin power connector, needs a suggested 800 W PSU, and occupies a dual-slot form factor measuring 300 mm long, 110 mm tall, and 40 mm wide. The NVIDIA L4 draws only 72 W, has no power connectors, requires a suggested 250 W PSU, and fits a single slot at 169 mm long and 56 mm tall. The L4's passive, low-power design suits dense server installations, while the Intel card demands a more substantial power delivery and cooling solution.

Interface and outputs also differ. The Intel card uses PCIe 5.0 x8 and provides four mini-DisplayPort 2.1 outputs. The NVIDIA L4 uses PCIe 4.0 x16 and has no display outputs, indicating a compute-focused accelerator. Both support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher FP32 compute performance?

A: The NVIDIA L4 delivers 30.29 TFLOPS FP32, which is more than double the Intel Arc Pro B60 Dual's 12.29 TFLOPS FP32.

Q: Do both cards have the same memory capacity?

A: Yes, both the Intel Arc Pro B60 Dual and the NVIDIA L4 feature 24 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 192-bit bus. The Intel card has higher bandwidth at 456.0 GB/s versus the L4's 300.1 GB/s.

Q: What is the power consumption difference?

A: The Intel Arc Pro B60 Dual has a TDP of 400 W and requires a 1x 16-pin power connector, while the NVIDIA L4 has a TDP of 72 W and uses no power connectors.

Q: Which card is denser in terms of transistor packing?

A: The NVIDIA L4 has a transistor density of 121.8 million per mm², compared to the Intel card's 72.1 million per mm². The L4 also has more total transistors at 35,800 million versus 19,600 million.

Q: Does the Intel card support display output?

A: Yes, the Intel Arc Pro B60 Dual provides four mini-DisplayPort 2.1 outputs. The NVIDIA L4 has no display outputs.

Q: How does the L4's benchmark score compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The L4's average score of 131,072 trails the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3090 Ti by 0.7%, the RTX 4000 Ada Generation by 3.1%, the NVIDIA A10M by 3.1%, and the AMD Radeon PRO W6800 by 3.2%.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Arc Pro B60 Dual | NVIDIA L4 |

| --- | --- | --- |

| Chip | BMG-G21 | AD104 |

| Architecture | Xe2-HPG | Ada Lovelace |

| Generation | Battlemage (Pro Series) | Server Ada (Lxx) |

| Transistors | 19,600 million | 35,800 million |

| Die Size | 272 mm² | 294 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 72.1M / mm² | 121.8M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 2000 MHz | 795 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 2400 MHz | 2040 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 2375 MHz, 19 Gbps effective | 1563 MHz, 12.5 Gbps effective |

| Memory Bandwidth | 456.0 GB/s | 300.1 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 2560 | 7424 |

| TMUs | 160 | 240 |

| ROPs | 80 | 80 |

| RT Cores | 20 | 60 |

| Tensor Cores | None listed | 240 |

| Pixel Rate | 192.0 GPixel/s | 163.2 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 384.0 GTexel/s | 489.6 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 12.29 TFLOPS | 30.29 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | 24.58 TFLOPS (2:1) | 30.29 TFLOPS (1:1) |

| TDP | 400 W | 72 W |

| Slot Width | Dual-slot | Single-slot |

| Power Connectors | 1x 16-pin | None |

| Suggested PSU | 800 W | 250 W |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 5.0 x8 | PCIe 4.0 x16 |

| Display Outputs | 4x mini-DisplayPort 2.1 | No outputs |

| Length | 300 mm, 11.8 inches | 169 mm, 6.7 inches |

| Height | 110 mm, 4.3 inches | 56 mm, 2.2 inches |

| Width | 40 mm, 1.6 inches | Not listed |

| Release Date | 2025-09-04 | 2023-03-20 |

| Predecessor | None listed | Server Ampere |

| Successor | None listed | Server Hopper |

| Launch MSRP | 1,199 USD | Not listed |

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA L4 wins decisively in raw compute throughput. Its FP32 output of 30.29 TFLOPS is roughly 2.5 times the Intel card's 12.29 TFLOPS, and its FP16 output of 30.29 TFLOPS exceeds the Intel card's 24.58 TFLOPS. The L4's shading unit count of 7,424 and 240 tensor cores position it for workloads that rely heavily on parallel arithmetic, such as inference, data processing, and general GPU compute. Its texture rate of 489.6 GTexel/s also leads the Intel card's 384.0 GTexel/s, and its 60 RT cores offer more ray tracing hardware. The L4's measured benchmark performance, sitting at the 95th percentile with an average score of 131,072, confirms its standing among high-performance accelerators, within 3.2% of its nearest rivals.

The Intel Arc Pro B60 Dual wins in memory bandwidth and pixel throughput. Its 456.0 GB/s bandwidth is over 50% higher than the L4's 300.1 GB/s, which can benefit memory-intensive workloads such as large dataset manipulation or high-resolution rendering. Its pixel rate of 192.0 GPixel/s outpaces the L4's 163.2 GPixel/s, and the card provides four mini-DisplayPort 2.1 outputs, making it suitable for display-centric tasks. Its higher base clock of 2000 MHz and boost of 2400 MHz contribute to its rasterization strengths. The Intel card also holds advantages in physical integration for workstation use: PCIe 5.0 x8 offers a newer bus generation, and the dual-slot design with active cooling accommodates sustained load. Its launch MSRP is 1,199 USD.

Power efficiency heavily favors the L4. At 72 W TDP with no external power connector, it operates at a fraction of the Intel card's 400 W requirement. The L4's suggested PSU of 250 W versus the Intel card's 800 W highlights the NVIDIA part's suitability for dense, power-constrained server environments. The Intel card's 400 W draw and 16-pin connector demand more robust power infrastructure.

Form factor also splits the use cases. The NVIDIA L4, at 169 mm long and single-slot, fits into compact server chassis with minimal clearance. The Intel Arc Pro B60 Dual, at 300 mm long and dual-slot, is a full-length workstation card. The L4 has no display outputs, reinforcing its role as a headless compute accelerator. The Intel card's four display outputs make it viable for visualization workstations that require multiple monitors.

Release timing and lineage differ as well. The Intel card launched on 2025-09-04, while the NVIDIA L4 arrived on 2023-03-20. The L4's predecessor is Server Ampere and its successor is Server Hopper, placing it within a defined server product line. The Intel card's specification sheet lists no predecessor or successor, reflecting its standalone positioning.

In summary, the data indicates the NVIDIA L4 is the stronger choice for compute-heavy, power-limited, and space-constrained deployments, backed by measured benchmark scores and a large lead in FP32 and tensor performance. The Intel Arc Pro B60 Dual is positioned for bandwidth-sensitive rendering and display-output workloads, offering higher memory bandwidth, higher pixel rate, and a display interface, but with significantly higher power draw and no recorded benchmark results to validate its compute standing.