Intel Arc Pro B70 vs NVIDIA H200 NVL Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded database contains only one benchmark result for the NVIDIA H200 NVL, a Geekbench OpenCL score of 334,891. The Intel Arc Pro B70 has no benchmark entries in the database, so direct head-to-head numbers cannot be established. Instead, the H200 NVL’s score can be placed against its nearest rivals, which provides context for its standing.

The H200 NVL’s OpenCL score of 334,891 places it 3.1% behind the NVIDIA B200, which scores 345,482. That is a narrow gap, indicating the H200 NVL is nearly at parity with B200 in this workload. Against the AMD Instinct MI300X, the H200 NVL is 5.3% ahead, with MI300X scoring 317,994. The margin over the NVIDIA L40S is larger at 13.2%, as the L40S scores 295,763. The most substantial deficit is versus the NVIDIA B300 SXM6 AC, which scores 369,831, putting the H200 NVL 9.4% behind that part.

The data shows that the H200 NVL sits within a competitive band roughly 3% to 13% around its closest peers. Its percentile rank of 100 among all GPUs in the database means no other recorded GPU scores higher, even though specific rivals like B300 and B200 have higher raw scores. That percentile reflects the overall distribution of all GPUs, not just the nearest rivals. The B300 at 369,831 would presumably rank higher, but the database does not list its percentile.

The Arc Pro B70 has no benchmark scores, so no wins can be attributed to it. The database records zero wins for both parts, since no head-to-head test exists. The H200 NVL’s single score is its only measurable data point. Any comparison between the two must rely on hardware specifications rather than benchmark outcomes.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs are built for entirely different purposes, and the architecture reflects that split. The Intel Arc Pro B70 uses the BMG-G31 chip, based on the Xe2-HPG architecture, and belongs to the Battlemage generation of Intel’s Pro Series professional graphics. It is fabricated on a 5 nm process at TSMC, with a die size of 368 mm². The NVIDIA H200 NVL uses the GH100 chip, based on the Hopper architecture, in the Server Hopper generation. It is also on a 5 nm TSMC process, but the die is much larger at 814 mm². The H200 NVL packs 80,000 million transistors, while the Arc Pro B70’s transistor count is listed as unknown. The transistor density for the H200 NVL is 98.3M per mm²; no density figure is given for the Intel part.

Memory architecture differs fundamentally. The Arc Pro B70 uses 32 GB of GDDR6 on a 256-bit bus, delivering 608.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The H200 NVL uses 141 GB of HBM3e on a 6144-bit bus, delivering 4.89 TB/s. That is a bandwidth advantage of roughly eight times for the NVIDIA part, which is typical for a server accelerator designed for massive data movement. The Intel card’s memory clock is 2375 MHz (19 Gbps effective), while the H200 NVL runs its memory at 1593 MHz (6.4 Gbps effective). The raw clock is lower on the NVIDIA side, but the much wider bus and HBM3e type make the effective bandwidth far higher.

Compute resources show a similar scale difference. The Arc Pro B70 has 4096 shading units, 256 texture mapping units, and 128 ROPs. The H200 NVL has 16,896 shading units, 528 TMUs, and only 24 ROPs. The ROP count is notably lower on the NVIDIA part, which is relevant for pixel output: the Arc Pro B70 produces 358.4 GPixel/s, while the H200 NVL produces 42.84 GPixel/s. That is a factor of about 8.4 in favor of the Intel card, reflecting its role as a graphics-oriented product. Texture rate flips the other way: the H200 NVL reaches 942.5 GTexel/s versus 716.8 GTexel/s for the Arc Pro B70.

Ray tracing hardware exists on the Intel card with 32 dedicated RT cores; the H200 NVL lists no RT cores. Tensor cores are present on the NVIDIA part at 528, while the Intel card lists none. The H200 NVL’s FP32 throughput is 60.32 TFLOPS, and its FP16 throughput is 120.6 TFLOPS (2:1). The Arc Pro B70 delivers 22.94 TFLOPS FP32 and 45.88 TFLOPS FP16 (2:1). So the NVIDIA part is 2.6 times faster in FP32 and 2.6 times faster in FP16, per the recorded figures.

Clock speeds also diverge. The Arc Pro B70 has a base clock of 2280 MHz and a boost of 2800 MHz. The H200 NVL runs at 1365 MHz base and 1785 MHz boost. The Intel part’s higher clocks help compensate for its smaller compute array, but the sheer scale of the H200 NVL’s shader count overwhelms that advantage in raw throughput.

API support is a major difference. The Arc Pro B70 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The H200 NVL lists N/A for all three APIs. That is a clear signal: the NVIDIA part is not designed for client-side graphics rendering, while the Intel part is a fully featured graphics card. The H200 NVL has no display outputs, while the Arc Pro B70 has 1x HDMI 2.1a and 3x DisplayPort 2.1.

Power and physical design differ as well. The Arc Pro B70 has a TDP of 230 W and uses a single 8-pin power connector, with a suggested PSU of 550 W. The H200 NVL draws 600 W and uses an 8-pin EPS connector, with a suggested PSU of 1000 W. Both are dual-slot cards, with identical lengths of 267 mm (10.5 inches). The Intel card is 110 mm tall and 39 mm wide; the NVIDIA card is 111 mm tall with no width listed.

The H200 NVL is marked as Active production, released in November 2024, with a predecessor listed as Server Ada and a successor as Server Blackwell. The Arc Pro B70 has a release date of March 2026, and no production status, predecessor, or successor is recorded. The Intel part has a launch MSRP of 949 USD, while the H200 NVL has no MSRP listed.

Where Each One Wins

Based on the recorded specifications, the Intel Arc Pro B70 wins in scenarios that demand traditional graphics output. Its 358.4 GPixel/s pixel fill rate is roughly 8.4 times the H200 NVL’s 42.84 GPixel/s. That means any workload that relies heavily on rasterization, such as rendering frames to a display, will favor the Intel card. Its 128 ROPs versus 24 ROPs reinforces that. The presence of display outputs and full DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4 support makes it a viable option for professional graphics tasks that require API compatibility. The Arc Pro B70 also has RT cores for ray tracing, which the H200 NVL lacks entirely.

The NVIDIA H200 NVL wins in compute-heavy workloads. Its FP32 throughput of 60.32 TFLOPS is 2.6 times higher than the Intel card’s 22.94 TFLOPS. FP16 performance shows the same ratio, 120.6 TFLOPS versus 45.88 TFLOPS. The 528 tensor cores on the H200 NVL provide dedicated hardware for matrix operations, something the Intel card does not have. Memory bandwidth is the largest split: 4.89 TB/s versus 608.0 GB/s, which is an eightfold advantage. For large datasets, model training, or inference tasks that move massive amounts of data, the H200 NVL is clearly positioned to dominate.

The H200 NVL also wins on memory capacity, with 141 GB versus 32 GB. That is over four times the capacity, which matters for workloads that need to hold large models or buffers entirely on the GPU. The NVIDIA part’s 16,896 shading units versus 4,096 on the Intel card gives it a large lead in parallel compute throughput, even though its clock is lower.

The Arc Pro B70 wins on power efficiency in a raw sense. It is rated at 230 W versus 600 W for the H200 NVL. That means the Intel card can be powered by a 550 W PSU, while the NVIDIA card suggests 1000 W. For a workstation that needs graphics output and moderate compute, the Intel part imposes a much lower power burden. However, the performance per watt is not directly recorded, so any efficiency claim must stay qualitative.

The H200 NVL wins on raw compute density per the recorded numbers. Its 16896 shading units and 528 TMUs are far beyond what the Intel card offers. For server or datacenter deployments where graphics are irrelevant, the H200 NVL is the only one of the two that fits. The Intel card is a graphics product first, compute second.

The Verdict

The data defines two distinct roles. The Intel Arc Pro B70 is a professional graphics card with a launch MSRP of 949 USD, released in March 2026. It uses Xe2-HPG architecture, has 32 GB of GDDR6, and supports full graphics APIs. Its pixel rate of 358.4 GPixel/s and 128 ROPs make it suitable for rendering tasks that require output to displays. It also has RT cores for ray tracing workloads. The H200 NVL is a server accelerator with no display outputs, no graphics API support, and a focus on massive compute and memory bandwidth.

For anyone whose workload is primarily graphics rendering, CAD, or content creation with real-time rasterization, the Arc Pro B70 is the clear choice based on specifications. It has the ROPs, pixel rate, and API support that the H200 NVL lacks. Its 22.94 TFLOPS FP32 is sufficient for many professional graphics tasks, and its 32 GB memory is adequate for large textures or scenes.

For anyone running compute workloads such as AI training, scientific simulation, or high-performance data processing, the H200 NVL is the only rational option from the recorded data. Its 60.32 TFLOPS FP32, 120.6 TFLOPS FP16, 528 tensor cores, and 141 GB of HBM3e with 4.89 TB/s bandwidth are all far beyond the Intel card. The H200 NVL’s benchmark score of 334,891 in Geekbench OpenCL places it at the 100th percentile, indicating it outperforms essentially all other recorded GPUs in that test. The Arc Pro B70 has no benchmark score, so its compute standing cannot be assessed from the database.

The power envelope differs accordingly. The Arc Pro B70 at 230 W is a moderate consumer, while the H200 NVL at 600 W requires substantial power delivery. The suggested PSU of 1000 W for the H200 NVL versus 550 W for the Intel card reflects that. Neither part is a direct competitor to the other; they serve different markets entirely.

The verdict from the data is straightforward. The Arc Pro B70 wins for graphics-centric professional use. The H200 NVL wins for compute-centric server use. The absence of any head-to-head benchmark results means no direct performance comparison exists, but the specification gap in compute resources and memory bandwidth is so large that the H200 NVL would dominate in compute tasks. Conversely, the Arc Pro B70’s display outputs, graphics APIs, and much higher pixel rate make it the only option for rendering to a screen.

FAQ

Q: What is the single benchmark score recorded for the NVIDIA H200 NVL?

A: The H200 NVL scores 334,891 in Geekbench OpenCL.

Q: How does the H200 NVL compare to the NVIDIA B200 in that benchmark?

A: The H200 NVL is 3.1% behind the B200, which scores 345,482.

Q: Does the Intel Arc Pro B70 have any benchmark scores in the database?

A: No, the Arc Pro B70 has an empty benchmark list and an average score of zero.

Q: Which GPU has more memory bandwidth?

A: The H200 NVL has 4.89 TB/s bandwidth from 141 GB of HBM3e, while the Arc Pro B70 has 608.0 GB/s from 32 GB of GDDR6.

Q: Which GPU supports DirectX 12 Ultimate?

A: The Intel Arc Pro B70 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The H200 NVL lists N/A for all three APIs.

Q: What is the pixel fill rate difference between the two cards?

A: The Arc Pro B70 has a pixel rate of 358.4 GPixel/s, while the H200 NVL has 42.84 GPixel/s, making the Intel card about 8.4 times faster in that metric.

Specification Differences

| Field | Intel Arc Pro B70 | NVIDIA H200 NVL |

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

| Chip | BMG-G31 | GH100 |

| Architecture | Xe2-HPG | Hopper |

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

| Die Size | 368 mm² | 814 mm² |

| Transistors | Unknown | 80,000 million |

| Transistor Density | Not listed | 98.3M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 2280 MHz | 1365 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 2800 MHz | 1785 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 2375 MHz (19 Gbps effective) | 1593 MHz (6.4 Gbps effective) |

| Memory Size | 32 GB GDDR6 | 141 GB HBM3e |

| Memory Bus Width | 256 bit | 6144 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 608.0 GB/s | 4.89 TB/s |

| Shading Units | 4096 | 16896 |

| TMUs | 256 | 528 |

| ROPs | 128 | 24 |

| RT Cores | 32 | None listed |

| Tensor Cores | None listed | 528 |

| Pixel Rate | 358.4 GPixel/s | 42.84 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 716.8 GTexel/s | 942.5 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 22.94 TFLOPS | 60.32 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | 45.88 TFLOPS (2:1) | 120.6 TFLOPS (2:1) |

| TDP | 230 W | 600 W |

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

| Suggested PSU | 550 W | 1000 W |

| Display Outputs | 1x HDMI 2.1a, 3x DisplayPort 2.1 | No outputs |

| DirectX | 12 Ultimate (12_2) | N/A |

| OpenGL | 4.6 | N/A |

| Vulkan | 1.4 | N/A |

| Length | 267 mm (10.5 inches) | 267 mm (10.5 inches) |

| Height | 110 mm (4.3 inches) | 111 mm (4.4 inches) |

| Width | 39 mm (1.5 inches) | Not listed |

| Release Date | 2026-03-25 | 2024-11-17 |

| Launch MSRP | 949 USD | Not listed |

| Production Status | Not listed | Active |

| Predecessor | Not listed | Server Ada |

| Successor | Not listed | Server Blackwell |