Intel Arc Pro B70 vs NVIDIA RTX A400 Comparison

FAQ

Q: What are the average benchmark scores for the NVIDIA RTX A400?

A: The RTX A400 records an average benchmark score of 6078, with individual results including 22844 in Geekbench OpenCL, 22237 in Geekbench Vulkan, 5983 in Passmark G3D, and 2557 in Passmark GPU Compute.

Q: How does the RTX A400 compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The database shows the RTX A400 is essentially tied with the NVIDIA GeForce MX230 (delta 0%), sits 0.5% ahead of the NVIDIA Quadro P2000, 1% ahead of the AMD Radeon 760M, and 0.6% behind the Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200.

Q: What is the Intel Arc Pro B70's position in the overall GPU percentile ranking?

A: The Arc Pro B70 sits at the 50th percentile among all GPUs, placing it in the middle of the performance distribution, while the RTX A400 sits at the 35th percentile.

Q: What memory configurations do these two cards use?

A: The Intel Arc Pro B70 uses 32 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 256-bit bus with 608.0 GB/s bandwidth. The NVIDIA RTX A400 uses 4 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 64-bit bus with 96.00 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: What are the power requirements for each card?

A: The Arc Pro B70 has a TDP of 230 W with a suggested 550 W power supply and one 8-pin connector. The RTX A400 has a TDP of 50 W with a suggested 250 W power supply and no power connectors.

Q: When were these products released?

A: The Intel Arc Pro B70 has a release date of 2026-03-25, while the NVIDIA RTX A400 was released on 2024-04-15 and remains in active production.

The Verdict

The data presents a stark contrast in positioning. The Intel Arc Pro B70 is a high-capacity workstation card built around a 32 GB memory pool, a 256-bit interface, and a 608.0 GB/s bandwidth figure. Its specifications target memory-intensive workloads such as large model inference, high-resolution rendering, or multi-stream processing. The NVIDIA RTX A400, by contrast, is a 50 W single-slot card with 4 GB memory and 96.00 GB/s bandwidth, designed for compact, low-power deployments where physical footprint and thermal output matter more than raw throughput.

For users whose work involves large datasets or memory-hungry applications, the Arc Pro B70 is the only rational choice from this comparison. Its 32 GB capacity is 8 times that of the A400, and its bandwidth advantage is more than 6 times. The A400 cannot address workloads that require substantial framebuffer capacity; its 4 GB allocation caps out quickly in modern professional applications.

For users prioritizing a low-profile, passively cooled or minimally powered installation, the RTX A400 has the clear edge. Its 50 W TDP requires no auxiliary power connectors, its single-slot design fits tighter chassis, and its 163 mm length is substantially shorter than the B70's 267 mm. The A400 also has four mini-DisplayPort outputs, which can drive multi-monitor setups from a compact card.

The RTX A400 is the only card in this pairing with recorded benchmark data across multiple tests, giving it a measurable performance profile. Its average score of 6078 places it at the 35th percentile, roughly equivalent to entry-level laptop GPUs like the GeForce MX230. The Arc Pro B70 has no recorded benchmark scores in the database, so its real-world performance cannot be directly quantified here. Based solely on specifications, the B70's 22.94 TFLOPS FP32 throughput versus the A400's 2.706 TFLOPS indicates an approximate 8.5 times raw compute advantage, but this remains theoretical without benchmark validation.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains no direct head-to-head benchmark comparisons between the Arc Pro B70 and the RTX A400. The wins counter shows zero for both cards. The only available benchmark data belongs exclusively to the RTX A400.

The RTX A400's recorded scores establish its performance tier. Its Geekbench OpenCL score of 22844 and Vulkan score of 22237 indicate moderate compute capability. Its Passmark G3D score of 5983, combined with a GPU Compute score of 2557, places it among entry-level workstation cards. Its Passmark DirectX scores are notably low: 87 in DirectX 9, 37 in DirectX 11, 32 in DirectX 10, and 27 in DirectX 12. These figures suggest the A400 is not designed for gaming or high-performance graphics rendering; its strengths lie in basic display output and light compute tasks.

The Arc Pro B70 lacks any benchmark entries, so no direct score comparison is possible. The specification sheet, however, paints a different picture. The B70's pixel rate of 358.4 GPixel/s and texture rate of 716.8 GTexel/s dwarf the A400's 28.19 GPixel/s and 42.29 GTexel/s. The FP32 throughput of 22.94 TFLOPS versus 2.706 TFLOPS reinforces the gap. The B70 also supports FP16 at 45.88 TFLOPS with a 2:1 ratio, a feature the A400 lacks entirely (its FP16 is 1:1 at 2.706 TFLOPS).

Specification Differences

The two cards differ across nearly every measurable specification. The Arc Pro B70 uses the BMG-G31 chip built on a 5 nm TSMC process, while the RTX A400 uses the GA107 chip on an 8 nm Samsung process. The B70's die size is 368 mm²; the A400's is 200 mm². The A400 has a disclosed transistor count of 8,700 million and a density of 43.5M / mm², while the B70's transistor count is unknown.

Clock speeds diverge significantly. The B70 runs at a 2280 MHz base and 2800 MHz boost, with memory at 2375 MHz (19 Gbps effective). The A400 runs at 1417 MHz base and 1762 MHz boost, with memory at 1500 MHz (12 Gbps effective).

Memory specifications show the largest gap. The B70 offers 32 GB GDDR6 on a 256-bit bus with 608.0 GB/s bandwidth. The A400 offers 4 GB GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus with 96.00 GB/s bandwidth.

Compute unit counts follow the same pattern. The B70 has 4096 shading units, 256 TMUs, 128 ROPs, and 32 ray tracing cores. The A400 has 768 shading units, 24 TMUs, 16 ROPs, and 6 ray tracing cores. The A400 includes 24 tensor cores; the B70 lists no tensor core count.

Physical dimensions differ as well. The B70 measures 267 mm in length, 110 mm in height, and 39 mm in width, occupying a dual-slot profile. The A400 measures 163 mm in length and 69 mm in height, with a single-slot design and no listed width. Power delivery reflects this: the B70 requires 230 W TDP with one 8-pin connector and a 550 W suggested power supply; the A400 needs only 50 W, no connectors, and a 250 W suggested power supply.

The B70 uses PCIe 5.0 x16, while the A400 uses PCIe 4.0 x8. Display outputs also differ: the B70 provides one HDMI 2.1a and three DisplayPort 2.1 outputs; the A400 provides four mini-DisplayPort 1.4a outputs.

The B70 has a launch MSRP of 949 USD. The A400 has no launch MSRP listed in the database.

Architecture Differences

The Intel Arc Pro B70 is built on the Xe2-HPG architecture, part of the Battlemage generation for the Pro Series. It uses a 5 nm process at TSMC. The A400 uses the Ampere architecture from NVIDIA, specifically the Workstation Ampere generation, built on an 8 nm process at Samsung.

The B70's Xe2-HPG design includes 4096 shading units and 32 ray tracing cores, with support for DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The A400's Ampere design includes 768 shading units, 6 ray tracing cores, and 24 tensor cores, with the same API support levels: DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4.

The A400's tensor cores are a notable architectural feature absent from the B70's listed specifications. These tensor cores enable accelerated AI inference and deep learning operations, giving the A400 a specialized capability despite its lower raw compute throughput. The B70 compensates with a significantly higher FP16 throughput of 45.88 TFLOPS (2:1 ratio), which can accelerate certain mixed-precision workloads, though without tensor core acceleration the efficiency may differ.

The process node difference is substantial: 5 nm versus 8 nm. This explains the B70's higher clock speeds (2800 MHz boost versus 1762 MHz boost) and greater transistor density on a larger die. The B70's 368 mm² die with an unknown transistor count suggests a much larger and more complex chip than the A400's 200 mm² die with 8,700 million transistors.

The memory architecture also reflects different design philosophies. The B70's 256-bit bus and 608.0 GB/s bandwidth indicate a design optimized for bandwidth-intensive professional workloads. The A400's 64-bit bus and 96.00 GB/s bandwidth indicate a design optimized for low power consumption and minimal board footprint.

Both cards support PCIe 4.0 or newer, though the B70 uses PCIe 5.0 x16 for double the interface bandwidth of the A400's PCIe 4.0 x8.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Arc Pro B70 wins in raw compute, memory capacity, and bandwidth. Its 22.94 TFLOPS FP32 throughput is more than 8 times the A400's 2.706 TFLOPS. Its 32 GB memory capacity supports datasets that would exhaust the A400's 4 GB allocation almost immediately. The 608.0 GB/s bandwidth enables sustained data throughput for large models, high-resolution textures, and multi-stream video processing. The B70's 2800 MHz boost clock and 45.88 TFLOPS FP16 throughput further extend its compute lead for mixed-precision workloads.

The B70 also wins on interface bandwidth with PCIe 5.0 x16 versus the A400's PCIe 4.0 x8. This matters for workloads that stream data between system memory and GPU memory frequently. The B70's dual-slot cooler and 230 W TDP allow sustained operation at high clocks, while its 1x HDMI 2.1a and 3x DisplayPort 2.1 outputs support modern high-resolution displays with the latest interface standards.

The NVIDIA RTX A400 wins in power efficiency, physical footprint, and specialized AI features. Its 50 W TDP is less than one quarter of the B70's 230 W, and it requires no power connectors, enabling installation in systems without spare PCIe power cables. Its single-slot design and 163 mm length fit in compact chassis where the B70's 267 mm dual-slot card would not. The A400's four mini-DisplayPort 1.4a outputs provide multi-display capability from a minimal physical footprint.

The A400's 24 tensor cores offer dedicated hardware for AI inference tasks, a feature the B70 does not list. For users running inference workloads on small models, the A400's tensor cores may provide better performance per watt than the B70's general-purpose FP32 and FP16 units. The A400 also has a production status of active, confirming ongoing availability, while the B70's production status is not listed.

The A400's benchmark data, while modest, establishes a known performance baseline. Its average score of 6078 and 35th percentile ranking indicate a card capable of basic professional tasks, display output, and light compute. The B70 has no benchmark data, so its real-world performance cannot be confirmed from the database alone, despite its impressive specifications.

The RTX A400 also has a defined predecessor (Quadro Turing) and successor (Workstation Ada), placing it in a clear product lineage. The B70 lists no predecessor or successor, indicating a standalone product in the Battlemage Pro Series.