Intel Arc Pro B65 vs NVIDIA H100 CNX Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database shows no direct head-to-head benchmark entries linking these two parts, and neither GPU has a recorded average benchmark score or percentile ranking beyond the baseline 50th percentile for all GPUs. This means the comparison must be constructed from the recorded specification data and the architectural characteristics each unit brings to the table.

The most decisive separation appears in raw compute throughput. The NVIDIA H100 CNX records an FP32 rating of 53.84 TFLOPS, which is approximately 4.4 times the 12.29 TFLOPS of the Intel Arc Pro B65. In FP16 work, the disparity widens further: the H100 CNX lists 215.4 TFLOPS with a 4:1 ratio, while the Arc Pro B65 lists 24.58 TFLOPS with a 2:1 ratio. The NVIDIA part delivers about 8.8 times the FP16 throughput, a gap that reflects both the much larger shader array and the dedicated tensor core count of 456 on the H100 CNX.

Memory bandwidth tells a similar story. The H100 CNX moves data across a 5120-bit bus at 2.04 TB/s, while the Arc Pro B65 uses a 256-bit bus at 608.0 GB/s. That works out to roughly 3.4 times the bandwidth for the NVIDIA card, a critical factor for large dataset workloads that saturate memory capacity. The H100 CNX also holds 80 GB of HBM2e, versus 32 GB of GDDR6 on the Intel part, so the NVIDIA card can hold 2.5 times more working set before spilling to slower storage.

Pixel throughput is where the Intel part takes a clear lead. The Arc Pro B65 records 192.0 GPixel/s against 44.28 GPixel/s for the H100 CNX, a factor of about 4.3. Texture rate also favors Intel on a per-unit basis, but the raw numbers favor NVIDIA: 841.3 GTexel/s versus 384.0 GTexel/s. The H100 CNX has 456 TMUs against 160 for the Intel card, while the Intel card has 80 ROPs versus 24 on the NVIDIA part.

Clock behavior differs substantially. The Arc Pro B65 runs at a flat 2400 MHz for both base and boost, while the H100 CNX starts at a low 690 MHz base and boosts to 1845 MHz. The Intel card operates at a much higher sustained frequency, which helps close some of the gap in rasterization-oriented tasks. But the NVIDIA part compensates with a far larger execution resource pool: 14592 shading units versus 2560, and 456 tensor cores where the Intel card lists none.

Where Each One Wins

The H100 CNX dominates in every compute-bound category recorded in the database. FP32 throughput, FP16 throughput, memory bandwidth, memory capacity, texture rate, and shading unit count all favor the NVIDIA part by wide margins. This points to workloads where the bottleneck is raw arithmetic or data movement: dense linear algebra, large matrix operations, high-throughput inference, and scientific simulation. The 456 tensor cores give it a dedicated path for tensor operations that the Intel part cannot match, since the Arc Pro B65 lists no tensor core count at all.

The Arc Pro B65 wins in pixel fill rate and ROP count, and it also holds advantages in base clock, boost clock, and memory clock. The 2400 MHz uniform clock is nearly 30% higher than the H100 CNX boost clock of 1845 MHz, and 3.5 times the NVIDIA base clock of 690 MHz. The Intel card also offers display outputs: 4x DisplayPort 2.1, while the H100 CNX has no display outputs whatsoever. The Intel part includes DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4 API support, whereas the NVIDIA card lists no API entries in the database.

For graphics rendering, particularly resolutions that stress ROP throughput, the Arc Pro B65 appears better suited. The 192.0 GPixel/s rate and 80 ROPs give it a strong fill-rate foundation. The H100 CNX, with 24 ROPs and no display outputs, is clearly not designed for display-driven or rasterization-heavy tasks. The Intel card's 32 GB of GDDR6 memory, while smaller than the H100 CNX, is still a large pool for graphics workloads and supports a PCIe 5.0 x16 interface, matching the NVIDIA card's bus interface.

Architecture Differences

The two chips come from different architectural lineages. The Intel Arc Pro B65 uses the Xe2-HPG architecture on the BMG-G21 chip, part of the Battlemage (Pro Series) generation. The NVIDIA H100 CNX uses the Hopper architecture on the GH100 chip, from the Server Hopper (Hxx) generation. Both are fabricated on a 5 nm process at TSMC, but the transistor counts differ enormously: the H100 CNX packs 80,000 million transistors on an 814 mm² die, while the Arc Pro B65 uses 19,600 million transistors on a 272 mm² die. Transistor density is higher on the NVIDIA part at 98.3M per mm² versus 72.1M per mm².

The memory subsystems are fundamentally different. The Intel card uses GDDR6 across a 256-bit bus with 608.0 GB/s bandwidth, while the NVIDIA card uses HBM2e across a 5120-bit bus with 2.04 TB/s. The HBM2e stack provides much higher bandwidth and capacity, but GDDR6 is simpler to integrate and drives the lower 200 W TDP on the Intel card, against 350 W for the NVIDIA part.

Core organization also diverges. The Arc Pro B65 has 2560 shading units, 160 TMUs, 80 ROPs, and 20 ray tracing cores, with no tensor cores listed. The H100 CNX has 14592 shading units, 456 TMUs, 24 ROPs, and 456 tensor cores, with no ray tracing cores listed. The presence of ray tracing cores on the Intel part and tensor cores on the NVIDIA part marks a clear division of intended workloads: graphics and ray tracing on Intel, tensor and compute acceleration on NVIDIA.

The API surface differs sharply. Intel lists DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, while NVIDIA lists none of these. The H100 CNX is a server accelerator with no display outputs, while the Arc Pro B65 provides four DisplayPort 2.1 connections. Power delivery also differs: the Intel card uses a single 8-pin connector with a suggested 550 W PSU, while the NVIDIA card uses an 8-pin EPS connector with a suggested 750 W PSU.

The Verdict

The data supports a clear split. The NVIDIA H100 CNX is the compute leader by every measured arithmetic and memory metric: 4.4 times the FP32, 8.8 times the FP16, 3.4 times the memory bandwidth, and 2.5 times the memory capacity. It also has 456 tensor cores and 14592 shading units, making it the obvious choice for workloads that scale with massive parallel throughput, such as large model training, dense matrix operations, and high-bandwidth data processing.

The Intel Arc Pro B65 is the graphics and display-oriented part. It holds the advantage in pixel fill rate by a factor of 4.3, runs at a uniformly higher clock speed, includes ray tracing cores, provides four DisplayPort 2.1 outputs, and supports the full graphics API stack. Its 32 GB of GDDR6 memory is substantial for rendering tasks, and its 200 W TDP is 150 W lower than the NVIDIA part, suggesting easier system integration.

Neither part is a substitute for the other. The H100 CNX has no display outputs and no graphics API entries, so it cannot drive a monitor or run conventional graphics pipelines. The Arc Pro B65 has no tensor cores and far lower compute throughput, so it is not positioned for the dense arithmetic workloads where the H100 CNX excels. The database shows equal percentile rankings and no head-to-head benchmark scores, but the specification deltas are large enough to define separate roles.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher FP32 performance?

A: The NVIDIA H100 CNX records 53.84 TFLOPS in FP32, about 4.4 times the 12.29 TFLOPS of the Intel Arc Pro B65.

Q: How much memory bandwidth does each card provide?

A: The H100 CNX delivers 2.04 TB/s across a 5120-bit HBM2e interface, while the Arc Pro B65 delivers 608.0 GB/s across a 256-bit GDDR6 interface.

Q: Does the Intel Arc Pro B65 support display output?

A: Yes, it provides 4x DisplayPort 2.1 outputs, whereas the NVIDIA H100 CNX has no display outputs.

Q: What tensor core counts are listed for each GPU?

A: The NVIDIA H100 CNX has 456 tensor cores, while the Intel Arc Pro B65 lists no tensor cores.

Q: What is the power draw difference?

A: The Arc Pro B65 has a 200 W TDP with a suggested 550 W PSU, while the H100 CNX has a 350 W TDP with a suggested 750 W PSU.

Q: Which card has ray tracing cores?

A: The Intel Arc Pro B65 lists 20 ray tracing cores, while the NVIDIA H100 CNX lists none.

Specification Differences

| Field | Intel Arc Pro B65 | NVIDIA H100 CNX |

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

| Chip | BMG-G21 | GH100 |

| Architecture | Xe2-HPG | Hopper |

| Generation | Battlemage (Pro Series) | Server Hopper (Hxx) |

| Process Node | 5 nm | 5 nm |

| Transistors | 19,600 million | 80,000 million |

| Die Size | 272 mm² | 814 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 72.1M / mm² | 98.3M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 2400 MHz | 690 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 2400 MHz | 1845 MHz |

| Memory Size | 32 GB | 80 GB |

| Memory Type | GDDR6 | HBM2e |

| Memory Bus Width | 256 bit | 5120 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 608.0 GB/s | 2.04 TB/s |

| Shading Units | 2560 | 14592 |

| TMUs | 160 | 456 |

| ROPs | 80 | 24 |

| Ray Tracing Cores | 20 | None |

| Tensor Cores | None | 456 |

| Pixel Rate | 192.0 GPixel/s | 44.28 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 384.0 GTexel/s | 841.3 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 12.29 TFLOPS | 53.84 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | 24.58 TFLOPS (2:1) | 215.4 TFLOPS (4:1) |

| TDP | 200 W | 350 W |

| Power Connectors | 1x 8-pin | 8-pin EPS |

| Suggested PSU | 550 W | 750 W |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 5.0 x16 | PCIe 5.0 x16 |

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

| DirectX | 12 Ultimate (12_2) | None |

| OpenGL | 4.6 | None |

| Vulkan | 1.4 | None |

| Dimensions | Not listed | 267 mm length, 111 mm height |

| Release Date | 2026-03-31 | 2023-03-20 |

| Predecessor | None | Server Ada |

| Successor | None | Server Blackwell |