Intel Arc Pro B65 vs NVIDIA RTX A400 Comparison

FAQ

Q: What is the architectural generation of each GPU?

A: The Intel Arc Pro B65 uses the Xe2-HPG architecture on TSMC's 5 nm process, part of the Battlemage (Pro Series) generation. The NVIDIA RTX A400 uses the Ampere architecture on Samsung's 8 nm process, part of the Workstation Ampere (Ax000) generation.

Q: How much memory does each card carry?

A: The Intel Arc Pro B65 has 32 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 256-bit bus, delivering 608.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The NVIDIA RTX A400 has 4 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 64-bit bus, delivering 96.00 GB/s of bandwidth.

Q: What are the FP32 compute ratings?

A: The Arc Pro B65 delivers 12.29 TFLOPS of FP32 performance. The RTX A400 delivers 2.706 TFLOPS of FP32 performance. The Arc Pro B65 is roughly 4.5 times higher in raw single-precision throughput.

Q: Which card has more RT cores and tensor cores?

A: The Arc Pro B65 has 20 RT cores and no dedicated tensor cores. The RTX A400 has 6 RT cores and 24 tensor cores, which gives it dedicated AI acceleration hardware that the Intel card lacks.

Q: What are the power requirements?

A: The Arc Pro B65 has a TDP of 200 W and requires a 550 W suggested PSU with a 1x 8-pin power connector. The RTX A400 has a TDP of 50 W, requires no external power connectors, and has a 250 W suggested PSU.

Q: What display outputs are available?

A: The Arc Pro B65 provides 4x DisplayPort 2.1 outputs. The RTX A400 provides 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a outputs.

Architecture Differences

The Intel Arc Pro B65 and NVIDIA RTX A400 represent fundamentally different design philosophies and manufacturing approaches.

The Arc Pro B65 is built on TSMC's 5 nm process with 19,600 million transistors packed into a 272 mm² die, resulting in a transistor density of 72.1M per mm². The RTX A400 uses Samsung's 8 nm process with 8,700 million transistors on a 200 mm² die, giving a density of 43.5M per mm². The Intel chip is substantially larger and denser, reflecting its newer process node and more complex architecture.

The Xe2-HPG architecture in the Arc Pro B65 includes 2,560 shading units, 160 texture mapping units, and 80 raster operation units. It has 20 dedicated RT cores but no tensor cores. The Ampere-based RTX A400 has 768 shading units, 24 TMUs, and 16 ROPs, along with 6 RT cores and 24 tensor cores. The Intel card has roughly 3.3 times more shaders, 6.7 times more TMUs, and 5 times more ROPs than the NVIDIA card.

Clock behavior differs sharply. The Arc Pro B65 runs at a flat 2400 MHz for both base and boost, while the RTX A400 scales from 1417 MHz base to 1762 MHz boost. The Intel card's higher clock combined with its larger execution resources drives its much higher fill rates: 192.0 GPixel/s pixel rate and 384.0 GTexel/s texture rate versus 28.19 GPixel/s and 42.29 GTexel/s for the RTX A400.

FP16 compute reveals another architectural split. The Arc Pro B65 delivers 24.58 TFLOPS FP16 via a 2:1 ratio relative to FP32, meaning it doubles throughput when using half precision. The RTX A400 delivers 2.706 TFLOPS FP16 at a 1:1 ratio, offering no half-precision acceleration. The Intel part is 9 times faster in FP16, which matters for workloads that can use reduced precision.

Memory architecture also diverges completely. The Arc Pro B65 uses a 256-bit bus with 32 GB of GDDR6 at 19 Gbps effective, yielding 608.0 GB/s. The RTX A400 uses a 64-bit bus with 4 GB of GDDR6 at 12 Gbps effective, yielding 96.00 GB/s. The Intel card has 8 times the capacity and 6.3 times the bandwidth.

Both cards support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The Arc Pro B65 uses PCIe 5.0 x16, while the RTX A400 uses PCIe 4.0 x8. The Intel card is dual-slot with a 1x 8-pin connector; the RTX A400 is single-slot with no power connector.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head benchmark data shows no recorded direct comparisons between the two cards. However, the RTX A400 has standalone benchmark scores that place it in the database, and the Arc Pro B65 has a percentile ranking of 50 against all GPUs.

The RTX A400's recorded scores include a Geekbench OpenCL score of 22,844 and a Geekbench Vulkan score of 22,237. Its Passmark results show a G3D score of 5,983, a GPU compute score of 2,557, a G2D score of 899, and DirectX 9/10/11/12 scores of 87, 32, 37, and 27 respectively. Its average benchmark score is 6,078, placing it at the 35th percentile among all GPUs.

The nearest rivals for the RTX A400 in the database provide context. The NVIDIA GeForce MX230 scores 6,077 with a 0% delta. The NVIDIA Quadro P2000 scores 6,049 with a 0.5% delta. The Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200 scores 6,117 with a -0.6% delta. The AMD Radeon 760M scores 6,019 with a 1% delta. The RTX A400 essentially trades blows with these older or lower-tier cards, sitting within 1% of all four rivals.

The Arc Pro B65's 50th percentile ranking places it squarely in the middle of the database, indicating above-average performance relative to all recorded GPUs. The RTX A400's 35th percentile places it below that midpoint. Given the massive specification gap in shading units, memory bandwidth, and FP32 throughput, the Arc Pro B65 would be expected to substantially outperform the RTX A400 in most compute and graphics workloads, though the lack of direct head-to-head measurements prevents exact delta calculations.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Arc Pro B65 | NVIDIA RTX A400 |

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

| Process node | 5 nm (TSMC) | 8 nm (Samsung) |

| Transistors | 19,600 million | 8,700 million |

| Die size | 272 mm² | 200 mm² |

| Base clock | 2400 MHz | 1417 MHz |

| Boost clock | 2400 MHz | 1762 MHz |

| Memory size | 32 GB | 4 GB |

| Memory type | GDDR6 | GDDR6 |

| Bus width | 256 bit | 64 bit |

| Memory bandwidth | 608.0 GB/s | 96.00 GB/s |

| Shading units | 2560 | 768 |

| TMUs | 160 | 24 |

| ROPs | 80 | 16 |

| RT cores | 20 | 6 |

| Tensor cores | None | 24 |

| FP32 | 12.29 TFLOPS | 2.706 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | 24.58 TFLOPS (2:1) | 2.706 TFLOPS (1:1) |

| Pixel rate | 192.0 GPixel/s | 28.19 GPixel/s |

| Texture rate | 384.0 GTexel/s | 42.29 GTexel/s |

| TDP | 200 W | 50 W |

| Slot width | Dual-slot | Single-slot |

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

| Suggested PSU | 550 W | 250 W |

| Bus interface | PCIe 5.0 x16 | PCIe 4.0 x8 |

| Display outputs | 4x DisplayPort 2.1 | 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a |

| Dimensions | Not recorded | 163 mm length, 69 mm height |

| Release date | 2026-03-31 | 2024-04-15 |

The Verdict

The recorded data points to a clear performance hierarchy. The Arc Pro B65's 12.29 TFLOPS FP32 versus the RTX A400's 2.706 TFLOPS represents a 4.5 times compute advantage. The Intel card's 32 GB memory capacity and 608.0 GB/s bandwidth dwarf the RTX A400's 4 GB and 96.00 GB/s. The Arc Pro B65 also sits at the 50th percentile among all GPUs, while the RTX A400 sits at the 35th.

The RTX A400's only clear advantages are its 24 tensor cores, which the Intel card lacks entirely, and its drastically lower power draw of 50 W versus 200 W. The RTX A400 also comes in a single-slot form factor with no power connector, enabling installation in constrained chassis where the dual-slot Arc Pro B65 with its 8-pin connector would not fit.

The RTX A400's benchmark scores place it in direct competition with laptop-class and entry-level desktop parts like the GeForce MX230 and Quadro P2000, all within 1% of each other. The Arc Pro B65's mid-pack percentile suggests it operates in a different performance class entirely.

For users who need raw compute, large memory capacity, or high-bandwidth access to GPU memory, the Arc Pro B65 is the clear choice based on the specification data. For users who need AI tensor acceleration, minimal power draw, or a compact single-slot installation, the RTX A400 has specific advantages that the Intel card cannot match.

Where Each One Wins

Intel Arc Pro B65 wins in:

• Raw FP32 compute: 12.29 TFLOPS versus 2.706 TFLOPS, a 4.5 times advantage
• FP16 compute: 24.58 TFLOPS versus 2.706 TFLOPS, a 9 times advantage
• Memory capacity: 32 GB versus 4 GB, an 8 times advantage
• Memory bandwidth: 608.0 GB/s versus 96.00 GB/s, a 6.3 times advantage
• Pixel fill rate: 192.0 GPixel/s versus 28.19 GPixel/s
• Texture fill rate: 384.0 GTexel/s versus 42.29 GTexel/s
• Shading resources: 2,560 units versus 768 units
• RT core count: 20 versus 6
• Bus interface: PCIe 5.0 x16 versus PCIe 4.0 x8
• Display output standard: DisplayPort 2.1 versus DisplayPort 1.4a
• Overall database percentile: 50th versus 35th

NVIDIA RTX A400 wins in:

• Tensor cores: 24 dedicated AI acceleration cores versus none
• Power consumption: 50 W versus 200 W, a 4 times lower draw
• Physical footprint: Single-slot versus dual-slot
• Power connector requirement: None versus 1x 8-pin
• Suggested PSU: 250 W versus 550 W
• Physical dimensions: 163 mm length and 69 mm height recorded, versus no dimensions recorded for the Arc Pro B65
• Release availability: 2024-04-15 versus 2026-03-31

The RTX A400's tensor cores provide a specific capability for AI inference and training workloads that the Arc Pro B65 cannot offer at all. The Intel card's much larger memory and bandwidth make it better suited for large dataset processing, high-resolution rendering, and memory-intensive compute tasks. The power and size advantages of the RTX A400 make it appropriate for low-profile workstations or systems with limited power delivery.