Intel Arc Pro B60 vs NVIDIA GeForce 830M Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark database contains no direct head-to-head results between the NVIDIA GeForce 830M and the Intel Arc Pro B60, so the comparison relies on their respective average scores and nearest rivals. The GeForce 830M records an average benchmark score of 3957, while the Arc Pro B60 averages 3182. That is a 24.4% gap in favor of the older NVIDIA part, a striking result given the generational difference.

Looking at the recorded data, the GeForce 830M lands near a cluster of mid-2010s mobile and workstation GPUs. Its closest rival, the AMD Radeon R5 M420, scores 3956, a delta of 0%. The NVIDIA Quadro K2000 sits at 3964, which is 0.2% above the 830M, while the GeForce GT 745M trails at 3953, 0.1% behind. The AMD Radeon HD 6850 X2 leads the group at 3977, 0.5% ahead. These are tight margins, all within 0.5% of each other, indicating that the 830M performs in line with its direct peers.

The Arc Pro B60 presents a different picture. Its average score of 3182 places it near the NVIDIA Quadro P1000, which scores 3163 and is 0.6% ahead. The GeForce GT 640 scores 3210, 0.9% above the Intel part, and the GeForce 920M is 3.2% ahead at 3287. The RTX 5080 SUPER, despite its high-end positioning, records 3075, which is 3.5% below the Arc Pro B60. This suggests the Arc Pro B60's average is dragged down by specific workloads where it underperforms relative to its raw compute capabilities.

The individual benchmark scores for the Arc Pro B60 reveal a wide spread. In Passmark G3D, it scores 14580, a strong showing. Passmark GPU Compute reaches 7029, and Passmark G2D is 763. However, the DirectX-specific tests are much lower: DirectX 9 scores 179, DirectX 11 scores 122, DirectX 10 scores 61, and DirectX 12 scores 76. The 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 test records 2646. The GeForce 830M, by contrast, has only two recorded benchmarks: Geekbench OpenCL at 4324 and Geekbench Vulkan at 3590.

The percentile rankings tell a similar story. The GeForce 830M sits at the 24th percentile of all GPUs, while the Arc Pro B60 ranks at the 20th percentile. Despite the Arc Pro B60's much larger transistor count and modern architecture, its database average places it lower relative to the full GPU field.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two is enormous. The GeForce 830M is built on NVIDIA's Maxwell architecture, using the GM108 chip, fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC. It contains 1,020 million transistors on a 77 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 13.2M per mm². The Arc Pro B60 uses Intel's Xe2-HPG architecture, specifically the BMG-G21 chip, on a 5 nm process, also at TSMC. It packs 19,600 million transistors on a 272 mm² die, for a density of 72.1M per mm². That is a 5.5 times higher transistor density on the Intel part.

The memory subsystems are generations apart. The GeForce 830M has 2 GB of DDR3 on a 64-bit bus, with a bandwidth of 14.40 GB/s. The Arc Pro B60 offers 24 GB of GDDR6 on a 192-bit bus, delivering 456.0 GB/s. The Intel part has 31.7 times the memory bandwidth. This alone explains why the Arc Pro B60 excels in memory-heavy compute tasks, even if its average score is lower.

Compute resources differ dramatically. The GeForce 830M has 256 shading units, 16 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. The Arc Pro B60 has 2560 shading units, 160 TMUs, and 80 ROPs. The Intel part also includes 20 ray tracing cores, while the NVIDIA part has none. The pixel rate for the 830M is 9.200 GPixel/s, compared to 192.0 GPixel/s for the Arc Pro B60. Texture rates are 18.40 GTexel/s versus 384.0 GTexel/s. FP32 throughput is 588.8 GFLOPS for the 830M and 12.29 TFLOPS for the Arc Pro B60, a 20.9 times difference. The Arc Pro B60 also lists FP16 at 24.58 TFLOPS (2:1), while the 830M has no FP16 figure.

Clock speeds favor the Intel part. The GeForce 830M runs at a base of 1082 MHz and boost of 1150 MHz, with memory at 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective). The Arc Pro B60 has a base of 2000 MHz and boost of 2400 MHz, with memory at 2375 MHz (19 Gbps effective). The bus interface also advances from PCIe 3.0 x8 to PCIe 5.0 x8. Display outputs on the 830M are listed as "Portable Device Dependent," while the Arc Pro B60 provides 4x mini-DisplayPort 2.1. The Arc Pro B60 is a dual-slot card measuring 167 mm by 69 mm by 40 mm, with a single 8-pin power connector and a suggested PSU of 550 W. The GeForce 830M is an IGP with no power connector and a 33 W TDP. The Arc Pro B60's TDP is 200 W.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce 830M records an average benchmark score of 3957, while the Intel Arc Pro B60 averages 3182. The GeForce 830M is ahead by 24.4%.

Q: How does the Arc Pro B60's memory compare to the GeForce 830M?

A: The Arc Pro B60 has 24 GB of GDDR6 on a 192-bit bus with 456.0 GB/s bandwidth. The GeForce 830M has 2 GB of DDR3 on a 64-bit bus with 14.40 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: What is the transistor density difference between the two?

A: The GeForce 830M uses a 28 nm process with 13.2M transistors per mm². The Arc Pro B60 uses a 5 nm process with 72.1M transistors per mm².

Q: Does the Arc Pro B60 support ray tracing?

A: Yes, the Arc Pro B60 includes 20 ray tracing cores. The GeForce 830M has no ray tracing cores.

Q: What are the nearest rivals for each GPU?

A: The GeForce 830M's closest rival is the AMD Radeon R5 M420 at 3956, with a 0% delta. The Arc Pro B60's closest rival is the NVIDIA Quadro P1000 at 3163, with a 0.6% delta.

Q: What is the launch MSRP for the Arc Pro B60?

A: The Intel Arc Pro B60 has a launch MSRP of 499 USD.

The Verdict

The data presents a paradox. If you prioritize raw average score, the GeForce 830M wins, but that is misleading. The two parts serve entirely different markets and eras. The GeForce 830M is an end-of-life mobile IGP from 2014, designed for low-power laptops. Its average score of 3957 is competitive with its direct peers, all within 0.5%, but its performance profile is limited to the Geekbench OpenCL and Vulkan tests it was recorded on.

The Arc Pro B60 is an active, dual-slot workstation card from 2025. Its average score of 3182 is dragged down by weak DirectX 10 and DirectX 12 scores (61 and 76 respectively), which are likely legacy or compatibility tests. In Passmark G3D, it achieves 14580, and in GPU Compute it hits 7029. These are the numbers that matter for professional workloads. The 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 2646 is a modern, demanding test, and it does not embarrass the card.

For gaming, the GeForce 830M is effectively obsolete. Its 2 GB DDR3 memory and 14.40 GB/s bandwidth cannot handle modern titles. The Arc Pro B60, with 24 GB GDDR6 and 456.0 GB/s, is a different class entirely. Its 2560 shading units and 20 ray tracing cores give it capability that the 830M cannot approach.

For a professional user needing compute throughput, memory capacity, and modern API support, the Arc Pro B60 is the clear choice. Its FP32 of 12.29 TFLOPS and FP16 of 24.58 TFLOPS dwarf the 830M's 588.8 GFLOPS. For a legacy laptop user or a collector, the GeForce 830M is a documented piece of Maxwell history, but its 24th percentile ranking and end-of-life status mean it has no forward-looking use case. The Arc Pro B60, despite its lower average, offers the features that matter for current software: DirectX 12 Ultimate, Vulkan 1.4, and ray tracing.

Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA GeForce 830M | Intel Arc Pro B60 |

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

| Architecture | Maxwell | Xe2-HPG |

| Chip | GM108 | BMG-G21 |

| Process Node | 28 nm | 5 nm |

| Transistors | 1,020 million | 19,600 million |

| Die Size | 77 mm² | 272 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 13.2M / mm² | 72.1M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 1082 MHz | 2000 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 1150 MHz | 2400 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective) | 2375 MHz (19 Gbps effective) |

| Memory Size | 2 GB | 24 GB |

| Memory Type | DDR3 | GDDR6 |

| Memory Bus Width | 64 bit | 192 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 14.40 GB/s | 456.0 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 256 | 2560 |

| TMUs | 16 | 160 |

| ROPs | 8 | 80 |

| Ray Tracing Cores | None | 20 |

| Pixel Rate | 9.200 GPixel/s | 192.0 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 18.40 GTexel/s | 384.0 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Performance | 588.8 GFLOPS | 12.29 TFLOPS |

| FP16 Performance | Not listed | 24.58 TFLOPS (2:1) |

| TDP | 33 W | 200 W |

| Slot Width | IGP | Dual-slot |

| Power Connectors | None | 1x 8-pin |

| Suggested PSU | Not listed | 550 W |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 3.0 x8 | PCIe 5.0 x8 |

| Display Outputs | Portable Device Dependent | 4x mini-DisplayPort 2.1 |

| DirectX Support | 12 (11_0) | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |

| Production Status | End-of-life | Active |

| Release Date | 2014-03-11 | 2025-09-04 |

| Launch MSRP | Not listed | 499 USD |

| Dimensions | Not listed | 167 mm x 69 mm x 40 mm |

| Average Benchmark Score | 3957 | 3182 |

| Percentile vs All GPUs | 24 | 20 |