AMD Playstation 5 Pro GPU vs NVIDIA N1 20SM Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data contains no head-to-head benchmark results for the AMD Playstation 5 Pro GPU and the NVIDIA N1 20SM. Both entries in the database show an average benchmark score of zero, and the wins tally is zero for each part. This indicates that neither GPU has been subjected to the standardized test suite used by the database, or that results have not yet been logged for direct comparison.

The absence of scores does not reflect performance potential, rather it reflects a lack of measurement data. The AMD Playstation 5 Pro GPU carries a percentile rank of 50 against all GPUs in the database, as does the NVIDIA N1 20SM. This identical percentile placement is a consequence of both parts having no recorded benchmark submissions, placing them at the median position by default rather than by merit.

Without direct scores, the FP32 compute figures from the specification sheets serve as the only quantitative performance indicator. The AMD Playstation 5 Pro GPU delivers 18.05 TFLOPS of FP32 throughput, while the NVIDIA N1 20SM delivers 12.01 TFLOPS. This represents a 50.3% advantage for the AMD part in raw single-precision floating-point math, a substantial lead on paper. However, FP32 throughput alone does not determine real-world graphics performance, as memory bandwidth, rasterization rates, and API support all factor into final frame delivery.

The pixel fillrate comparison shows a similar gap. The AMD Playstation 5 Pro GPU reaches 150.4 GPixel/s, while the NVIDIA N1 20SM reaches 56.30 GPixel/s, giving the AMD part a 167.1% advantage in pixel throughput. Texture fillrate follows the same pattern: 564.0 GTexel/s for the AMD part versus 375.4 GTexel/s for the NVIDIA part, a 50.2% lead for AMD. These figures indicate that in a purely theoretical rasterization workload, the AMD part holds commanding leads across all three primary throughput metrics.

Memory bandwidth also favors the AMD Playstation 5 Pro GPU substantially. The AMD part delivers 576.0 GB/s from its GDDR6 memory, while the NVIDIA N1 20SM delivers 273.2 GB/s from LPDDR5X, a 110.8% advantage for AMD. This bandwidth differential is critical for texture-heavy scenes, high-resolution rendering, and data-intensive compute workloads. The NVIDIA part compensates with a much larger memory pool, 128 GB versus 16 GB, which changes the nature of the workloads each part can accommodate.

The FP16 comparison adds nuance. The AMD Playstation 5 Pro GPU achieves 36.10 TFLOPS of FP16 throughput via a 2:1 ratio relative to FP32, indicating packed math support. The NVIDIA N1 20SM achieves 12.01 TFLOPS of FP16 at a 1:1 ratio, meaning it does not gain any throughput advantage from half-precision operations. In FP16 workloads, AMD holds a 200.6% lead. This has implications for machine learning inference and certain compute accelerations, though the NVIDIA part includes dedicated tensor cores that the AMD part lacks entirely.

Clock speeds present a mixed picture. The AMD Playstation 5 Pro GPU runs at a base clock of 2170 MHz and a boost clock of 2350 MHz. The NVIDIA N1 20SM has a much lower base clock of 741 MHz but a boost clock of 2346 MHz, nearly matching the AMD boost frequency. The NVIDIA part relies on aggressive boosting from a very low idle base, which is typical for integrated graphics parts that need to conserve power when idle. The AMD part maintains higher sustained clocks across the board.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Playstation 5 Pro GPU wins decisively in raw rasterization throughput. Its FP32 compute of 18.05 TFLOPS exceeds the NVIDIA part by 50.3%. Its pixel rate of 150.4 GPixel/s more than doubles the NVIDIA figure. Its texture rate of 564.0 GTexel/s is 50.2% higher. For traditional gaming workloads, which rely heavily on pixel shading and texture sampling, the AMD part has a clear theoretical advantage.

Memory bandwidth is another AMD win. The 576.0 GB/s of bandwidth is more than double the NVIDIA part's 273.2 GB/s. This benefits high-resolution textures, anti-aliasing, and any workload that streams large amounts of data through the GPU. The AMD part also uses GDDR6 memory, which is designed for high-bandwidth graphics workloads, while the NVIDIA part uses LPDDR5X, which prioritizes power efficiency over raw throughput.

The NVIDIA N1 20SM wins in memory capacity by a wide margin. Its 128 GB of LPDDR5X memory is eight times larger than the AMD part's 16 GB. This allows the NVIDIA part to hold far larger datasets in local memory, which is relevant for certain compute applications, large language model inference, or workloads that require substantial working sets without constant host transfers. The AMD part's 16 GB is sufficient for console gaming but limits its utility in memory-intensive compute scenarios.

The NVIDIA part also wins on feature set diversity. It includes 20 ray tracing cores and 80 tensor cores, neither of which appear in the AMD part's specification. The AMD Playstation 5 Pro GPU lists no RT cores and no tensor cores in the database. While the AMD part's RDNA 2.0 architecture is known to have ray acceleration capabilities, the database does not record them for this part. The NVIDIA part's tensor cores enable dedicated AI and machine learning workloads, which the AMD part cannot accelerate through specialized hardware.

The NVIDIA N1 20SM wins on interface flexibility. It uses a PCIe 5.0 x16 bus interface, which allows it to be installed in a standard desktop motherboard slot. The AMD Playstation 5 Pro GPU uses no standard bus interface, as it is soldered into a console. The NVIDIA part also has no power connectors, drawing power directly from the PCIe slot, while the AMD part has a 232 W TDP that requires dedicated power delivery. The NVIDIA part's slot width is listed as IGP, indicating integrated graphics packaging.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher FP32 compute performance?

A: The AMD Playstation 5 Pro GPU delivers 18.05 TFLOPS of FP32 throughput, which is 50.3% higher than the NVIDIA N1 20SM's 12.01 TFLOPS.

Q: How does memory capacity compare between the two parts?

A: The NVIDIA N1 20SM has 128 GB of LPDDR5X memory, which is eight times larger than the AMD Playstation 5 Pro GPU's 16 GB of GDDR6 memory.

Q: Does the NVIDIA N1 20SM have tensor cores?

A: Yes, the NVIDIA N1 20SM includes 80 tensor cores and 20 ray tracing cores. The AMD Playstation 5 Pro GPU lists no tensor cores and no ray tracing cores in the database.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference?

A: The AMD Playstation 5 Pro GPU provides 576.0 GB/s of bandwidth, which is 110.8% higher than the NVIDIA N1 20SM's 273.2 GB/s.

Q: Which GPU has a higher pixel fillrate?

A: The AMD Playstation 5 Pro GPU achieves 150.4 GPixel/s, which is 167.1% higher than the NVIDIA N1 20SM's 56.30 GPixel/s.

Q: What process nodes do the two GPUs use?

A: The AMD Playstation 5 Pro GPU uses a 4 nm process at TSMC, while the NVIDIA N1 20SM uses a 5 nm process at TSMC.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ across nearly every specification category in the database. The AMD Playstation 5 Pro GPU uses the Viola chip with an RDNA 2.0 architecture, manufactured on a 4 nm process at TSMC. The NVIDIA N1 20SM uses the GB20B chip with a Blackwell 2.0 architecture, manufactured on a 5 nm process at TSMC. The AMD part has 21,000 million transistors on a 279 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 75.3M per mm². The NVIDIA part's transistor count is unknown, but its die size is 382 mm² with no recorded density figure.

Memory configurations differ fundamentally. The AMD part uses 16 GB of GDDR6 on a 256 bit bus with 576.0 GB/s bandwidth. The NVIDIA part uses 128 GB of LPDDR5X on a 256 bit bus with 273.2 GB/s bandwidth. Both use a 256 bit bus, but the memory type, capacity, and bandwidth all differ.

The compute unit counts show significant divergence. The AMD part has 3840 shading units, 240 texture mapping units, and 64 raster operation units. The NVIDIA part has 2560 shading units, 160 texture mapping units, and 24 raster operation units. The NVIDIA part has 20 ray tracing cores and 80 tensor cores, while the AMD part has none recorded.

Clock speeds differ in base and boost. The AMD part runs at 2170 MHz base and 2350 MHz boost. The NVIDIA part runs at 741 MHz base and 2346 MHz boost. Memory clocks also differ: 2250 MHz (18 Gbps effective) for AMD versus 1067 MHz (8.5 Gbps effective) for NVIDIA.

Power and packaging diverge completely. The AMD part has a 232 W TDP with no slot width recorded, while the NVIDIA part has an unknown TDP with an IGP slot width and no power connectors. The NVIDIA part uses a PCIe 5.0 x16 bus interface, while the AMD part has no bus interface listed. Display outputs differ as well: the AMD part has 1x HDMI and 1x USB Type-C, while the NVIDIA part has only 1x HDMI.

API support differs substantially. The AMD part supports OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.2, with no DirectX support. The NVIDIA part has no recorded API support for DirectX, OpenGL, or Vulkan. Physical dimensions apply only to the AMD part, which measures 386 mm in length, 216 mm in height, and 89 mm in width. The NVIDIA part has no dimensions recorded.

Architecture Differences

The architectural split between these two GPUs is stark. The AMD Playstation 5 Pro GPU uses RDNA 2.0, a graphics-focused architecture designed for console gaming. The NVIDIA N1 20SM uses Blackwell 2.0, an architecture designed for integrated graphics in the N1x generation. These are fundamentally different design philosophies: one is a discrete console GPU with high clock speeds and dedicated memory, the other is an integrated graphics processor with a massive memory pool and specialized compute cores.

The process technology difference matters for power and density. The AMD part uses a 4 nm TSMC process, while the NVIDIA part uses a 5 nm TSMC process. The smaller process node gives the AMD part a density advantage of 75.3M transistors per mm², though the NVIDIA part's larger die of 382 mm² compensates with more total area. The AMD part packs 21,000 million transistors into 279 mm², while the NVIDIA part's transistor count is not recorded.

Memory architecture reflects different use cases. The AMD part uses GDDR6, a graphics-optimized memory type with high bandwidth but lower capacity. The NVIDIA part uses LPDDR5X, a low-power memory type that prioritizes capacity and energy efficiency over bandwidth. This is evident in the bandwidth figures: 576.0 GB/s for AMD versus 273.2 GB/s for NVIDIA, a 110.8% difference. The NVIDIA part's 128 GB capacity suggests unified memory usage, where the CPU and GPU share the same pool, while the AMD part's 16 GB is dedicated graphics memory.

Compute feature sets diverge sharply. The NVIDIA part includes 20 ray tracing cores and 80 tensor cores, dedicated hardware for ray-traced rendering and AI acceleration. The AMD part lists no such cores in the database, relying instead on its higher raw shader throughput. The FP16 ratio tells a related story: the AMD part achieves 36.10 TFLOPS at a 2:1 ratio, indicating packed FP16 operations, while the NVIDIA part achieves 12.01 TFLOPS at a 1:1 ratio, indicating no packed FP16 acceleration. The NVIDIA part's tensor cores likely provide AI acceleration through a different pathway, but the database does not record TFLOPS for tensor operations.

Clock behavior differs by design. The AMD part maintains a high base clock of 2170 MHz, suggesting a sustained performance profile. The NVIDIA part has a low base clock of 741 MHz but boosts to 2346 MHz, indicating a power-adaptive design that idles low and boosts high under load. This is typical for integrated parts that share power budgets with a CPU. The AMD part's TDP of 232 W reflects a discrete GPU with dedicated cooling, while the NVIDIA part's unknown TDP and lack of power connectors indicate it draws power from the host system.

The API landscape reinforces the console versus PC split. The AMD part exposes OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.2, which are relevant for PC-style workloads and emulation. The NVIDIA part has no API support recorded, which is consistent with a part designed for embedded or integrated use in a proprietary system. The NVIDIA part's PCIe 5.0 x16 interface suggests it can be installed in a standard motherboard, but the lack of API support limits its utility in conventional PC operating systems.

Die size and packaging further differentiate the two. The AMD part's die measures 279 mm², while the NVIDIA part's die measures 382 mm², a 36.9% larger silicon area for the NVIDIA part. Despite the larger die, the NVIDIA part's lower shading unit count and clock speeds produce lower throughput. The AMD part's physical dimensions of 386 mm by 216 mm by 89 mm indicate a full-size console or discrete card package, while the NVIDIA part has no dimensions recorded, consistent with an IGP that mounts directly to a motherboard.