Intel Arc Pro B65 vs Intel Data Center GPU Max 1550 Comparison

The Verdict

The Intel Arc Pro B65 and Intel Data Center GPU Max 1550 serve fundamentally different purposes, and the recorded data supports that split clearly. The Arc Pro B65 is a professional graphics card with display outputs, built for workstations where rendering to a screen matters. The Data Center GPU Max 1550 is a compute-focused accelerator with no display outputs, designed for servers that push massive parallel workloads.

Benchmark results show the Data Center GPU Max 1550 dominates in raw compute throughput. It delivers 52.43 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, which is 4.27 times the Arc Pro B65's 12.29 TFLOPS. In FP16 workloads, the gap widens further: the Max 1550 sustains 52.43 TFLOPS at a 1:1 ratio, while the Arc Pro B65 delivers 24.58 TFLOPS at a 2:1 ratio, meaning the Max 1550 has a 2.13x advantage in half-precision work.

However, the Arc Pro B65 wins on efficiency per watt. It delivers 12.29 TFLOPS within a 200 W power envelope, yielding 0.061 TFLOPS per watt. The Max 1550 produces 52.43 TFLOPS at 600 W, which equals 0.087 TFLOPS per watt, actually better on paper. But the Arc Pro B65 requires a 550 W suggested PSU versus 1000 W for the Max 1550, and it fits in a dual-slot form factor with a single 8-pin connector, whereas the Max 1550 uses an OAM module with no standard power connector listed.

For users who need a GPU that outputs to displays, the choice is clear: the Arc Pro B65 is the only one with 4x DisplayPort 2.1 outputs. For pure compute density in a server rack, the Max 1550 provides 128 GB of HBM2e memory with 3.28 TB/s bandwidth, far exceeding the Arc Pro B65's 32 GB GDDR6 at 608.0 GB/s.

Architecture Differences

The two chips come from different design philosophies. The Arc Pro B65 uses the BMG-G21 chip built on 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 72.1 million per square millimeter. The architecture supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) and Vulkan 1.4, making it suitable for graphics-intensive applications.

The Data Center GPU Max 1550 uses the Ponte Vecchio chip on Generation 12.5 architecture, built on Intel's 10 nm process. This is a massive design: 100,000 million transistors spread across a 1280 mm² die, with a density of 78.1 million per square millimeter. It supports DirectX 12 (12_1) but has no Vulkan support listed, and its OpenGL support matches at 4.6.

The memory subsystems are radically different. The Arc Pro B65 uses 32 GB of GDDR6 with a 256-bit bus, delivering 608.0 GB/s bandwidth. The Max 1550 uses 128 GB of HBM2e with an 8192-bit bus, delivering 3.28 TB/s, which is 5.39 times the bandwidth of the Arc Pro B65.

Compute resources diverge sharply. The Arc Pro B65 has 2,560 shading units, 160 TMUs, 80 ROPs, and 20 ray tracing cores. The Max 1550 has 16,384 shading units (6.4x more), 1,024 TMUs (6.4x more), zero ROPs, and 128 ray tracing cores (6.4x more). The Max 1550's pixel rate is listed as 0 MPixel/s, confirming it has no rasterization pipeline for display output. Its texture rate of 1,638.4 GTexel/s is 4.27 times the Arc Pro B65's 384.0 GTexel/s.

Clock speeds tell another story. The Arc Pro B65 runs at a flat 2400 MHz for both base and boost, while the Max 1550 starts at 900 MHz base and boosts to 1600 MHz. The Arc Pro B65's memory runs at 2375 MHz (19 Gbps effective), while the Max 1550's memory runs at 1600 MHz (3.2 Gbps effective), though the much wider bus compensates.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded database contains no direct head-to-head benchmark entries, so the comparison relies on the specification-derived metrics. The FP32 compute difference is the most striking: the Max 1550 delivers 52.43 TFLOPS versus 12.29 TFLOPS for the Arc Pro B65, a 4.27x advantage. This translates directly to the texture rate, which scales identically at 4.27x (1,638.4 GTexel/s versus 384.0 GTexel/s).

In FP16, the Max 1550 again leads with 52.43 TFLOPS, but the Arc Pro B65's 24.58 TFLOPS is achieved at a 2:1 ratio, meaning it halves its FP32 throughput to reach that number. The Max 1550 maintains a 1:1 ratio, so its FP16 performance matches its FP32, giving it a 2.13x lead in half-precision.

Memory bandwidth is the second major differentiator. The Max 1550's 3.28 TB/s is 5.39x the Arc Pro B65's 608.0 GB/s. This matters for large datasets that need to stream through the compute units. The Max 1550 also holds 4x the memory capacity: 128 GB versus 32 GB.

The Arc Pro B65 wins on pixel throughput. It delivers 192.0 GPixel/s, while the Max 1550 is listed at 0 MPixel/s, since it lacks ROPs entirely. This confirms the Arc Pro B65 is the only one capable of rasterizing frames for display.

Power consumption scales with capability. The Max 1550 draws 600 W, three times the Arc Pro B65's 200 W. The suggested PSU requirement follows: 1000 W for the Max 1550 versus 550 W for the Arc Pro B65. The Max 1550 uses an OAM module form factor, while the Arc Pro B65 is a dual-slot card with a single 8-pin power connector.

Specification Differences

The two products differ in nearly every specification field. The process node is 5 nm for the Arc Pro B65 versus 10 nm for the Max 1550. Transistor count is 19,600 million versus 100,000 million. Die size is 272 mm² versus 1280 mm².

The Arc Pro B65 has 2,560 shading units, 160 TMUs, 80 ROPs, and 20 RT cores. The Max 1550 has 16,384 shading units, 1,024 TMUs, 0 ROPs, and 128 RT cores. Base clock is 2400 MHz versus 900 MHz, boost clock is 2400 MHz versus 1600 MHz. Memory is 32 GB GDDR6 versus 128 GB HBM2e, with bus widths of 256-bit versus 8192-bit.

Bandwidth is 608.0 GB/s versus 3.28 TB/s. FP32 is 12.29 TFLOPS versus 52.43 TFLOPS. FP16 is 24.58 TFLOPS (2:1) versus 52.43 TFLOPS (1:1). Pixel rate is 192.0 GPixel/s versus 0 MPixel/s. Texture rate is 384.0 GTexel/s versus 1,638.4 GTexel/s.

TDP is 200 W versus 600 W. The Arc Pro B65 uses a dual-slot form factor with 1x 8-pin power and 4x DisplayPort 2.1 outputs. The Max 1550 is an OAM module with no power connector listed and no display outputs. Both use PCIe 5.0 x16. The Arc Pro B65 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) and Vulkan 1.4; the Max 1550 supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and no Vulkan.

Release dates differ: the Arc Pro B65 launched on 2026-03-31, while the Max 1550 launched on 2023-01-09. The Max 1550 has a listed successor, H3C Graphics, while the Arc Pro B65 has none. Both are currently marked as Active in production status.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher FP32 compute performance?

A: The Intel Data Center GPU Max 1550 delivers 52.43 TFLOPS, which is 4.27 times the Intel Arc Pro B65's 12.29 TFLOPS.

Q: Can either GPU output to a display?

A: Only the Intel Arc Pro B65 has display outputs, featuring 4x DisplayPort 2.1. The Intel Data Center GPU Max 1550 has no outputs and a pixel rate of 0 MPixel/s.

Q: How do the memory capacities compare?

A: The Intel Data Center GPU Max 1550 has 128 GB of HBM2e memory, four times the 32 GB of GDDR6 on the Intel Arc Pro B65. The Max 1550 also has 5.39 times the bandwidth at 3.28 TB/s versus 608.0 GB/s.

Q: What is the difference in power consumption?

A: The Intel Arc Pro B65 has a 200 W TDP with a 550 W suggested PSU, while the Intel Data Center GPU Max 1550 has a 600 W TDP with a 1000 W suggested PSU.

Q: Which GPU supports Vulkan?

A: The Intel Arc Pro B65 supports Vulkan 1.4. The Intel Data Center GPU Max 1550 has no Vulkan support listed in the database.

Q: What are the clock speeds of each GPU?

A: The Intel Arc Pro B65 runs at 2400 MHz for both base and boost. The Intel Data Center GPU Max 1550 runs at 900 MHz base and 1600 MHz boost.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Data Center GPU Max 1550 wins in every compute-heavy category. Its FP32 throughput of 52.43 TFLOPS is 4.27x higher, and its FP16 throughput of 52.43 TFLOPS is 2.13x higher. The 128 GB memory capacity and 3.28 TB/s bandwidth make it suitable for large-scale data processing, scientific simulation, and AI training workloads where memory footprint and bandwidth are critical. Its 1,638.4 GTexel/s texture rate and 16,384 shading units provide massive parallel compute capability. The 128 ray tracing cores also give it a 6.4x advantage in RT workloads, though its lack of ROPs means it cannot rasterize frames.

The Intel Arc Pro B65 wins in workstation graphics and display-centric tasks. It is the only one with 4x DisplayPort 2.1 outputs and a 192.0 GPixel/s pixel rate. Its 2400 MHz boost clock is 50% higher than the Max 1550's 1600 MHz, which helps latency-sensitive interactive workloads. The 200 W TDP and 550 W suggested PSU make it far easier to integrate into a standard workstation, and the dual-slot form factor with a single 8-pin connector simplifies installation. Its DirectX 12 Ultimate support and Vulkan 1.4 compatibility cover modern graphics APIs that the Max 1550 lacks.

The 5 nm process node gives the Arc Pro B65 a density advantage per watt, but the Max 1550's 10 nm process compensates with a larger die and more transistors. The Max 1550 has a successor listed (H3C Graphics), while the Arc Pro B65 does not, suggesting the Max 1550 is further along its product lifecycle. Both are Active in production, so neither is discontinued.

For users who need to render frames, display content, or run graphics-accelerated applications, the Arc Pro B65 is the only option with display outputs. For users who need maximum compute throughput and memory capacity in a server environment without display requirements, the Data Center GPU Max 1550 provides 4.27x the FP32 performance and 4x the memory. The choice is determined by whether the workload ends in pixels or in numbers.