Intel Arc Pro B70 vs NVIDIA Rubin GPU Comparison

The Intel Arc Pro B70 and NVIDIA Rubin GPU occupy opposite ends of the hardware spectrum. The B70 is a workstation-oriented graphics card built for rendering, display output, and software rasterization, while the Rubin GPU is a massive server accelerator designed for compute throughput. Both are recorded in the database with a 50th percentile ranking among all GPUs, and neither has any benchmark entries or nearest rival data. The analysis below relies entirely on the recorded specifications, clock rates, memory configurations, and architectural details.

Where Each One Wins

The use-case split is defined by raw numbers. The NVIDIA Rubin GPU wins every compute-heavy category. It delivers 130.0 TFLOPS FP32 performance, which is 5.67 times the 22.94 TFLOPS of the Intel Arc Pro B70. In FP16, the Rubin reaches 260.0 TFLOPS versus 45.88 TFLOPS, a 5.67x advantage again, since both use a 2:1 ratio. The Rubin also has 28,672 shading units, 7 times the 4,096 of the B70, and 896 texture mapping units versus 256, a 3.5x lead. Its 896 tensor cores have no counterpart on the Intel side, which has no tensor core count listed. Memory bandwidth is another decisive win: 22.1 TB/s versus 608.0 GB/s, a 36.3x difference. The Rubin uses 288 GB of HBM4 on a 16,384-bit bus, while the B70 uses 32 GB of GDDR6 on a 256-bit bus.

The Intel Arc Pro B70 wins in pixel throughput relative to its compute class. It has 128 raster operation units, while the Rubin has only 24. The B70 delivers 358.4 GPixel/s, which is 6.59 times the 54.41 GPixel/s of the Rubin. This is a counterintuitive result: the Rubin has far more shading units and texture units, but its pixel rate is much lower because it has fewer ROPs. The B70 also has 32 ray tracing cores, while the Rubin does not list a ray tracing core count. For any workload that involves rasterization, pixel fill, or display output, the B70 is the relevant choice. The Rubin has no display outputs at all, so it cannot drive a monitor. The B70 provides 1x HDMI 2.1 and 3x DisplayPort 2.1 connections.

Clock speeds favor the Intel part in absolute terms. The B70 runs at a base of 2280 MHz and boosts to 2800 MHz. The Rubin has a base of 700 MHz and a boost of 2267 MHz. The B70 also runs its memory at 2375 MHz (19 Gbps effective), while the Rubin runs at 2695 MHz (10.8 Gbps effective). The Rubin compensates with a 16,384-bit bus, which is 64 times wider than the 256-bit bus of the B70. Power consumption is radically different: the B70 draws 230 W, the Rubin draws 2300 W, a 10x difference. The B70 uses a single 8-pin power connector and fits in a dual-slot form factor. The Rubin is an SXM module with no power connector listed and requires a suggested 2700 W power supply.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher FP32 compute performance?

A: The NVIDIA Rubin GPU shows 130.0 TFLOPS FP32, which is 5.67 times the 22.94 TFLOPS of the Intel Arc Pro B70.

Q: How do memory bandwidth figures compare?

A: The Rubin provides 22.1 TB/s of bandwidth using 288 GB of HBM4 on a 16,384-bit bus. The B70 provides 608.0 GB/s using 32 GB of GDDR6 on a 256-bit bus. The Rubin’s bandwidth is 36.3 times higher.

Q: Can the NVIDIA Rubin GPU output video to a display?

A: No. The database lists no display outputs for the Rubin. The Intel Arc Pro B70 has 1x HDMI 2.1 and 3x DisplayPort 2.1.

Q: What is the pixel fill rate of each GPU?

A: The B70 achieves 358.4 GPixel/s with 128 ROPs. The Rubin achieves 54.41 GPixel/s with only 24 ROPs. The Intel part delivers 6.59 times the pixel rate.

Q: Which GPU has more texture mapping units?

A: The Rubin has 896 TMUs, while the B70 has 256 TMUs. The Rubin leads by a factor of 3.5. The Rubin’s texture rate is 2,031.2 GTexel/s, while the B70’s is 716.8 GTexel/s.

Q: What are the process nodes and die sizes?

A: The B70 uses a 5 nm process with a 368 mm² die. The Rubin uses a 3 nm process with a 1,456 mm² die. The Rubin has 336,000 million transistors, while the B70 transistor count is unknown.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database records no head-to-head benchmark results between these two products. The headToHeadBenchmarks array is empty, and both items have zero benchmark scores and zero wins in the winsA and winsB fields. This means the comparison must be derived from the specification sheet alone. The recorded data shows no measured performance deltas, so the analysis relies on the features that are quantifiable.

The largest single-spec advantage belongs to the Rubin in memory bandwidth. At 22.1 TB/s, the Rubin outpaces the B70’s 608.0 GB/s by a factor of 36.3. This is a direct consequence of the 16,384-bit memory bus, which is 64 times wider than the 256-bit bus of the Intel card. The Rubin also has 288 GB of memory, which is 9 times the 32 GB of the B70. For data movement, the Rubin is in a different class.

Compute throughput follows a similar pattern. The Rubin’s 130.0 TFLOPS FP32 is 5.67 times the B70’s 22.94 TFLOPS. In FP16, the Rubin’s 260.0 TFLOPS is 5.67 times the B70’s 45.88 TFLOPS. The Rubin’s 28,672 shading units outnumber the B70’s 4,096 by a factor of 7. The Rubin’s 896 tensor cores are absent from the B70 entirely. The texture rate of the Rubin is 2,031.2 GTexel/s, which is 2.83 times the 716.8 GTexel/s of the B70.

The B70 wins decisively in pixel operations. Its 358.4 GPixel/s is 6.59 times the Rubin’s 54.41 GPixel/s. The B70 has 128 ROPs, which is 5.33 times the 24 ROPs of the Rubin. This suggests that the Rubin is not optimized for traditional graphics rasterization, despite having far more shader cores. The B70 also has 32 ray tracing cores, while the Rubin does not list any. Clock speeds favor the B70: 2800 MHz boost versus 2267 MHz boost, a 23.5% lead.

Power efficiency is a clear differentiator. The B70 draws 230 W, while the Rubin draws 2300 W. The B70 delivers 22.94 TFLOPS per 230 W, which is 99.7 GFLOPS per watt. The Rubin delivers 130.0 TFLOPS per 2300 W, which is 56.5 GFLOPS per watt. The B70 is roughly 1.76 times more efficient in FP32 per watt. However, the Rubin’s absolute performance is much higher, so the efficiency comparison is secondary to the total compute envelope.

The Rubin’s transistor count is 336,000 million, and its die size is 1,456 mm², with a transistor density of 230.8M per mm². The B70 has a die size of 368 mm², but its transistor count is unknown, so density cannot be calculated. The Rubin uses a 3 nm process from TSMC, while the B70 uses a 5 nm process from TSMC. The newer node and larger die combine to give the Rubin more of everything except pixel rate and display connectivity.

Specification Differences

The two products differ in nearly every measurable specification. Memory type is HBM4 for the Rubin and GDDR6 for the B70. Memory size is 288 GB versus 32 GB. Bus width is 16,384 bit versus 256 bit. Memory bandwidth is 22.1 TB/s versus 608.0 GB/s. Shading units are 28,672 versus 4,096. TMUs are 896 versus 256. ROPs are 24 versus 128. The Rubin has 896 tensor cores; the B70 has none listed. The B70 has 32 ray tracing cores; the Rubin has none listed.

Power consumption is 2300 W for the Rubin and 230 W for the B70. The suggested power supply is 2700 W versus 550 W. The Rubin uses an SXM module form factor, while the B70 is a dual-slot card. The B70 has a single 8-pin power connector; the Rubin has no power connector listed. The bus interface is PCIe 6.0 x16 for the Rubin and PCIe 5.0 x16 for the B70.

Display outputs exist only on the B70: 1x HDMI 2.1 and 3x DisplayPort 2.1. The Rubin has no outputs. API support is entirely different: the B70 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The Rubin lists N/A for all three APIs. Clock speeds differ: base 2280 MHz versus 700 MHz, boost 2800 MHz versus 2267 MHz. Memory clock is 2375 MHz (19 Gbps effective) versus 2695 MHz (10.8 Gbps effective).

Dimensions are recorded only for the B70: 267 mm length, 110 mm height, 39 mm width. The Rubin has no dimensions listed. The B70 has a launch MSRP of 949 USD, while the Rubin has no launch MSRP recorded. The B70’s release date is 2026-03-25, and the Rubin’s is 2025-12-31. The production status of the B70 is null, while the Rubin is marked as Active. The Rubin has a predecessor named Server Blackwell, while the B70 has none listed.

Architecture Differences

The architecture names are distinct. The B70 uses Xe2-HPG, which is Intel’s Battlemage generation for the Pro Series. The chip is BMG-G31. The Rubin uses the Rubin architecture, with the chip named GR100, and its generation is Server Rubin (Rxx). The process node is 5 nm for the B70 and 3 nm for the Rubin, both from TSMC. Die size is 368 mm² for the B70 and 1,456 mm² for the Rubin. The Rubin’s transistor count is 336,000 million, while the B70’s is unknown. Transistor density is 230.8M per mm² for the Rubin, not calculated for the B70.

The B70’s memory subsystem uses GDDR6 with a 256-bit bus. The Rubin uses HBM4 with a 16,384-bit bus. The B70’s memory bandwidth of 608.0 GB/s is typical for a workstation GPU with a 256-bit interface. The Rubin’s 22.1 TB/s is characteristic of a server accelerator with stacked memory. The B70 has 4,096 shading units, 256 TMUs, and 128 ROPs, which is a conventional graphics pipeline. The Rubin has 28,672 shading units, 896 TMUs, and only 24 ROPs, which indicates a compute-first design where rasterization is not a priority.

The B70 includes 32 ray tracing cores, which are not listed for the Rubin. The B70 also supports DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, meaning it is intended for software rendering and graphics APIs. The Rubin has no API support listed, which aligns with its role as a compute accelerator without display or graphics features. The B70’s base clock of 2280 MHz is high for a GPU, while the Rubin’s base clock of 700 MHz is low, but the Rubin’s boost clock of 2267 MHz is closer to the B70’s 2800 MHz.

The B70’s pixel rate of 358.4 GPixel/s and texture rate of 716.8 GTexel/s are balanced for its 128 ROPs and 256 TMUs. The Rubin’s pixel rate of 54.41 GPixel/s is low because of its 24 ROPs, but its texture rate of 2,031.2 GTexel/s is high due to 896 TMUs. The Rubin’s FP32 performance of 130.0 TFLOPS is derived from its 28,672 shading units at a boost clock of 2267 MHz. The B70’s 22.94 TFLOPS comes from 4,096 shading units at 2800 MHz. The Rubin’s FP16 is 260.0 TFLOPS, while the B70’s is 45.88 TFLOPS, both using a 2:1 ratio.

The B70 has a TDP of 230 W and uses a single 8-pin connector. The Rubin has a TDP of 2300 W and requires a 2700 W power supply. The B70 is a dual-slot card, while the Rubin is an SXM module. The B70’s bus interface is PCIe 5.0 x16, and the Rubin’s is PCIe 6.0 x16. The B70 has display outputs, the Rubin has none. These architectural choices reflect their intended environments: the B70 for workstations with graphics workloads, the Rubin for servers with massive parallel compute.

The Verdict

The data indicates that the NVIDIA Rubin GPU is the clear choice for raw compute performance. Its 130.0 TFLOPS FP32 and 260.0 TFLOPS FP16 are 5.67 times higher than the B70. Its 288 GB of memory and 22.1 TB/s bandwidth are unmatched by the B70’s 32 GB and 608.0 GB/s. The Rubin has 28,672 shading units, 896 tensor cores, and a 3 nm process with 336,000 million transistors. For any workload that requires massive parallelism, large memory pools, or high bandwidth, the Rubin is the only option in this comparison. It is designed as a server accelerator, with no display outputs and no graphics API support, but its compute density is extraordinary.

The Intel Arc Pro B70 is the correct choice for graphics-oriented tasks. It has 128 ROPs, which gives it a 358.4 GPixel/s pixel rate, 6.59 times the Rubin. It has 32 ray tracing cores, which the Rubin does not list. It supports DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, so it can run modern graphics APIs. It has display outputs for HDMI and DisplayPort, so it can drive monitors. Its 22.94 TFLOPS FP32 is lower than the Rubin, but it is sufficient for workstation rendering at a 230 W power draw, using a single 8-pin connector and a 550 W power supply. The B70’s 2800 MHz boost clock is higher than the Rubin’s 2267 MHz, which helps in latency-sensitive graphics workloads.

The Rubin’s 2300 W TDP and 2700 W suggested power supply make it impractical for desktop use. The B70’s 230 W TDP and dual-slot form factor make it suitable for a workstation chassis. The Rubin has no dimensions listed, but its SXM module form factor implies a server mounting system. The B70 has dimensions of 267 mm by 110 mm by 39 mm, which is a standard graphics card size. The Rubin’s release date is 2025-12-31, and the B70’s is 2026-03-25, so the Rubin is earlier in the timeline. The B70 has a launch MSRP of 949 USD, while the Rubin has no price recorded.

The Rubin’s production status is Active, while the B70’s is null. The Rubin has a predecessor named Server Blackwell, indicating a lineage of server products. The B70 has no predecessor or successor listed. The Rubin’s bus interface is PCIe 6.0 x16, which is newer than the B70’s PCIe 5.0 x16. The Rubin’s memory clock is 2695 MHz, but its effective data rate is 10.8 Gbps, which is lower than the B70’s 19 Gbps effective. The Rubin compensates with a vastly wider bus.

The verdict is straightforward. For compute-heavy server workloads, the NVIDIA Rubin GPU is the superior product on every measurable compute specification. For graphics rendering, display output, and software rasterization, the Intel Arc Pro B70 is the only viable option, since the Rubin cannot output video and has no graphics API support. The B70’s higher pixel rate and ray tracing cores make it the correct choice for a workstation GPU. The Rubin’s higher shading units, tensor cores, memory bandwidth, and FP32/FP16 performance make it the correct choice for a server accelerator. The data shows no overlap in their intended roles.