Intel Iris Xe Graphics 80EU Mobile vs NVIDIA B200 SXM6 Comparison

FAQ

Q: What are the two products compared in this database entry?

A: The Intel Iris Xe Graphics 80EU Mobile, an integrated GPU from Intel based on Raptor Lake, and the NVIDIA B200 SXM6, a server accelerator from NVIDIA based on the GB100 chip with Blackwell architecture.

Q: What are the process nodes for each GPU?

A: The Intel Iris Xe Graphics 80EU Mobile uses a 10 nm process from Intel, while the NVIDIA B200 SXM6 uses a 5 nm process from TSMC.

Q: How do the memory configurations differ?

A: The Intel Iris Xe Graphics 80EU Mobile uses System Shared memory with bandwidth described as System Dependent. The NVIDIA B200 SXM6 has 180 GB of HBM3e memory on an 8192-bit bus, delivering 8.19 TB/s of bandwidth.

Q: What is the TDP of each GPU?

A: The Intel Iris Xe Graphics 80EU Mobile has a TDP of 15 W, while the NVIDIA B200 SXM6 has a TDP of 1000 W with a suggested PSU of 1400 W.

Q: Which GPU supports DirectX and Vulkan?

A: The Intel Iris Xe Graphics 80EU Mobile supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The NVIDIA B200 SXM6 lists N/A for DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan.

Q: What are the release dates for these products?

A: The Intel Iris Xe Graphics 80EU Mobile was released on 2023-01-03, while the NVIDIA B200 SXM6 was released on 2024-10-31.

Architecture Differences

The Intel Iris Xe Graphics 80EU Mobile belongs to the Generation 12.2 architecture, built on Intel's 10 nm process. It is part of the HD Graphics-M (Raptor Lake) generation and uses a Ring Bus interface. This is an integrated GPU (IGP) with no dedicated memory, relying entirely on system shared memory. It has 640 shading units, 40 texture mapping units, and 20 raster output units. The GPU operates at a base clock of 300 MHz with a boost clock of 1450 MHz. Its production status is Active, and its successor is Arc Graphics-M.

The NVIDIA B200 SXM6 belongs to the Blackwell architecture, built on TSMC's 5 nm process. It is part of the Server Blackwell (Bxx) generation and uses a PCIe 6.0 x16 bus interface. This is a server module with 208,000 million transistors on a 1628 mm² die, resulting in a transistor density of 127.8M / mm². It has 18944 shading units, 592 texture mapping units, 24 raster output units, and 592 tensor cores. The base clock is 120 MHz with a boost clock of 1830 MHz. Its predecessor is Server Hopper and its successor is Server Rubin.

The architectures differ fundamentally in purpose and design. The Intel part is a low-power integrated solution for mobile devices, while the NVIDIA part is a high-power server accelerator with massive compute resources. The NVIDIA B200 SXM6 has no display outputs, while the Intel Iris Xe Graphics 80EU Mobile has outputs described as Portable Device Dependent. The NVIDIA part also has no API support listed for DirectX, OpenGL, or Vulkan, indicating it is not designed for graphics rendering in the traditional sense.

The Verdict

The data indicates that the NVIDIA B200 SXM6 is overwhelmingly more powerful in raw compute terms. Its FP32 performance of 69.34 TFLOPS is approximately 37 times higher than the Intel Iris Xe Graphics 80EU Mobile's 1.856 TFLOPS. The NVIDIA part also has vastly more memory bandwidth at 8.19 TB/s compared to the Intel part's system dependent bandwidth. The NVIDIA B200 SXM6 is designed for server workloads requiring massive parallel processing, while the Intel Iris Xe Graphics 80EU Mobile is designed for basic graphics in mobile devices.

The Intel Iris Xe Graphics 80EU Mobile is the appropriate choice for a mobile device where power consumption is critical, with its 15 W TDP versus the NVIDIA part's 1000 W TDP. The NVIDIA B200 SXM6 is suitable for data center deployments where performance per watt is secondary to absolute throughput. The Intel part supports standard graphics APIs including DirectX 12, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, while the NVIDIA part does not list support for any of these APIs, confirming its compute-focused role.

Neither product is suitable for the other's intended use case. The Intel Iris Xe Graphics 80EU Mobile cannot approach the compute density of the NVIDIA B200 SXM6, and the NVIDIA B200 SXM6 cannot function as a display adapter for a portable device. The choice depends entirely on the workload: mobile graphics versus server compute.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ across nearly every specification field. The process node differs: 10 nm for Intel versus 5 nm for NVIDIA. The Intel part has a base clock of 300 MHz and boost clock of 1450 MHz, while the NVIDIA part has a base clock of 120 MHz and boost clock of 1830 MHz. The memory configuration is fundamentally different: System Shared for Intel versus 180 GB HBM3e for NVIDIA. The bus width is System Shared versus 8192 bit, and bandwidth is System Dependent versus 8.19 TB/s.

The shading units differ significantly: 640 for Intel versus 18944 for NVIDIA. Texture mapping units are 40 versus 592, and raster output units are 20 versus 24. The NVIDIA part has 592 tensor cores, while the Intel part has none listed. The pixel rate is 29.00 GPixel/s for Intel versus 43.92 GPixel/s for NVIDIA. Texture rate is 58.00 GTexel/s for Intel versus 1,083.4 GTexel/s for NVIDIA. FP32 performance is 1.856 TFLOPS for Intel versus 69.34 TFLOPS for NVIDIA. FP16 performance is 3.712 TFLOPS (2:1) for Intel versus 69.34 TFLOPS (1:1) for NVIDIA.

The TDP is 15 W for Intel versus 1000 W for NVIDIA. The slot width is IGP for Intel versus SXM Module for NVIDIA. The bus interface is Ring Bus for Intel versus PCIe 6.0 x16 for NVIDIA. The NVIDIA part has a suggested PSU of 1400 W, while the Intel part has none listed. The Intel part has display outputs described as Portable Device Dependent, while the NVIDIA part has no outputs. The transistor count is not listed for Intel but is 208,000 million for NVIDIA, with a die size of 1628 mm² for NVIDIA.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database shows no direct head-to-head benchmark results between these two GPUs, and neither has recorded benchmark scores. However, the specification data allows for direct comparison of theoretical performance limits.

In FP32 compute, the NVIDIA B200 SXM6 delivers 69.34 TFLOPS versus 1.856 TFLOPS for the Intel Iris Xe Graphics 80EU Mobile. This is a difference of approximately 37.4 times in favor of the NVIDIA part. For FP16, the NVIDIA part again delivers 69.34 TFLOPS with a 1:1 ratio, while the Intel part delivers 3.712 TFLOPS with a 2:1 ratio. The NVIDIA part's FP16 performance is approximately 18.7 times higher.

The pixel rate favors the NVIDIA part at 43.92 GPixel/s versus 29.00 GPixel/s for the Intel part. The texture rate shows a much larger gap: 1,083.4 GTexel/s for NVIDIA versus 58.00 GTexel/s for Intel, a difference of approximately 18.7 times. Memory bandwidth is the most extreme difference: 8.19 TB/s for NVIDIA versus System Dependent for Intel, meaning the Intel part is limited by the host system's memory bandwidth.

The NVIDIA part has a higher boost clock at 1830 MHz versus 1450 MHz for the Intel part, despite a lower base clock at 120 MHz versus 300 MHz. The NVIDIA part also has more texture mapping units (592 versus 40) and raster output units (24 versus 20), though the raster output unit difference is comparatively small.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Iris Xe Graphics 80EU Mobile wins in power efficiency and integration. Its 15 W TDP makes it suitable for battery-powered mobile devices, while the NVIDIA B200 SXM6's 1000 W TDP requires dedicated server power infrastructure. The Intel part also supports standard graphics APIs including DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, making it functional for traditional graphics workloads. The NVIDIA part lists N/A for all these APIs, indicating it is not intended for conventional graphics rendering. The Intel part also has display outputs, while the NVIDIA part has none, confirming its role as a display adapter for portable devices.

The NVIDIA B200 SXM6 wins decisively in raw compute capability. Its FP32 performance of 69.34 TFLOPS versus 1.856 TFLOPS for the Intel part makes it suitable for high-performance computing tasks. The tensor cores (592) provide dedicated hardware for AI and machine learning workloads, which the Intel part lacks entirely. The 180 GB of HBM3e memory with 8.19 TB/s bandwidth enables handling of massive datasets, while the Intel part depends on system shared memory. The NVIDIA part also has a much higher texture rate at 1,083.4 GTexel/s versus 58.00 GTexel/s, and a higher pixel rate at 43.92 GPixel/s versus 29.00 GPixel/s.

The NVIDIA B200 SXM6 also wins in transistor count and die size, with 208,000 million transistors on a 1628 mm² die, compared to no listed transistor count or die size for the Intel part. The NVIDIA part's 5 nm process from TSMC is more advanced than Intel's 10 nm process. The NVIDIA part also has a higher boost clock at 1830 MHz versus 1450 MHz for the Intel part.

In terms of use cases, the Intel Iris Xe Graphics 80EU Mobile is for mobile devices requiring basic graphics acceleration, video playback, and light compute tasks. The NVIDIA B200 SXM6 is for server deployments requiring maximum compute throughput, AI inference and training, and scientific simulation. The NVIDIA part's lack of display outputs and graphics API support confirms it is not a consumer graphics card but a compute accelerator. The Intel part's system shared memory and low TDP make it appropriate for ultrabooks and thin-and-light laptops, while the NVIDIA part's 1000 W TDP and suggested 1400 W PSU make it appropriate for data center racks.