AMD
Radeon 890M vs Intel Arc B390
Full comparison of specs, performance and benchmarks
Intel
Arc B390
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon 890M and Arc B390 across specs and all relevant benchmarks.
↗Radeon 890M outperforms Arc B390 by ~19% on the catalog index; this is not a measured FPS gain.+19%
Scores are normalized on the Head to Head scale. Higher is better. How is this calculated?H2HBench Data Quality
Low confidenceSpecifications: Partially verifiedVerified gaming results: 0Estimated / unverified results: 0Price record updated: Not recorded
Limited verified data
H2HBench Verdict
Higher catalog score: Radeon 890M (~17%)
The score difference is not a measured FPS improvement.
Reasons to consider Radeon 890M
- Higher catalog performance index
- Recorded feature support: Not publicly specified · AMD FSR
Reasons to consider Arc B390
- Recorded feature support: OpenCL 3.0 · Intel XeSS
Catalog metrics radar
Axes with missing data are hidden; every value uses a fixed scale.
AMD
IntelPerformance
8672
Graphics card ranking
Positions 21–26of 411
Which should you choose?
Two practical conclusions based on community votes and gaming value.
Overview
Scores are calculated from specifications, performance, and efficiency.
GamesDirectX, OpenCL, and Vulkan performance
86Better
72
Professional applications3D modeling, video editing, and rendering
68Better
58
AI and machine learningMachine-learning and AI capabilities
66Better
56
Power efficiencyPower consumption across workloads
63Better
53
Head to Head scoreOverall catalog score
70Better
60
Specifications
The better numeric value is highlighted in green, taking the metric direction into account.
Device class
ArchitectureBetter
Process nodeBetter
Shader units / coresBetter
Boost clockBetter
VRAM
Memory type
Memory bus
Interface
Power consumption
Power connector
Length
Thickness
Recommended PSU
HDMI
DisplayPort
USB Type-C
Max monitors
Max resolution
DirectX
Upscaling
Release date
TFLOPS
Vulkan
OpenGL
Compute API
Transistor count
Die size
Base clock
Memory bandwidth
Memory frequency
Memory cache
Clock speed
H2H workload indices
Comparable internal indices on a fixed 0–100 scale.
H2H Raster IndexH2H Index / 100867218%
H2H Compute IndexH2H Index / 100887417%
H2H Rendering IndexH2H Index / 100867218%
H2H Memory Workload IndexH2H Index / 100000%
H2H Efficiency IndexH2H Index / 100000%
These are versioned H2H calculated indices derived from normalized catalog data. They are not results from a third-party benchmark.
H2H AI workload indices
Estimated workload profiles based on available performance and memory data.
H2H Image Generation IndexH2H Index / 100867218%
H2H ML Training IndexH2H Index / 100867218%
H2H Inference IndexH2H Index / 100867218%
H2H Local LLM IndexH2H Index / 100867218%
H2H Computer Vision IndexH2H Index / 100867218%
These are versioned H2H calculated indices derived from normalized catalog data. They are not results from a third-party benchmark.
Graphics APIs, SDKs and upscaling
DirectX12DirectX 12 Ultimate
VulkanNot publicly specifiedNot publicly specified
OpenGLNot publicly specified4.6
UpscalingAMD FSRIntel XeSS
Compute APINot publicly specifiedOpenCL 3.0
Architecture and release
ArchitectureRDNA 3.5BetterXe3
Process node4 nmTSMC N3EBetter
Release date2024Q1'26
Device classMobileMobile
GPU cores, die and clocks
Transistor countNot publicly specifiedNot publicly specified
Die sizeNot publicly specifiedNot publicly specified
Shader units / cores16 Compute UnitsBetter12 Xe cores
Base clockNot publicly specifiedNot publicly specified
Boost clockUp to 3100 MHz (depends on host processor)BetterUp to 2.5 GHz (depends on host processor)
Board size, power and compatibility
InterfaceIntegrated into processor packageIntegrated into processor package
LengthNot applicable (integrated GPU)Not applicable (integrated GPU)
ThicknessNot applicable (integrated GPU)Not applicable (integrated GPU)
Recommended PSUSystem dependentSystem dependent
Power connectorNot applicable (integrated GPU)Not applicable (integrated GPU)
Display outputs and limits
HDMIHDMI 2.1 (OEM dependent)HDMI 2.1 FRL (OEM dependent)
DisplayPortDisplayPort 2.1 (OEM dependent)DisplayPort 2.1 UHBR20 (OEM dependent)
USB Type-CDisplayPort Alt Mode supported; OEM dependentOEM dependent
Max monitors4 (platform capability)4 (platform capability)
Max resolution7680 x 4320 @ 60 Hz (DisplayPort)7680 x 4320 @ 60Hz (DisplayPort)
Memory and compute throughput
VRAMShared system memory; OEM configurableShared system memory; OEM configurable
Memory typeShared DDR5 / LPDDR5XShared LPDDR5X
Memory busDepends on system memory configurationDepends on system memory configuration
TFLOPSNot publicly specifiedNot publicly specified
Other comparisons
Reviews and questions
Explain this comparison
Beyond percentages: causes, relevant specifications, and practical impact behind every chart.
What AI will explain
Overall score, radar, FPS, synthetic tests, specifications, efficiency, and value.
Evidence details
Data coverage
- Verified gaming results
- 0
- Verified synthetic results
- 0
- Games with verified results
- 0
- Verified community results
- 0
- Estimated / unverified results
- 0
- Specifications
- 40 / 66
Calculated scores · How is this calculated?
Scores use the catalog model and may include estimated inputs. Open each score to see its origin and the methodology.
clamp(round(performance × 0.7 + (efficiency ?? 50) × 0.2 + (value is missing ? 0 : (value − 50) × 0.2)), 0, 100)Verified community results
No verified community benchmarks yet.
Reviewed by
No individual editorial review is recorded for this comparison.
Comparison history
No recorded changes yet. Change tracking starts with the evidence system; earlier history has not been reconstructed.
Why you can trust this comparison
Origin and confidence are evaluated from the evidence attached to each value. Unverified results are identified, and specification, benchmark and price dates remain separate.
Owner experiences
Real builds, results, and community feedback.
Moderator reviewedHelpful to the communityExpert badges
Frequently asked comparison questions
Short recommendations based on performance, memory, power consumption, and intended use.
01Which is better for gaming: Radeon 890M or Arc B390?+
Radeon 890M has the higher overall gaming score, while Radeon 890M offers the better price-to-performance ratio. The final choice depends on resolution and settings.
02Which is better for streaming?+
Radeon 890M is the stronger streaming choice thanks to performance, hardware encoding, and application support. Check AV1, H.264, and HEVC support before buying.
03Which is better for Blender?+
Radeon 890M is generally the better option for Blender and GPU rendering. Rendering-engine support and available VRAM also matter.
04Which is better for video editing?+
Radeon 890M offers more overall performance, while Radeon 890M offers more memory headroom. Codecs, hardware encoders, and editor optimization can change the result.
05Which is better for neural networks and AI?+
Radeon 890M is the more practical option for local AI workloads. VRAM capacity, compute libraries, and framework compatibility are especially important.
06Which is better for 1080p?+
Radeon 890M is the most rational 1080p choice, where high frame rates and cost per frame matter most.
07Which is better for 1440p?+
Radeon 890M leads in combined 1440p performance. Radeon 890M can be preferable for heavy textures and games with high VRAM usage.
08Which is better for 4K?+
Radeon 890M is preferable for 4K, where total performance, memory bandwidth, and VRAM capacity have the greatest impact.
09Which is better for a quiet PC?+
Radeon 890M is easier to use in a quiet build because of its lower estimated power and thermal load. Actual noise depends on the specific cooler.
10Which is better without replacing the power supply?+
Radeon 890M is the safer candidate because its stated power consumption is lower. Verify PSU wattage, age, and power connectors.
11Is it worth upgrading from the previous generation?+
Consider upgrading to Radeon 890M if your current device no longer delivers the required FPS, memory capacity, or feature support. A gain below 15–20% is usually worth waiting for a price cut.