GPU Comparison

# NVIDIA GeForce GT 730M vs Intel Arc Pro B60

The Intel Arc Pro B60 and NVIDIA GeForce GT 730M represent two completely different eras of GPU design, and the benchmark data reflects that chasm. The GT 730M is a 2013-era mobile part, while the Arc Pro B60 is a 2025 professional workstation card. Their average benchmark scores are surprisingly close on paper, 3316 for the GT 730M versus 3182 for the Arc Pro B60, but that average masks a dramatic difference in test methodology and workload scope. The GT 730M's score is derived from only two Geekbench submissions (OpenCL and Vulkan), while the Arc Pro B60's average pulls from eight tests spanning DirectX 9 through 12, compute, and 2D workloads. In short, these are not comparable products in any practical sense, but the data reveals exactly why.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most striking takeaway from the data is that these two GPUs do not share a single common benchmark in the FACT PACK. The GT 730M has two Geekbench scores: 3107 in OpenCL and 3524 in Vulkan. The Arc Pro B60 has no Geekbench results at all. Instead, it posts scores across 3DMark Steel Nomad (2646), PassMark DirectX 10 (61), DirectX 11 (122), DirectX 12 (76), DirectX 9 (179), G2D (763), G3D (14580), and GPU Compute (7029). Without overlapping tests, a direct apples-to-apples comparison is impossible from the raw numbers alone.

What the data does show is the Arc Pro B60's dominance in modern workloads. Its PassMark G3D score of 14580 is the headline figure, that is the kind of result that places it firmly in discrete desktop GPU territory. The GT 730M, by contrast, has no PassMark results in the pack, so its G3D performance cannot be quantified here. The Arc Pro B60's GPU Compute score of 7029 further underscores its compute-oriented design, while its 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 2646 indicates it can handle modern DirectX 12 titles, even if that number looks modest next to its G3D result.

The GT 730M's Geekbench Vulkan score of 3524 is respectable for its generation, and its OpenCL score of 3107 shows it could do basic compute work. But the Arc Pro B60's PassMark DirectX 9 score of 179, while low in absolute terms, still represents a GPU that can run legacy APIs, something the GT 730M's DirectX 12 (11_0) support cannot match in feature level. The GT 730M's 20th percentile ranking versus all GPUs matches the Arc Pro B60's 20th percentile, but that parity is misleading. The GT 730M sits at the 20th percentile among all GPUs because it is old and slow; the Arc Pro B60 sits there because its benchmark suite includes low-scoring legacy DirectX tests that drag down its average.

Looking at nearest rivals, the GT 730M's average of 3316 puts it 0.5% behind the Intel HD Graphics 530 (3332) and 0.9% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce 920M (3287). It trails the Intel HD Graphics P4600 (3389) by 2.2% and beats the NVIDIA GeForce GT 640 (3210) by 3.3%. The Arc Pro B60's average of 3182 places it 0.6% ahead of the NVIDIA Quadro P1000 (3163), 0.9% behind the GeForce GT 640 (3210), 3.2% behind the GeForce 920M (3287), and 3.5% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5080 SUPER (3075). The RTX 5080 SUPER comparison is particularly telling, the Arc Pro B60 outperforms that flagship in average score, yet both sit at the same 20th percentile, showing how percentile rankings flatten across disparate GPU generations.

Where Each One Wins

The GT 730M wins in legacy compatibility and power efficiency, strictly from the data. Its 33 W TDP is dramatically lower than the Arc Pro B60's 200 W, making it suitable for thin-and-light laptops where power draw is a hard constraint. Its Geekbench Vulkan score of 3524 suggests it can handle some modern API workloads, and its DirectX 12 (11_0) support means it can run DX12 titles at a feature level, albeit an older one. For a 2013 mobile GPU, that is not nothing.

The Arc Pro B60 wins everywhere else. Its 24 GB of GDDR6 memory with 456.0 GB/s bandwidth obliterates the GT 730M's 2 GB DDR3 at 28.80 GB/s, a 16x bandwidth advantage. Its PassMark G3D score of 14580 indicates strong rasterization performance, while its GPU Compute score of 7029 points to serious compute throughput. The 3DMark Steel Nomad result of 2646 confirms it can handle modern DX12 games. Its DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) API support is a full generation ahead of the GT 730M's DirectX 12 (11_0). For professional workloads, the Arc Pro B60's four mini-DisplayPort 2.1 outputs are a clear win over the GT 730M's portable-device-dependent outputs.

The GT 730M's only other advantage is its MXM module form factor, which fits specific laptop designs. The Arc Pro B60 is a dual-slot card measuring 167 mm by 69 mm by 40 mm, requiring a 550 W suggested PSU and a single 8-pin connector. These are not competing form factors.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap is enormous. The GT 730M uses the GK107 chip on NVIDIA's Kepler architecture, built on a 28 nm TSMC process with 1,270 million transistors on a 118 mm² die. That gives a transistor density of 10.8 million per mm². The Arc Pro B60 uses the BMG-G21 chip on Intel's Xe2-HPG architecture (Battlemage Pro Series), built on a 5 nm TSMC process with 19,600 million transistors on a 272 mm² die, a density of 72.1 million per mm². That is nearly seven times the transistor density, and over fifteen times the total transistor count.

The compute resources tell the same story. The GT 730M has 384 shading units, 32 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 16 raster output units (ROPs). The Arc Pro B60 has 2560 shading units, 160 TMUs, and 80 ROPs, roughly 6.7x, 5x, and 5x respectively. The Arc Pro B60 also includes 20 ray tracing cores, which the GT 730M lacks entirely. Neither GPU has tensor cores listed in the pack.

Clock speeds differ substantially. The GT 730M runs at a fixed 725 MHz base and boost, with memory at 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective). The Arc Pro B60 boosts to 2400 MHz from a 2000 MHz base, with memory at 2375 MHz (19 Gbps effective). The resulting fill rates are 5.800 GPixel/s and 23.20 GTexel/s for the GT 730M versus 192.0 GPixel/s and 384.0 GTexel/s for the Arc Pro B60. FP32 throughput is 556.8 GFLOPS for the GT 730M versus 12.29 TFLOPS for the Arc Pro B60, a 22x difference. The Arc Pro B60 additionally lists FP16 at 24.58 TFLOPS (2:1), which the GT 730M does not support.

Memory architecture is another chasm. The GT 730M uses 2 GB of DDR3 on a 128-bit bus. The Arc Pro B60 uses 24 GB of GDDR6 on a 192-bit bus. Bandwidth is 28.80 GB/s versus 456.0 GB/s. The bus interface also differs: PCIe 3.0 x16 for the GT 730M versus PCIe 5.0 x8 for the Arc Pro B60. API support ranges from Vulkan 1.2.175 on the GT 730M to Vulkan 1.4 on the Arc Pro B60, with DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) versus DirectX 12 (11_0).

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the Intel Arc Pro B60 is the superior GPU by every measurable performance metric in the FACT PACK. Its 12.29 TFLOPS FP32, 456.0 GB/s bandwidth, 24 GB memory, and ray tracing support put it in a completely different performance class. The GT 730M's 556.8 GFLOPS and 28.80 GB/s are not competitive for any modern workload. The only reasons to choose the GT 730M are its 33 W TDP and MXM form factor, which matter only for upgrading an old laptop that cannot accommodate a dual-slot card.

However, the average benchmark scores tell a cautionary tale. The GT 730M's 3316 average versus the Arc Pro B60's 3182 might suggest near-parity, but that is an artifact of test selection. The Arc Pro B60's PassMark DirectX 9 score of 179 and DX10 score of 61 drag its average down, while the GT 730M's two Geekbench scores are both relatively high for its class. Any buyer should look at the specific workloads they care about. For modern gaming, professional 3D rendering, or compute tasks, the Arc Pro B60 is the only choice. For legacy DX9/DX10 applications, the GT 730M's data does not even include those tests, so its performance there is unknown from this pack.

The Arc Pro B60's nearest rival list includes the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5080 SUPER, which it beats by 3.5% in average score, a remarkable result for a professional-series card. The GT 730M's nearest rivals are all integrated or low-end discrete parts from a decade ago. That comparison alone tells you which GPU belongs in a modern system.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher raw compute performance?

A: The Arc Pro B60 delivers 12.29 TFLOPS FP32, while the GT 730M manages 556.8 GFLOPS, a 22x advantage for the Arc Pro B60.

Q: Can the GT 730M handle DirectX 12 games?

A: It supports DirectX 12 (11_0), meaning it can run DX12 titles but only at the feature level of DX11. The Arc Pro B60 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), a much newer feature set.

Q: How much memory does each GPU have?

A: The GT 730M has 2 GB of DDR3 on a 128-bit bus (28.80 GB/s). The Arc Pro B60 has 24 GB of GDDR6 on a 192-bit bus (456.0 GB/s).

Q: Does either GPU support ray tracing?

A: Only the Arc Pro B60 includes ray tracing cores, 20 of them. The GT 730M has no ray tracing hardware.

Q: What is the power draw difference?

A: The GT 730M is rated at 33 W TDP. The Arc Pro B60 is rated at 200 W TDP and requires a 550 W suggested PSU with one 8-pin power connector.

Q: Which GPU has better legacy API support?

A: The Arc Pro B60 has PassMark scores for DirectX 9 (179), DX10 (61), DX11 (122), and DX12 (76). The GT 730M has no legacy DirectX scores in the data, only Geekbench OpenCL (3107) and Vulkan (3524).

Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA GeForce GT 730M | Intel Arc Pro B60 |

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

| Architecture | Kepler | Xe2-HPG |

| Process Node | 28 nm | 5 nm |

| Transistors | 1,270 million | 19,600 million |

| Die Size | 118 mm² | 272 mm² |

| Base Clock | 725 MHz | 2000 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 725 MHz | 2400 MHz |

| Memory Size | 2 GB | 24 GB |

| Memory Type | DDR3 | GDDR6 |

| Memory Bus Width | 128 bit | 192 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 28.80 GB/s | 456.0 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 384 | 2560 |

| TMUs | 32 | 160 |

| ROPs | 16 | 80 |

| Ray Tracing Cores | None | 20 |

| Pixel Rate | 5.800 GPixel/s | 192.0 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 23.20 GTexel/s | 384.0 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Performance | 556.8 GFLOPS | 12.29 TFLOPS |

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

| TDP | 33 W | 200 W |

| Slot Width | MXM Module | Dual-slot |

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

| Suggested PSU | Not listed | 550 W |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 5.0 x8 |

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

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

| Vulkan Support | 1.2.175 | 1.4 |

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

| Release Date | 2013-01-19 | 2025-09-04 |

| Launch MSRP | Not listed | 499 USD |

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