AMD Radeon RX 7600S vs NVIDIA N1 20SM Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains no direct head-to-head benchmark comparisons between the AMD Radeon RX 7600S and the NVIDIA N1 20SM. The head-to-head benchmark array is empty, and the win counters for both parts show zero. This absence of paired test data means any comparative analysis must rely on the individual benchmark scores and architectural specifications recorded for each GPU.

The AMD Radeon RX 7600S has a full suite of ten benchmark results. Its strongest showing comes in Geekbench Vulkan with a score of 73868, followed by Geekbench OpenCL at 68012. The Passmark G3D score reaches 15408, while Passmark GPU Compute records 6520. The DirectX 9 Passmark test produces a score of 211, DirectX 11 scores 140, and DirectX 10 scores 74. The DirectX 12 Passmark test yields 65, while the 2D graphics test (G2D) scores 776. The 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 test records 1888 points.

The NVIDIA N1 20SM has no benchmark entries in the database. Its average benchmark score is recorded as zero, and its percentile rank against all GPUs sits at 50, compared to the AMD part’s percentile of 60. The AMD Radeon RX 7600S holds an average benchmark score of 16696 across its ten tests, while the NVIDIA part has no average score to compare.

The nearest rivals for the AMD Radeon RX 7600S provide context for its performance tier. The NVIDIA T400 4 GB posts an average score of 16792, which is 0.6 percent higher than the AMD part. The NVIDIA T400 (non-4GB version) scores 16508, placing it 1.1 percent below the AMD part. The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5090 D V2 scores 16504, again 1.2 percent below the AMD part. The NVIDIA Tesla M4 reaches 16932, which is 1.4 percent above the AMD part. These four rivals bracket the RX 7600S within a narrow band of roughly 1.5 percent, indicating that the AMD GPU sits in a well-populated performance cluster.

Without any recorded benchmarks for the NVIDIA N1 20SM, no direct score comparisons, delta percentages, or win-loss tallies can be established. The analysis must therefore proceed through architectural and specification differences, along with the AMD part’s standalone performance data.

FAQ

Q: Does the NVIDIA N1 20SM have any benchmark scores in the database?

A: No. The benchmark array for the NVIDIA N1 20SM is empty, its average benchmark score is zero, and it has no nearest rivals listed. The AMD Radeon RX 7600S, by contrast, has ten recorded benchmark scores with an average of 16696.

Q: Which GPU has a higher FP32 (single-precision) compute throughput?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 7600S delivers 15.77 TFLOPS FP32, while the NVIDIA N1 20SM delivers 12.01 TFLOPS FP32. The AMD part is approximately 31 percent higher in this metric.

Q: How do the memory configurations differ between the two GPUs?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 7600S uses 8 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 128-bit bus with 256.0 GB/s bandwidth. The NVIDIA N1 20SM uses 128 GB of LPDDR5X memory on a 256-bit bus with 273.2 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: What is the thermal design power (TDP) for each GPU?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 7600S has a recorded TDP of 75 W. The NVIDIA N1 20SM has an unknown TDP, with no value listed in the database.

Q: Which GPU has a higher boost clock?

A: The NVIDIA N1 20SM has a boost clock of 2346 MHz, while the AMD Radeon RX 7600S has a boost clock of 2200 MHz. The NVIDIA part is 146 MHz higher.

Q: Do both GPUs support DirectX 12 Ultimate?

A: No. The AMD Radeon RX 7600S lists DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4 as supported APIs. The NVIDIA N1 20SM lists DirectX as N/A, OpenGL as N/A, and Vulkan as N/A.

Architecture Differences

The AMD Radeon RX 7600S belongs to the Radeon RX 7000 series and uses the Navi 33 chip built on RDNA 3.0 architecture. Its codename is Hotpink Bonefish, and it comes from the Navi Mobile (RX 7000M) generation. The process node is 6 nm at TSMC, with 13,300 million transistors on a 204 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 65.2 million per square millimeter. The GPU has 1792 shading units, 112 texture mapping units, 64 render output units, and 28 ray tracing cores. It has no tensor cores. The pixel rate is 140.8 GPixel/s, the texture rate is 246.4 GTexel/s, and the FP16 throughput is 31.54 TFLOPS at a 2:1 ratio relative to FP32.

The NVIDIA N1 20SM uses the GB20B chip built on Blackwell 2.0 architecture, and it comes from the Blackwell IGP (N1x) generation. Its process node is 5 nm at TSMC, and the die size is 382 mm². The transistor count is listed as unknown, and no codename is recorded. The GPU has 2560 shading units, 160 texture mapping units, 24 render output units, 20 ray tracing cores, and 80 tensor cores. The pixel rate is 56.30 GPixel/s, the texture rate is 375.4 GTexel/s, and the FP16 throughput is 12.01 TFLOPS at a 1:1 ratio with FP32.

The architectural split is clear. AMD uses a wider FP32 path with 1792 shading units and achieves higher peak compute per clock, while NVIDIA uses more texture units (160 vs 112) and includes dedicated tensor cores that AMD lacks. The ray tracing core counts are close at 28 vs 20, but the NVIDIA part’s tensor cores provide a hardware path for AI workloads that the AMD part cannot match. The AMD part has a much higher pixel rate (140.8 vs 56.30 GPixel/s) driven by its 64 ROPs versus 24 ROPs on the NVIDIA part, despite the NVIDIA part having a higher texture rate (375.4 vs 246.4 GTexel/s).

The memory controllers also differ fundamentally. AMD pairs its 128-bit bus with GDDR6, while NVIDIA pairs its 256-bit bus with LPDDR5X. The NVIDIA part’s memory clock is 1067 MHz with 8.5 Gbps effective, producing 273.2 GB/s bandwidth, while AMD’s 2000 MHz memory clock at 16 Gbps effective produces 256.0 GB/s. The AMD part has a much larger memory capacity advantage in the opposite direction: 8 GB versus 128 GB.

The process node difference matters: 5 nm for NVIDIA versus 6 nm for AMD, both at TSMC, but the NVIDIA die is substantially larger at 382 mm² versus 204 mm². The AMD part has a higher base clock at 1500 MHz versus 741 MHz for NVIDIA, and a game clock of 1865 MHz that the NVIDIA part does not record. The NVIDIA part’s boost clock of 2346 MHz exceeds AMD’s 2200 MHz.

Bus interface also differs: AMD uses PCIe 4.0 x16, while NVIDIA uses PCIe 5.0 x16. Both are listed as integrated graphics products (IGP) with no power connectors and portable-device-dependent display outputs for AMD, versus a single HDMI output for NVIDIA. The AMD part supports DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, while the NVIDIA part lists all three APIs as N/A, suggesting the data collection has not yet recorded API support for this part.

The Verdict

The data supports a clear split based on workload type. The AMD Radeon RX 7600S delivers higher raw FP32 compute at 15.77 TFLOPS versus 12.01 TFLOPS, a 31 percent advantage, and its pixel rate of 140.8 GPixel/s is more than double the NVIDIA part’s 56.30 GPixel/s. The AMD part also has a much higher base clock (1500 MHz vs 741 MHz) and a game clock that the NVIDIA part lacks. For conventional rasterized graphics workloads, the AMD part shows a structural advantage in fill-rate-bound tasks.

The NVIDIA N1 20SM counters with 80 tensor cores, a feature entirely absent from the AMD part. Its FP16 throughput is identical to its FP32 at 12.01 TFLOPS, indicating no rate conversion overhead, while AMD’s FP16 runs at a 2:1 ratio and reaches 31.54 TFLOPS. The NVIDIA part also has more shading units (2560 vs 1792), more texture units (160 vs 112), and a wider 256-bit memory bus. Its 128 GB memory capacity dwarfs AMD’s 8 GB, and its bandwidth of 273.2 GB/s is 6.7 percent higher.

The AMD part’s average benchmark score of 16696 and its percentile rank of 60 place it in the middle of the GPU performance distribution, with nearest rivals all within 1.4 percent. The NVIDIA part has no recorded scores, so its actual performance remains unmeasured in this database. Its percentile of 50 is a default placeholder rather than a measured result.

For users whose workloads depend on FP32 compute, high pixel throughput, and established API support, the AMD Radeon RX 7600S has the recorded data to support its position. For users who need tensor core acceleration, massive memory capacity, or a PCIe 5.0 interface, the NVIDIA N1 20SM offers specifications that the AMD part cannot provide. The lack of benchmark data for the NVIDIA part means no performance verdict can be derived from measurements, only from architectural specifications.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ across nearly every recorded specification field.

Process and die: AMD uses 6 nm at TSMC with 13,300 million transistors on a 204 mm² die. NVIDIA uses 5 nm at TSMC with unknown transistor count on a 382 mm² die.

Clocks: AMD base clock is 1500 MHz, boost is 2200 MHz, game clock is 1865 MHz, memory clock is 2000 MHz (16 Gbps effective). NVIDIA base clock is 741 MHz, boost is 2346 MHz, no game clock recorded, memory clock is 1067 MHz (8.5 Gbps effective).

Memory: AMD has 8 GB GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus with 256.0 GB/s bandwidth. NVIDIA has 128 GB LPDDR5X on a 256-bit bus with 273.2 GB/s bandwidth.

Compute units: AMD has 1792 shading units, 112 TMUs, 64 ROPs, 28 RT cores, and no tensor cores. NVIDIA has 2560 shading units, 160 TMUs, 24 ROPs, 20 RT cores, and 80 tensor cores.

Rates: AMD pixel rate is 140.8 GPixel/s, texture rate is 246.4 GTexel/s, FP32 is 15.77 TFLOPS, FP16 is 31.54 TFLOPS (2:1). NVIDIA pixel rate is 56.30 GPixel/s, texture rate is 375.4 GTexel/s, FP32 is 12.01 TFLOPS, FP16 is 12.01 TFLOPS (1:1).

Power and cooling: AMD TDP is 75 W. NVIDIA TDP is unknown. Both are IGP slot width with no power connectors.

Interface and outputs: AMD uses PCIe 4.0 x16 and portable-device-dependent display outputs. NVIDIA uses PCIe 5.0 x16 and 1x HDMI.

API support: AMD lists DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, Vulkan 1.4. NVIDIA lists N/A for all three.

Release dates: AMD released on 2023-01-03. NVIDIA releases on 2026-05-31. Both are listed as Active production status. AMD’s predecessor is Polaris Mobile; NVIDIA has no predecessor recorded.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon RX 7600S wins in peak FP32 compute, delivering 15.77 TFLOPS versus 12.01 TFLOPS for the NVIDIA part, a lead of roughly 31 percent. Its pixel rate of 140.8 GPixel/s, driven by 64 ROPs, is 150 percent higher than the NVIDIA part’s 56.30 GPixel/s, which makes it better suited for high-resolution rasterization where pixel fill matters. The AMD part also has a higher base clock by 759 MHz, a game clock that the NVIDIA part lacks entirely, and FP16 throughput of 31.54 TFLOPS, more than 2.6 times the NVIDIA part’s 12.01 TFLOPS. Its 28 ray tracing cores exceed the NVIDIA part’s 20, and its 6 nm process with 13,300 million transistors on a smaller 204 mm² die indicates a more transistor-dense design at 65.2M per mm². The AMD part also has a recorded average benchmark score of 16696 with a 60th percentile rank, providing measured evidence of its performance tier.

The NVIDIA N1 20SM wins in memory capacity and bandwidth. Its 128 GB LPDDR5X memory is 16 times larger than the AMD part’s 8 GB, and its 273.2 GB/s bandwidth is 6.7 percent higher. The NVIDIA part has 80 tensor cores, a feature the AMD part lacks entirely, giving it a hardware path for AI inference and training workloads. Its 2560 shading units outnumber AMD’s 1792 by 43 percent, and its 160 TMUs outnumber AMD’s 112 by 43 percent as well. The texture rate of 375.4 GTexel/s is 52 percent higher than AMD’s 246.4 GTexel/s. The NVIDIA part uses PCIe 5.0 x16, which doubles the bandwidth of AMD’s PCIe 4.0 x16 interface. Its boost clock of 2346 MHz is 146 MHz higher than AMD’s 2200 MHz, and its 5 nm process node is one generation ahead of AMD’s 6 nm. The NVIDIA part also has a larger die at 382 mm², more than 87 percent larger than AMD’s 204 mm².

For workloads that stress pixel fill, FP32 compute, and ray tracing, the AMD Radeon RX 7600S holds the specification advantage. For workloads that require large memory pools, tensor core acceleration, high texture throughput, or the latest PCIe interface, the NVIDIA N1 20SM is the better fit based on its recorded specifications. The absence of benchmark data for the NVIDIA part means its real-world performance cannot be confirmed, but its architectural features define a distinct use case from the AMD part.