AMD Radeon PRO V710 vs NVIDIA N1X 40SM Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data presents an unusual comparison: the AMD Radeon PRO V710 has two benchmark entries, while the NVIDIA N1X 40SM has no recorded benchmark scores. This makes a direct head-to-head comparison impossible based on measured performance. The AMD card scores 853 in 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 and 116,460 in Geekbench OpenCL, placing it at the 88th percentile among all GPUs in the database. Its average benchmark score is 58,657. The NVIDIA part holds a 50th percentile ranking with an average score of 0, indicating it has not been tested or measured in the same manner.

Without benchmark data for the NVIDIA N1X 40SM, the database cannot assign a single win to either product in head-to-head testing. The winsA and winsB fields both remain at 0. What the data does show is that the AMD Radeon PRO V710 sits within a tight cluster of rivals: it is 0.2% ahead of the NVIDIA P102-100, 0.5% ahead of the AMD Radeon RX 6950 XT, 0.7% ahead of the Intel Arc A570M, and 1.0% ahead of the AMD Radeon RX 5600 OEM. These deltas are narrow, meaning the V710's performance is effectively comparable to those four products in the database's aggregate scoring.

The NVIDIA N1X 40SM, by contrast, has no nearest rivals listed and no average score. Its percentile rank of 50 is a placeholder rather than a measured outcome. The conclusion from the head-to-head section is straightforward: the AMD part has measurable performance data, the NVIDIA part does not, and therefore no numerical comparison can be drawn between them.

Architecture Differences

The two processors diverge fundamentally in their underlying designs. The AMD Radeon PRO V710 uses the Navi 32 chip built on RDNA 3.0 architecture, with the codename Wheat Nas. It belongs to the Radeon Pro Navi generation (Navi III Series). The NVIDIA N1X 40SM uses the GB20B chip on Blackwell 2.0 architecture, part of the Blackwell IGP (N1x) generation. Both are fabricated on a 5 nm process at TSMC, but that is where the similarities end.

The AMD die measures 346 mm² and contains 28,100 million transistors, yielding a transistor density of 81.2 million per square millimeter. The NVIDIA die is larger at 382 mm², but its transistor count is unknown in the database, so density cannot be calculated. Clock behavior differs sharply: the AMD part runs at a 1900 MHz base and 2000 MHz boost, while the NVIDIA part has a 741 MHz base and a 2346 MHz boost. The NVIDIA chip has a much wider clock range, but its base clock is far lower.

Memory configurations are markedly different. The AMD Radeon PRO V710 carries 28 GB of GDDR6 on a 224-bit bus, with memory clocks at 2250 MHz (18 Gbps effective) and bandwidth of 504.0 GB/s. The NVIDIA N1X 40SM packs 128 GB of LPDDR5X on a 256-bit bus, with memory clocks at 1067 MHz (8.5 Gbps effective) and bandwidth of 273.2 GB/s. The AMD part delivers nearly double the memory bandwidth, while the NVIDIA part offers more than four times the capacity.

Compute resources also differ. The AMD card has 3,456 shading units, 216 texture mapping units, 96 ROPs, and 54 ray tracing cores. The NVIDIA part has 5,120 shading units, 320 TMUs, 40 ROPs, 40 RT cores, and 160 tensor cores. The NVIDIA chip has more shaders and TMUs, but far fewer ROPs. The AMD part has no tensor cores listed, while the NVIDIA part includes a substantial tensor core count.

Pixel and texture rates reflect these differences. The AMD Radeon PRO V710 achieves 192.0 GPixel/s and 432.0 GTexel/s. The NVIDIA N1X 40SM achieves 93.84 GPixel/s and 750.7 GTexel/s. The AMD part wins on pixel throughput by a wide margin, while the NVIDIA part wins on texture throughput. Floating point performance is close: the AMD card delivers 27.65 TFLOPS for both FP32 and FP16 (1:1), while the NVIDIA part delivers 24.02 TFLOPS for both. The AMD part is roughly 15% higher in FP32 and FP16.

Power and physical design are also distinct. The AMD Radeon PRO V710 has a TDP of 158 W, is single-slot, uses a single 8-pin power connector, and requires a 450 W suggested power supply. The NVIDIA N1X 40SM has an unknown TDP, is an integrated graphics processor (IGP), uses no power connectors, and has no suggested PSU. The AMD part is a discrete card with a PCIe 4.0 x16 interface and no display outputs. The NVIDIA part uses PCIe 5.0 x16 and has one HDMI output. The AMD card supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The NVIDIA part lists N/A for DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan.

Where Each One Wins

Based strictly on the recorded data, the AMD Radeon PRO V710 wins in several measurable categories. It has higher memory bandwidth at 504.0 GB/s versus 273.2 GB/s, which benefits data-intensive workloads. It has a higher pixel rate at 192.0 GPixel/s versus 93.84 GPixel/s, indicating stronger fill-rate capabilities. It has higher FP32 and FP16 throughput at 27.65 TFLOPS versus 24.02 TFLOPS. It has ray tracing cores in greater number, 54 versus 40. It also has a higher base clock and a higher boost clock at 2000 MHz versus 2346 MHz, though the NVIDIA boost clock is actually higher at 2346 MHz, so the AMD advantage is only at base. The AMD part also has a lower TDP at 158 W, which is a meaningful efficiency metric for a discrete card.

The NVIDIA N1X 40SM wins in other categories. It has far more memory capacity at 128 GB versus 28 GB, which matters for very large datasets or models. It has more shading units at 5,120 versus 3,456, more TMUs at 320 versus 216, and a substantial tensor core count at 160. Its texture rate of 750.7 GTexel/s is significantly higher than the AMD part's 432.0 GTexel/s. It uses a newer PCIe interface at 5.0 versus 4.0, and it has a display output, which the AMD card lacks. The NVIDIA part is also an IGP with no power connectors, making it suitable for integrated designs.

The use-case split is therefore clear from the data. The AMD Radeon PRO V710 appears optimized for scenarios requiring high bandwidth, high pixel throughput, and general compute with a moderate power envelope. The NVIDIA N1X 40SM appears optimized for scenarios requiring massive memory capacity, high texture throughput, tensor operations, and integration into a system without discrete power cabling.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher FP32 compute performance?

A: The AMD Radeon PRO V710 delivers 27.65 TFLOPS in FP32, while the NVIDIA N1X 40SM delivers 24.02 TFLOPS. The AMD part is higher.

Q: How much memory does each GPU have?

A: The AMD Radeon PRO V710 has 28 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 224-bit bus. The NVIDIA N1X 40SM has 128 GB of LPDDR5X memory on a 256-bit bus.

Q: Which GPU has higher memory bandwidth?

A: The AMD Radeon PRO V710 has a memory bandwidth of 504.0 GB/s. The NVIDIA N1X 40SM has a memory bandwidth of 273.2 GB/s. The AMD part is nearly double.

Q: Does the NVIDIA N1X 40SM have any benchmark scores in the database?

A: No. The NVIDIA N1X 40SM has an empty benchmarks array, an average benchmark score of 0, and no nearest rivals listed.

Q: What is the process node for both GPUs?

A: Both the AMD Radeon PRO V710 and the NVIDIA N1X 40SM are fabricated on a 5 nm process at TSMC.

Q: Does the AMD Radeon PRO V710 have display outputs?

A: No. The AMD part lists "No outputs" for display outputs. The NVIDIA N1X 40SM lists one HDMI output.

The Verdict

The data presents a clear asymmetry. The AMD Radeon PRO V710 has measurable performance, a known TDP of 158 W, and a discrete single-slot design with a 8-pin power connector. Its average benchmark score of 58,657 places it at the 88th percentile, and its nearest rivals are all within 1.0% of its aggregate score. This is a product with validated performance data.

The NVIDIA N1X 40SM has no benchmark scores, no average score, and no nearest rivals. Its percentile rank of 50 appears to be a default value rather than a measured outcome. It is an IGP with no power connectors, an unknown TDP, and an unknown transistor count. The only concrete advantages it shows are memory capacity, texture rate, shading units, tensor cores, and a PCIe 5.0 interface.

For a user choosing between these two based on the database, the AMD Radeon PRO V710 is the only one with demonstrated performance. It delivers higher FP32 and FP16 throughput, higher memory bandwidth, higher pixel rate, and more ray tracing cores. The NVIDIA N1X 40SM offers more memory and more texture throughput, but without any benchmark data, its real-world performance cannot be assessed. The verdict from the recorded data is that the AMD part is a tested, competitive discrete GPU, while the NVIDIA part remains an unmeasured integrated processor with a distinct feature set but no performance evidence.

Specification Differences

The following fields differ between the two products:

• Chip: Navi 32 (AMD) versus GB20B (NVIDIA)
• Architecture: RDNA 3.0 versus Blackwell 2.0
• Generation: Radeon Pro Navi (Navi III Series) versus Blackwell IGP (N1x)
• Die Size: 346 mm² versus 382 mm²
• Transistors: 28,100 million versus unknown
• Transistor Density: 81.2M / mm² versus null
• Base Clock: 1900 MHz versus 741 MHz
• Boost Clock: 2000 MHz versus 2346 MHz
• Memory Clock: 2250 MHz 18 Gbps effective versus 1067 MHz 8.5 Gbps effective
• Memory Size: 28 GB versus 128 GB
• Memory Type: GDDR6 versus LPDDR5X
• Memory Bus Width: 224 bit versus 256 bit
• Memory Bandwidth: 504.0 GB/s versus 273.2 GB/s
• Shading Units: 3456 versus 5120
• TMUs: 216 versus 320
• ROPs: 96 versus 40
• RT Cores: 54 versus 40
• Tensor Cores: null versus 160
• Pixel Rate: 192.0 GPixel/s versus 93.84 GPixel/s
• Texture Rate: 432.0 GTexel/s versus 750.7 GTexel/s
• FP32: 27.65 TFLOPS versus 24.02 TFLOPS
• FP16: 27.65 TFLOPS (1:1) versus 24.02 TFLOPS (1:1)
• TDP: 158 W versus unknown
• Slot Width: Single-slot versus IGP
• Power Connectors: 1x 8-pin versus None
• Suggested PSU: 450 W versus null
• Bus Interface: PCIe 4.0 x16 versus PCIe 5.0 x16
• Display Outputs: No outputs versus 1x HDMI
• DirectX: 12 Ultimate (12_2) versus N/A
• OpenGL: 4.6 versus N/A
• Vulkan: 1.4 versus N/A
• Production Status: null versus Active
• Release Date: 2024-10-02 versus 2026-05-31
• Predecessor: Radeon Pro Vega versus null
• Average Benchmark Score: 58,657 versus 0
• Percentile vs All GPUs: 88 versus 50
• Nearest Rivals: Four listed versus none