AMD Playstation 5 Pro GPU vs NVIDIA N1 16SM Comparison

The AMD Playstation 5 Pro GPU and the NVIDIA N1 16SM represent two very different approaches to integrated graphics, one designed for a dedicated console and the other for a compact system-on-chip. The database places both at the 50th percentile among all GPUs, with no average benchmark score recorded for either. However, their specifications reveal a clear split in intended workloads, with the AMD part prioritizing raw rasterization throughput and the NVIDIA chip focusing on memory capacity, ray tracing, and AI acceleration.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Playstation 5 Pro GPU wins decisively in raw compute and rendering throughput. Its FP32 performance reaches 18.05 TFLOPS, nearly double the 9.609 TFLOPS of the NVIDIA N1 16SM. This advantage extends to texture and pixel processing: the AMD part delivers 564.0 GTexel/s against 300.3 GTexel/s for the NVIDIA chip, and 150.4 GPixel/s versus 56.30 GPixel/s. In any scenario where the GPU must fill pixels or sample textures at high rates, such as traditional 4K rasterization or high-detail geometric workloads, the AMD part holds a 2:1 or better advantage. The shading unit count reinforces this, with 3840 units on the AMD side versus 2048 on the NVIDIA side. The AMD part also operates at a higher base clock of 2170 MHz compared to 741 MHz, though the boost clocks are closer at 2350 MHz versus 2346 MHz.

The NVIDIA N1 16SM wins in memory capacity, ray tracing hardware, and AI acceleration. The NVIDIA chip carries 128 GB of LPDDR5X memory, eight times the 16 GB of GDDR6 on the AMD part. This allows the NVIDIA part to hold vastly larger datasets in local memory, which matters for large language model inference, complex simulations, or any workload that would otherwise spill to system storage. The NVIDIA part also includes 16 dedicated ray tracing cores and 64 tensor cores, while the AMD part lists no equivalent hardware in the database. For applications that use ray-traced lighting or tensor-core-accelerated operations, the NVIDIA part has functional advantages that the AMD part cannot match on paper. The NVIDIA chip also uses a PCIe 5.0 x16 bus interface, whereas the AMD part has no listed bus interface, indicating it likely uses a proprietary console interconnect. The NVIDIA part draws no external power connectors and is classified as an IGP, meaning it integrates into a host processor package.

Architecture Differences

The two chips come from different fabrication nodes and architectural generations. The AMD Playstation 5 Pro GPU uses the Viola chip built on TSMC's 4 nm process, while the NVIDIA N1 16SM uses the GB20B chip on a 5 nm process, also from TSMC. The AMD part has a die size of 279 mm² and contains 21,000 million transistors, giving a transistor density of 75.3 million per square millimeter. The NVIDIA chip has a larger die at 382 mm², but its transistor count is listed as unknown, so no density calculation is possible from the database.

Architecturally, the AMD part is based on RDNA 2.0, a graphics-focused design that emphasizes high clock speeds and efficient rasterization. The NVIDIA part uses Blackwell 2.0, which is a newer generation that integrates graphics, ray tracing, and tensor processing into a unified IGP. The memory subsystems differ fundamentally: the AMD part uses 16 GB of GDDR6 with a 256-bit bus and 576.0 GB/s of bandwidth, while the NVIDIA part uses 128 GB of LPDDR5X with the same 256-bit bus width but only 273.2 GB/s of bandwidth. The NVIDIA chip trades bandwidth for capacity, which suits workloads that need large working sets but not extreme transfer rates. The AMD part does the opposite, prioritizing bandwidth for high-resolution texture streaming and frame buffer operations.

The compute capabilities diverge in FP16 handling. The AMD part lists FP16 at 36.10 TFLOPS, exactly double its FP32 rate, indicating a 2:1 ratio typical of consumer graphics hardware. The NVIDIA part lists FP16 at 9.609 TFLOPS, identical to its FP32 rate, meaning a 1:1 ratio. This suggests the NVIDIA chip treats FP16 and FP32 with the same throughput, which can be advantageous for workloads that need consistent precision, while the AMD part offers higher raw FP16 throughput for applications that can tolerate reduced precision.

Clock behavior also differs. The AMD part has a base clock of 2170 MHz and a boost of 2350 MHz, a relatively narrow range that suggests sustained high-frequency operation. The NVIDIA part has a base clock of 741 MHz and a boost of 2346 MHz, a much wider spread that indicates aggressive power management, likely idling at low frequencies and ramping up only when needed. The NVIDIA chip's memory runs at 1067 MHz with 8.5 Gbps effective, while the AMD part's memory runs at 2250 MHz with 18 Gbps effective. The AMD chip also has a higher TDP at 232 W, while the NVIDIA part has an unknown TDP, though its IGP classification and lack of power connectors imply a much lower power envelope.

The display outputs differ as well. The AMD part provides 1x HDMI 2.1 and 1x USB Type-C, while the NVIDIA part provides only 1x HDMI. The AMD part supports OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.2, while the NVIDIA part lists no API support in the database. The AMD part is a physical card with dimensions of 386 mm by 216 mm by 89 mm, while the NVIDIA part has no listed dimensions, consistent with an embedded IGP design.

The Verdict

The data indicates a clear performance hierarchy for graphics-intensive tasks. The AMD Playstation 5 Pro GPU delivers 18.05 TFLOPS of FP32 compute, 2.5x the texture rate, and 2.7x the pixel rate of the NVIDIA N1 16SM. For any game or application that relies on traditional rasterization, the AMD part is the superior choice by a wide margin. Its 576.0 GB/s of memory bandwidth also exceeds the NVIDIA chip by more than 2x, which directly benefits high-resolution textures and frame buffer writes. The AMD part's 3840 shading units versus 2048 on the NVIDIA side further cements this advantage in raw shader throughput.

The NVIDIA N1 16SM, however, is the only option with ray tracing cores and tensor cores. The database records 16 RT cores and 64 tensor cores for the NVIDIA part, while the AMD part has none listed. This means the NVIDIA chip can execute ray-traced rendering and AI acceleration through dedicated hardware, while the AMD part would have to rely on compute shaders for similar effects, which is far less efficient. The NVIDIA part also has 128 GB of memory, which is 112 GB more than the AMD part. This capacity advantage is enormous for workloads like large model inference, data processing, or multitasking with many active applications. The NVIDIA part's 273.2 GB/s bandwidth is lower, but for memory-bound tasks that fit within its larger pool, the capacity more than compensates.

The choice depends on the workload. For gaming, rendering, or any graphics-heavy application, the AMD Playstation 5 Pro GPU is the stronger performer based on every compute and rasterization metric. For AI inference, ray-traced workloads, or memory-hungry computations, the NVIDIA N1 16SM provides dedicated hardware and a memory pool that the AMD part cannot match. The AMD part also has a launch MSRP of 699 USD, which the database records as its initial price, while the NVIDIA part has no listed launch price. The AMD part is an active production product with a release date in late 2024, while the NVIDIA part is also active but with a later release date in mid-2026. The two parts are not direct competitors in the same market segment, but for a user who must choose between them, the AMD part wins on raw graphics performance and the NVIDIA part wins on capacity and specialized compute.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher FP32 performance?

A: The AMD Playstation 5 Pro GPU delivers 18.05 TFLOPS of FP32 compute, while the NVIDIA N1 16SM delivers 9.609 TFLOPS. The AMD part has roughly 88% more FP32 throughput.

Q: How much memory does each GPU have?

A: The AMD Playstation 5 Pro GPU has 16 GB of GDDR6 memory, while the NVIDIA N1 16SM has 128 GB of LPDDR5X memory. The NVIDIA part has eight times the memory capacity.

Q: Does the NVIDIA N1 16SM have ray tracing cores?

A: Yes, the NVIDIA N1 16SM includes 16 dedicated ray tracing cores. The AMD Playstation 5 Pro GPU has no ray tracing cores listed in the database.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference?

A: The AMD Playstation 5 Pro GPU provides 576.0 GB/s of bandwidth, while the NVIDIA N1 16SM provides 273.2 GB/s. The AMD part offers more than double the bandwidth.

Q: Which GPU has more shading units?

A: The AMD Playstation 5 Pro GPU has 3840 shading units, while the NVIDIA N1 16SM has 2048. The AMD part has 1792 more shading units.

Q: What are the process nodes for each chip?

A: The AMD Playstation 5 Pro GPU uses a 4 nm TSMC process with a die size of 279 mm². The NVIDIA N1 16SM uses a 5 nm TSMC process with a die size of 382 mm².

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded specifications allow direct comparisons across several metrics. In FP32 compute, the AMD part scores 18.05 TFLOPS against 9.609 TFLOPS for the NVIDIA part, a difference of 8.441 TFLOPS, meaning the AMD part is about 88% faster. In FP16 compute, the AMD part reaches 36.10 TFLOPS with its 2:1 ratio, while the NVIDIA part stays at 9.609 TFLOPS with its 1:1 ratio, widening the gap to roughly 276% in favor of AMD.

Texture rate shows the AMD part at 564.0 GTexel/s versus 300.3 GTexel/s for the NVIDIA part, an advantage of 263.7 GTexel/s or about 88%. Pixel rate follows a similar pattern, with the AMD part at 150.4 GPixel/s and the NVIDIA part at 56.30 GPixel/s, a difference of 94.1 GPixel/s, meaning the AMD part is about 167% faster. These three metrics point to the AMD part being the clear winner for any workload that stresses the graphics pipeline.

Memory bandwidth also favors the AMD part, with 576.0 GB/s versus 273.2 GB/s, a difference of 302.8 GB/s or about 111%. This means the AMD part can move data to and from the frame buffer at a rate more than double that of the NVIDIA part, which is critical for high-resolution rendering and heavy texture streaming.

The NVIDIA part counters with its memory capacity, 128 GB versus 16 GB, a difference of 112 GB, meaning the NVIDIA part has 700% more memory. This is the single largest specification gap in either direction. The NVIDIA part also has 16 ray tracing cores and 64 tensor cores, while the AMD part has zero of each, giving the NVIDIA part exclusive capabilities in those domains.

Clock speeds show the AMD part with a base of 2170 MHz and a boost of 2350 MHz, while the NVIDIA part has a base of 741 MHz and a boost of 2346 MHz. The boost clocks are nearly identical, differing by only 4 MHz, but the base clocks differ by 1429 MHz, indicating that the AMD part maintains high frequency under load while the NVIDIA part relies on boosting from a low idle state.

The transistor counts differ substantially, with the AMD part using 21,000 million transistors on a 279 mm² die, while the NVIDIA part's transistor count is unknown on a 382 mm² die. The AMD part achieves a transistor density of 75.3 million per square millimeter, while no density is recorded for the NVIDIA part. The larger die on the NVIDIA part suggests more physical area for integrated components, consistent with its IGP classification.

Power consumption also separates the two. The AMD part has a TDP of 232 W, while the NVIDIA part has an unknown TDP but uses no external power connectors and is classified as an IGP. This indicates the NVIDIA part is designed for a much lower power envelope, likely suitable for embedded or portable applications, whereas the AMD part consumes substantial power for its high performance.

In terms of release timing, the AMD part launched in November 2024 with a launch MSRP of 699 USD, while the NVIDIA part is scheduled for release in May 2026 with no listed price. The AMD part is already available, while the NVIDIA part is a future product. Both are listed as active production status.

The API support also differs, with the AMD part supporting OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.2, while the NVIDIA part has no API support listed. This may reflect the console-specific nature of the AMD part versus the embedded nature of the NVIDIA part, where API support may be handled differently.

The database records no head-to-head benchmark results, no wins for either part, and no nearest rivals. The comparison relies entirely on the recorded specifications. The data confirms that the AMD Playstation 5 Pro GPU is the higher-performance graphics processor in every rasterization and compute metric, while the NVIDIA N1 16SM offers unique features in ray tracing, tensor processing, and memory capacity that the AMD part does not provide.