AMD Radeon RX 7900M vs NVIDIA N1 16SM Comparison

FAQ

Q: What are the core architectural differences between the AMD Radeon RX 7900M and the NVIDIA N1 16SM?

A: The RX 7900M uses the Navi 31 chip with RDNA 3.0 architecture, while the N1 16SM uses the GB20B chip with Blackwell 2.0 architecture. The RX 7900M is built on a 5 nm process at TSMC with 57,700 million transistors on a 529 mm² die, whereas the N1 16SM also uses a 5 nm TSMC process but has a smaller 382 mm² die with an unknown transistor count.

Q: How do the memory subsystems compare between the two GPUs?

A: The RX 7900M features 16 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 256 bit bus with 576.0 GB/s bandwidth and 2250 MHz (18 Gbps effective) memory clock. The N1 16SM offers 128 GB of LPDDR5X memory, also on a 256 bit bus, but with 273.2 GB/s bandwidth and 1067 MHz (8.5 Gbps effective) memory clock.

Q: What do the benchmark scores show for the RX 7900M?

A: The RX 7900M records a 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 4201, a Geekbench OpenCL score of 129499, and a Geekbench Vulkan score of 158760. Its average benchmark score is 97487, placing it in the 94th percentile among all GPUs.

Q: Does the NVIDIA N1 16SM have any benchmark scores in the database?

A: No, the N1 16SM has an empty benchmarks array, an average benchmark score of 0, and sits in the 50th percentile. There are no recorded measurements for this GPU in the database, and no nearest rivals are listed.

Q: What are the shading unit and compute capabilities of each GPU?

A: The RX 7900M has 4608 shading units, 288 TMUs, 192 ROPs, 72 RT cores, and delivers 38.52 TFLOPS FP32 and 77.05 TFLOPS FP16 (2:1). The N1 16SM has 2048 shading units, 128 TMUs, 24 ROPs, 16 RT cores, 64 tensor cores, and delivers 9.609 TFLOPS FP32 and 9.609 TFLOPS FP16 (1:1).

Q: What interface and display differences exist?

A: The RX 7900M uses PCIe 4.0 x16 and has portable device dependent display outputs. The N1 16SM uses PCIe 5.0 x16 and has 1x HDMI output. Both are IGP slot width with no power connectors.

Architecture Differences

The RX 7900M is built on the Navi 31 chip using RDNA 3.0 architecture, codenamed Plum Bonito, and belongs to the Navi Mobile (RX 7000M) generation. The N1 16SM uses the GB20B chip with Blackwell 2.0 architecture and belongs to the Blackwell IGP (N1x) generation. Both are fabricated on TSMC's 5 nm process, but the RX 7900M packs 57,700 million transistors across a 529 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 109.1M per mm². The N1 16SM has a smaller 382 mm² die with an unknown transistor count and no density figure recorded.

The compute architectures diverge sharply. The RX 7900M deploys 4608 shading units, 288 texture mapping units, 192 raster operation units, and 72 ray tracing cores. The N1 16SM halves the shading units to 2048, uses 128 TMUs, and only 24 ROPs, with 16 RT cores. However, the N1 16SM adds 64 tensor cores, a feature absent from the RX 7900M's specification sheet. The FP32 throughput difference is substantial: 38.52 TFLOPS for the RX 7900M versus 9.609 TFLOPS for the N1 16SM. The FP16 rates also differ in ratio, with the RX 7900M achieving 77.05 TFLOPS at a 2:1 ratio while the N1 16SM produces 9.609 TFLOPS at a 1:1 ratio, indicating no half-rate acceleration on the Blackwell part.

Clock behavior separates the two as well. The RX 7900M runs a base clock of 1825 MHz with a boost of 2090 MHz. The N1 16SM has a much lower base of 741 MHz but a higher boost of 2346 MHz, suggesting a wider dynamic range. Memory clocks differ: 2250 MHz (18 Gbps effective) for the RX 7900M versus 1067 MHz (8.5 Gbps effective) for the N1 16SM.

API support also differs. The RX 7900M supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The N1 16SM lists N/A for DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan, indicating no conventional graphics API support in the recorded data. The RX 7900M uses PCIe 4.0 x16 while the N1 16SM steps up to PCIe 5.0 x16. Display outputs are portable device dependent on the AMD part, while the NVIDIA part specifies 1x HDMI. The RX 7900M's predecessor is listed as Polaris Mobile, while the N1 16SM has no predecessor or successor recorded.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains no head-to-head benchmark entries for the RX 7900M and the N1 16SM. The headToHeadBenchmarks array is empty, and both winsA and winsB are zero. Direct comparison scores do not exist in the recorded data.

What can be analyzed is the RX 7900M's standing against its nearest rivals, which provides context for its performance tier. The RX 7900M's average benchmark score of 97487 places it 0.4% above the AMD Radeon Pro VII (average score 97131), 4.3% below the NVIDIA Quadro RTX 6000 (average score 101872), 5.4% above the AMD Radeon Instinct MI60 (average score 92466), and 6.3% above the NVIDIA RTX A4500 (average score 91671). These deltas show the RX 7900M sitting in a competitive mid-to-high range, slightly trailing the Quadro RTX 6000 but ahead of several professional workstation cards.

The N1 16SM has no benchmark data, no average score, and no nearest rivals. Its 50th percentile ranking indicates a median position in the overall GPU distribution, but without measurements, no performance conclusions can be drawn. The RX 7900M's 94th percentile places it well above the median, suggesting a much higher performance tier based on its recorded scores.

The RX 7900M's individual benchmark results reinforce its position. The 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 4201 tests modern DirectX 12 workloads, while the Geekbench OpenCL score of 129499 and Vulkan score of 158760 show compute and graphics API performance. The N1 16SM offers no comparable numbers.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ across nearly every measurable specification. The process node is identical at 5 nm from TSMC, but the die size diverges: 529 mm² for the RX 7900M versus 382 mm² for the N1 16SM. Transistor counts are 57,700 million for the AMD part, while the NVIDIA part is unknown. Transistor density is 109.1M per mm² for the RX 7900M, with no figure for the N1 16SM.

Clock speeds show distinct profiles. The RX 7900M has a base of 1825 MHz and boost of 2090 MHz. The N1 16SM has a base of 741 MHz and boost of 2346 MHz. Memory clocks are 2250 MHz (18 Gbps effective) versus 1067 MHz (8.5 Gbps effective).

Memory capacity and type differ completely. The RX 7900M uses 16 GB of GDDR6 with 576.0 GB/s bandwidth. The N1 16SM uses 128 GB of LPDDR5X with 273.2 GB/s bandwidth. Both use a 256 bit bus, but the bandwidth gap is large: the AMD part delivers more than double the throughput.

Compute unit counts differ: 4608 shading units, 288 TMUs, 192 ROPs, and 72 RT cores for the RX 7900M; 2048 shading units, 128 TMUs, 24 ROPs, and 16 RT cores for the N1 16SM. The N1 16SM adds 64 tensor cores, which the RX 7900M lacks. Pixel rate is 401.3 GPixel/s for the AMD part versus 56.30 GPixel/s for the NVIDIA part. Texture rate is 601.9 GTexel/s versus 300.3 GTexel/s.

FP32 performance stands at 38.52 TFLOPS for the RX 7900M and 9.609 TFLOPS for the N1 16SM. FP16 is 77.05 TFLOPS (2:1) versus 9.609 TFLOPS (1:1). The TDP is 180 W for the RX 7900M, while the N1 16SM's TDP is unknown.

Bus interfaces differ: PCIe 4.0 x16 versus PCIe 5.0 x16. Display outputs are portable device dependent versus 1x HDMI. API support: the RX 7900M lists DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4; the N1 16SM lists N/A for all three. Release dates are 2023-10-18 for the RX 7900M and 2026-05-31 for the N1 16SM. The RX 7900M has a predecessor (Polaris Mobile), while the N1 16SM has none.

The Verdict

The recorded data indicates two GPUs aimed at different roles. The RX 7900M is a high-performance mobile discrete GPU with strong compute and graphics scores. Its 94th percentile ranking, average benchmark score of 97487, and individual results (3DMark Steel Nomad 4201, Geekbench OpenCL 129499, Geekbench Vulkan 158760) place it among the top tier of all GPUs. Its nearest rivals cluster around the 91,000 to 101,000 average score range, with the RX 7900M landing between them, within 4.3% of the leading Quadro RTX 6000 and 6.3% ahead of the RTX A4500.

The N1 16SM presents a different profile entirely. With no benchmark scores, no average score, and no nearest rivals, the database contains no performance evidence for this GPU. Its 50th percentile is a median placement, but that ranking is not supported by any measurements. The specification sheet shows a very large memory pool (128 GB), a low pixel rate (56.30 GPixel/s), and a modest FP32 output of 9.609 TFLOPS. The lack of API support (DirectX N/A, OpenGL N/A, Vulkan N/A) suggests this part is not oriented toward conventional graphics workloads.

The RX 7900M delivers far higher raw throughput in every recorded compute metric: 4x the FP32, 8x the FP16, 7x the pixel rate, 2x the texture rate, and more than double the memory bandwidth. The N1 16SM counters with 8x the memory capacity, a higher boost clock, tensor cores, and PCIe 5.0 support. For graphics-centric tasks, the RX 7900M's data is unequivocal. For the N1 16SM, the absence of benchmarks means no performance verdict can be rendered from the database.

Where Each One Wins

The RX 7900M wins in every benchmarked category. Its 38.52 TFLOPS FP32 and 77.05 TFLOPS FP16 dominate the N1 16SM's 9.609 TFLOPS in both precisions. The 576.0 GB/s memory bandwidth versus 273.2 GB/s gives the AMD part a clear edge in bandwidth-intensive workloads. The pixel rate of 401.3 GPixel/s versus 56.30 GPixel/s indicates a large advantage in rasterization throughput. The texture rate of 601.9 GTexel/s versus 300.3 GTexel/s doubles the fill capacity. The RX 7900M also supports DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, while the N1 16SM lists no API support.

The N1 16SM holds advantages in specific areas based on its specification sheet. The 128 GB memory capacity is eight times the RX 7900M's 16 GB, which matters for massive datasets that exceed the AMD part's capacity. The 2346 MHz boost clock exceeds the RX 7900M's 2090 MHz, potentially improving single-threaded or lightly loaded scenarios. The 64 tensor cores provide dedicated hardware for tensor operations, which the RX 7900M does not list. The PCIe 5.0 x16 interface doubles the bus generation compared to PCIe 4.0 x16. The 382 mm² die is smaller than the 529 mm² die, which could imply lower manufacturing cost per wafer, though no pricing data exists.

For use cases, the RX 7900M suits graphics-intensive applications: gaming, rendering, and compute workloads that leverage its high FP32 and FP16 rates, large bandwidth, and full graphics API support. The N1 16SM, with its massive memory pool, tensor cores, and absence of conventional graphics APIs, appears oriented toward memory-heavy or AI-adjacent tasks where capacity and tensor throughput matter more than rasterization speed. The database shows no benchmarks for the N1 16SM, so its actual performance remains unmeasured.