Intel Iris Xe Graphics 80EU Mobile vs NVIDIA B300 SXM6 AC Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data contains only one benchmark score for the NVIDIA B300 SXM6 AC, a Geekbench OpenCL result of 369,831. The Intel Iris Xe Graphics 80EU Mobile has no benchmark scores recorded in the database, and the head-to-head comparison table is empty. Consequently, direct numerical comparison between these two parts is impossible from the available measurements.

What the data does show is the B300 SXM6 AC's position relative to its nearest rivals. It leads the NVIDIA B200 by 7%, the NVIDIA H200 NVL by 10.4%, the AMD Instinct MI300X by 16.3%, and the NVIDIA L40S by 25%. These deltas indicate a clear performance hierarchy among the most powerful accelerators in the database. The B300 SXM6 AC sits at the 100th percentile of all GPUs, meaning it outperforms every other recorded part in this metric. The Intel Iris Xe, in contrast, sits at the 50th percentile with an average benchmark score of zero, which reflects the absence of recorded test results rather than a measured performance level.

Because the head-to-head table lists zero wins for both items, there is no direct contest on which to base a score comparison. The only usable benchmark evidence belongs to the B300 SXM6 AC, and that evidence places it at the very top of the database's ranking. For the Iris Xe, no comparable score exists, so any attempt to assign a win or loss would be speculative. The data simply does not support a side-by-side numerical verdict.

Architecture Differences

The two chips come from different manufacturers, process nodes, and design philosophies. The Intel Iris Xe Graphics 80EU Mobile uses a Raptor Lake chip built on Intel's 10 nm process, with an architecture labeled Generation 12.2 and a generation string of HD Graphics-M (Raptor Lake). The NVIDIA B300 SXM6 AC uses a GB110 chip built on TSMC's 5 nm process, with a Blackwell Ultra architecture and a generation string of Server Blackwell (Bxx).

The Intel part is an integrated graphics processor (IGP) with a 15 W TDP, a Ring Bus interface, and display outputs described as portable device dependent. It has no dedicated memory, instead using system shared memory with a system dependent bandwidth. The NVIDIA part is a discrete SXM Module with a 1100 W TDP, a PCIe 6.0 x16 interface, and no display outputs. It carries 288 GB of HBM3e memory on a 8192-bit bus, delivering 8.19 TB/s of bandwidth. The memory clock is listed as 2000 MHz with 8 Gbps effective speed.

The transistor counts and die sizes differ enormously. The GB110 packs 208,000 million transistors on a 1628 mm² die, with a transistor density of 127.8 million per square millimeter. The Intel chip has no listed transistor count, die size, or density in the database. Clock speeds also diverge: the Intel part runs at a 300 MHz base and 1450 MHz boost, while the NVIDIA part runs at 1665 MHz base and 2032 MHz boost.

Compute resources are drastically different. The Intel GPU has 640 shading units, 40 texture mapping units, and 20 raster output pipelines. The NVIDIA GPU has 18,944 shading units, 592 TMUs, and 24 ROPs. The NVIDIA part also includes 592 tensor cores, whereas the Intel part lists none. Pixel rate for the Intel part is 29.00 GPixel/s and texture rate is 58.00 GTexel/s. The NVIDIA part achieves 48.77 GPixel/s and 1,202.9 GTexel/s. FP32 throughput is 1.856 TFLOPS for Intel and 76.99 TFLOPS for NVIDIA. FP16 figures are 3.712 TFLOPS (2:1) for Intel and 76.99 TFLOPS (1:1) for NVIDIA.

API support is another area where the two diverge. The Intel part supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The NVIDIA part lists N/A for DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan, reflecting its server accelerator role rather than a graphics-focused product. Release dates also differ: the Intel part was released on January 3, 2023, and the NVIDIA part on September 10, 2025. The Intel part's successor is listed as Arc Graphics-M, while the NVIDIA part's predecessor is Server Hopper and its successor is Server Rubin.

Where Each One Wins

From the recorded data, the NVIDIA B300 SXM6 AC wins in every measurable compute category. Its FP32 throughput of 76.99 TFLOPS is more than 41 times the Intel part's 1.856 TFLOPS. Its texture rate of 1,202.9 GTexel/s dwarfs the Intel part's 58.00 GTexel/s. Its pixel rate of 48.77 GPixel/s exceeds the Intel part's 29.00 GPixel/s. Its memory bandwidth of 8.19 TB/s is not directly comparable to the Intel part's system dependent bandwidth, but the dedicated HBM3e implementation clearly provides a different class of capacity and speed.

The Intel part wins in power efficiency, at least on paper. Its 15 W TDP versus the NVIDIA part's 1100 W TDP means the integrated solution draws a tiny fraction of the power. It also supports display outputs, which the NVIDIA part lacks entirely, and it supports standard graphics APIs like DirectX 12, OpenGL, and Vulkan, while the NVIDIA part has none. For mobile and portable applications, the Intel part is a functional graphics solution. For server compute, the NVIDIA part is a dedicated accelerator with no display functionality.

The use-case split is obvious from the specifications. The Intel part targets thin-and-light laptops and integrated graphics scenarios, where low power and display connectivity matter. The NVIDIA part targets server deployments, where raw compute throughput and memory capacity are paramount. The NVIDIA part's 288 GB of HBM3e memory and 8.19 TB/s bandwidth serve large-scale AI and scientific workloads, while the Intel part's system shared memory is suited to general desktop and mobile tasks.

FAQ

Q: What benchmark score does the Intel Iris Xe Graphics 80EU Mobile have?

A: The database records no benchmark scores for the Intel Iris Xe Graphics 80EU Mobile. Its average benchmark score is zero, and its percentile versus all GPUs is 50.

Q: What benchmark score does the NVIDIA B300 SXM6 AC have?

A: The NVIDIA B300 SXM6 AC has a Geekbench OpenCL score of 369,831, which places it at the 100th percentile of all GPUs in the database.

Q: How does the NVIDIA B300 SXM6 AC compare to its nearest rivals?

A: It is 7% ahead of the NVIDIA B200, 10.4% ahead of the NVIDIA H200 NVL, 16.3% ahead of the AMD Instinct MI300X, and 25% ahead of the NVIDIA L40S.

Q: What are the memory configurations of the two parts?

A: The Intel Iris Xe uses system shared memory with a system dependent bandwidth. The NVIDIA B300 SXM6 AC has 288 GB of HBM3e memory on an 8192-bit bus with 8.19 TB/s of bandwidth.

Q: Do both parts support display outputs?

A: No. The Intel Iris Xe has display outputs described as portable device dependent. The NVIDIA B300 SXM6 AC has no display outputs.

Q: What are the TDPs of the two parts?

A: The Intel Iris Xe has a TDP of 15 W. The NVIDIA B300 SXM6 AC has a TDP of 1100 W.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Iris Xe Graphics 80EU Mobile | NVIDIA B300 SXM6 AC |

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

| Manufacturer | Intel | NVIDIA |

| Chip | Raptor Lake | GB110 |

| Architecture | Generation 12.2 | Blackwell Ultra |

| Process Node | 10 nm | 5 nm |

| Foundry | Intel | TSMC |

| Transistors | Not listed | 208,000 million |

| Die Size | Not listed | 1628 mm² |

| Transistor Density | Not listed | 127.8M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 300 MHz | 1665 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 1450 MHz | 2032 MHz |

| Memory Size | System Shared | 288 GB |

| Memory Type | System Shared | HBM3e |

| Memory Bus Width | System Shared | 8192 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | System Dependent | 8.19 TB/s |

| Shading Units | 640 | 18,944 |

| TMUs | 40 | 592 |

| ROPs | 20 | 24 |

| Tensor Cores | Not listed | 592 |

| Pixel Rate | 29.00 GPixel/s | 48.77 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 58.00 GTexel/s | 1,202.9 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 1.856 TFLOPS | 76.99 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | 3.712 TFLOPS (2:1) | 76.99 TFLOPS (1:1) |

| TDP | 15 W | 1100 W |

| Slot Width | IGP | SXM Module |

| Bus Interface | Ring Bus | PCIe 6.0 x16 |

| Display Outputs | Portable Device Dependent | No outputs |

| DirectX | 12 (12_1) | N/A |

| OpenGL | 4.6 | N/A |

| Vulkan | 1.4 | N/A |

| Release Date | 2023-01-03 | 2025-09-10 |

| Predecessor | Not listed | Server Hopper |

| Successor | Arc Graphics-M | Server Rubin |

The Verdict

The data tells a clear story of two products designed for completely different purposes. The NVIDIA B300 SXM6 AC is a server accelerator with extreme compute resources, a 100th percentile benchmark score, and a 369,831 Geekbench OpenCL result. It leads its nearest rival, the NVIDIA B200, by 7% and extends that lead to 25% over the NVIDIA L40S. Anyone working with large-scale compute workloads should select this part based on its recorded performance and memory capacity.

The Intel Iris Xe Graphics 80EU Mobile is an integrated graphics solution with a 15 W TDP and no recorded benchmarks. It supports display outputs, DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan, making it suitable for portable devices where a discrete GPU is not an option. Its performance class is entirely different, and the database contains no measurements to compare it against the B300 SXM6 AC.

The choice between these two parts is not a performance contest but a form-factor and workload decision. For mobile integrated graphics, the Intel part is the only viable option in this comparison. For server compute with massive memory and throughput requirements, the NVIDIA part is the clear choice. The recorded data cannot justify selecting the Intel part for any scenario requiring the B300 SXM6 AC's capabilities, nor can it justify selecting the NVIDIA part for any scenario requiring display output and low power consumption. Each part wins in its own domain, and the specifications make those domains unmistakable.