GPU Comparison

The Intel Arc Pro B60 and NVIDIA Quadro K1100M represent two vastly different eras of GPU design. The Arc Pro B60 is a modern, high-performance workstation card built on Intel’s Xe2-HPG architecture, while the Quadro K1100M is a legacy mobile workstation part from NVIDIA’s Kepler generation. Benchmark data shows the Arc Pro B60 holds a commanding lead in raw performance, but the comparison also highlights how far mobile workstation graphics have come in over a decade.

FAQ

Q: How do the average benchmark scores compare between the two cards?

A: The Intel Arc Pro B60 has an average benchmark score of 3182, while the NVIDIA Quadro K1100M scores 2664. This puts the Arc Pro B60 roughly 19.4% higher based on the delta between their average scores, though the individual benchmark types differ significantly.

Q: Which card has a higher percentile ranking among all GPUs?

A: The Arc Pro B60 sits at the 20th percentile of all GPUs, while the Quadro K1100M is at the 18th percentile. Despite the large performance gap, both cards occupy a relatively low position in the overall GPU hierarchy, indicating that the Arc Pro B60 is a mid-range part rather than a flagship.

Q: What is the closest rival to each card according to the data?

A: The Arc Pro B60’s nearest rival is the NVIDIA Quadro P1000, with a delta of 0.6% in the Arc’s favor. The Quadro K1100M’s nearest rival is the NVIDIA GeForce GT 1030, with a delta of 0.1% in the Quadro’s favor. Interestingly, the Intel Arc Pro B50 is nearly tied with the K1100M, showing a 0.2% delta.

Q: Does the Quadro K1100M have any benchmark wins over the Arc Pro B60?

A: No. The head-to-head benchmark list is empty, and the wins counter shows 0 for both cards. However, the Quadro K1100M has Geekbench scores for Metal, OpenCL, and Vulkan, which are not present for the Arc Pro B60, meaning direct comparison on those specific tests is not possible from the data.

Q: What are the memory specifications of each card?

A: The Arc Pro B60 features 24 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 192-bit bus with 456.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The Quadro K1100M has only 2 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus, yielding 44.80 GB/s of bandwidth. The Arc Pro B60 offers 12 times the capacity and over 10 times the bandwidth.

Q: Which card supports newer graphics APIs?

A: The Arc Pro B60 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The Quadro K1100M supports DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.175. The Arc Pro B60 is ahead in both DirectX feature level and Vulkan version.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two GPUs is generational. The Intel Arc Pro B60 is built on the BMG-G21 chip using the Xe2-HPG architecture, fabricated on a 5 nm process at TSMC. It packs 19,600 million transistors into a 272 mm² die, achieving a transistor density of 72.1M per mm². The NVIDIA Quadro K1100M uses the GK107 chip on the older Kepler architecture, manufactured on a 28 nm process. Its 1,270 million transistors occupy a 118 mm² die, with a density of just 10.8M per mm².

The compute resources differ dramatically. The Arc Pro B60 has 2560 shading units, 160 texture mapping units, and 80 ROPs. It also includes 20 dedicated ray tracing cores. The Quadro K1100M has only 384 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs, with no ray tracing cores. This represents a 6.7x increase in shading units and a 5x increase in both TMUs and ROPs for the Intel card.

Clock speeds tell a similar story. The Arc Pro B60 runs at a base clock of 2000 MHz with a boost of 2400 MHz, while the Quadro K1100M is locked at 706 MHz for both base and boost. The memory clocks are also vastly different: the Arc Pro B60 uses 2375 MHz memory with 19 Gbps effective speed, whereas the Quadro K1100M runs at 700 MHz with 2.8 Gbps effective. The Intel card’s 456.0 GB/s bandwidth versus the NVIDIA card’s 44.80 GB/s shows a 10x advantage in memory throughput.

Ray tracing is a major feature split. The Arc Pro B60 has 20 RT cores, enabling hardware-accelerated ray tracing, while the Quadro K1100M has none. The Arc Pro B60 also supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), which includes features like mesh shaders and variable rate shading, while the Quadro K1100M only reaches DirectX 12 (11_0). The production status also differs: the Arc Pro B60 is Active, while the Quadro K1100M is End-of-life.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

Direct head-to-head benchmark data is not available for these two cards, as the head-to-head list is empty. However, examining their respective benchmark suites reveals the performance landscape. The Arc Pro B60 has a Passmark G3D score of 14580, which is a strong indicator of overall 3D rendering performance. The Quadro K1100M does not have a Passmark G3D score in the data, but its Geekbench scores provide some insight.

The Quadro K1100M achieves a Geekbench Metal score of 2048, an OpenCL score of 3060, and a Vulkan score of 2884. These numbers are respectable for a mobile part from 2013, but they cannot be directly compared to the Arc Pro B60’s scores because the test suites are different. The Arc Pro B60’s Passmark GPU Compute score of 7029 suggests strong compute performance, but again, the comparison is not apples-to-apples.

The average benchmark score gap is the clearest signal. The Arc Pro B60’s 3182 average versus the Quadro K1100M’s 2664 represents a 19.4% advantage. However, the percentile rankings are closer: 20th percentile for the Arc Pro B60 versus 18th for the Quadro K1100M. This suggests that while the Arc Pro B60 is faster, both cards are far from the top of the GPU performance charts, with the Arc Pro B60 occupying a similar tier to the NVIDIA Quadro P1000 and the Quadro K1100M sitting near the GeForce GT 1030.

The Arc Pro B60’s nearest rival data shows it is 0.6% ahead of the Quadro P1000 and 3.5% ahead of the GeForce RTX 5080 SUPER. The Quadro K1100M is 0.1% ahead of the GT 1030 and 0.2% ahead of the Intel Arc Pro B50. These deltas indicate that the Arc Pro B60 competes with older mid-range desktop cards, while the Quadro K1100M is at the level of entry-level desktop parts.

Specification Differences

The specification disparity between the two cards is stark and spans nearly every field. The process node differs from 5 nm on the Intel card to 28 nm on the NVIDIA card. Transistor count jumps from 1,270 million to 19,600 million, a 15.4x increase. Die size grows from 118 mm² to 272 mm², and transistor density improves from 10.8M to 72.1M per mm².

Memory is a major differentiator. The Arc Pro B60 has 24 GB of GDDR6, while the Quadro K1100M has 2 GB of GDDR5. The bus width increases from 128-bit to 192-bit, and bandwidth leaps from 44.80 GB/s to 456.0 GB/s. The Intel card also has a significantly higher base clock of 2000 MHz versus 706 MHz, and a boost clock of 2400 MHz versus 706 MHz.

Compute throughput is massively different. The Arc Pro B60 delivers 12.29 TFLOPS of FP32 performance and 24.58 TFLOPS of FP16 (2:1 ratio). The Quadro K1100M manages only 542.2 GFLOPS of FP32, which is roughly 4.4% of the Intel card’s FP32 output. Pixel rate jumps from 5.648 GPixel/s to 192.0 GPixel/s, and texture rate from 22.59 GTexel/s to 384.0 GTexel/s.

Power and physical characteristics also differ. The Arc Pro B60 has a 200 W TDP, requires a 1x 8-pin power connector, and suggests a 550 W PSU. It is a dual-slot card measuring 167 mm in length, 69 mm in height, and 40 mm in width. The Quadro K1100M is an MXM module with a 45 W TDP and no power connectors. Its display outputs are portable device dependent, while the Arc Pro B60 offers 4x mini-DisplayPort 2.1. The Arc Pro B60 uses PCIe 5.0 x8, while the Quadro K1100M uses MXM-A (3.0).

The Verdict

The data strongly favors the Intel Arc Pro B60 in nearly every measurable way. It offers 12 times the memory capacity, 10 times the memory bandwidth, and over 22 times the FP32 throughput. Its ray tracing cores, modern API support, and active production status make it a viable choice for contemporary workloads. The Quadro K1100M is an end-of-life product from 2013, with outdated architecture and limited resources.

However, the intended use cases are different. The Quadro K1100M is a mobile workstation part designed for laptops, drawing only 45 W and requiring no external power. The Arc Pro B60 is a desktop card with a 200 W TDP and a dual-slot footprint. If power efficiency and portability are the only considerations, the Quadro K1100M has a role, but its performance is a fraction of the Intel card’s.

The percentile rankings show both cards are in the lower quartile of all GPUs, but the Arc Pro B60 is still ahead. Its nearest rival is the Quadro P1000, a desktop card from NVIDIA, while the Quadro K1100M’s nearest rival is the GeForce GT 1030, an entry-level desktop part. The Arc Pro B60 is clearly the more capable product for any modern application, while the Quadro K1100M is only suitable for legacy or low-demand scenarios.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Arc Pro B60 wins in virtually every performance category. Its 24 GB GDDR6 memory and 456.0 GB/s bandwidth make it suitable for large datasets and high-resolution textures. The 12.29 TFLOPS FP32 performance handles complex compute tasks, and the 20 RT cores enable ray-traced workloads. The 4x mini-DisplayPort 2.1 outputs support high-refresh-rate and high-resolution multi-monitor setups. The Arc Pro B60 is the clear choice for modern CAD, 3D rendering, video editing, and any GPU-accelerated compute work.

The NVIDIA Quadro K1100M has no benchmark wins in the data, but it does have a distinct advantage in power consumption. At 45 W, it draws less than a quarter of the Arc Pro B60’s 200 W TDP. It is an MXM module, meaning it fits in mobile workstations where the Arc Pro B60 cannot. For legacy applications that require Kepler-era driver support or specific mobile workstation features, the Quadro K1100M may still function, but its 2 GB memory and 44.80 GB/s bandwidth severely limit its usefulness.

The benchmark data reveals the Quadro K1100M’s Geekbench scores of 2048 (Metal), 3060 (OpenCL), and 2884 (Vulkan) are its only recorded performance numbers. These are not comparable to the Arc Pro B60’s Passmark scores, but they suggest the Quadro can handle basic 2D and light 3D tasks. The Arc Pro B60’s Passmark G2D score of 763 indicates solid 2D performance, while its G3D score of 14580 shows it excels in 3D workloads. For any user seeking to run modern software, the Arc Pro B60 is the only rational choice based on the available data.