AMD Radeon RX 9070 GRE vs NVIDIA N1 16SM Comparison

The Verdict

The recorded data draws a sharp contrast between these two processors. The AMD Radeon RX 9070 GRE is a dedicated discrete graphics card built for rendering performance, occupying the 87th percentile among all GPUs in the database. The NVIDIA N1 16SM, by contrast, sits at the 50th percentile and functions as an integrated graphics processor (IGP) with a radically different design brief. The data indicates these are not direct competitors; the RX 9070 GRE delivers roughly 3.5 times the FP32 compute throughput of the N1 16SM (34.28 TFLOPS versus 9.609 TFLOPS) and more than 1.5 times the memory bandwidth (432.0 GB/s versus 273.2 GB/s).

The AMD part is the clear choice for any workload requiring sustained graphics throughput, given its superior pixel rate (267.8 GPixel/s versus 56.30 GPixel/s) and texture rate (535.7 GTexel/s versus 300.3 GTexel/s). The N1 16SM, however, offers 128 GB of LPDDR5X memory on a 256-bit bus, a capacity that dwarfs the 12 GB GDDR6 allocation of the RX 9070 GRE. For data-intensive tasks that need massive memory capacity rather than raw shading power, the NVIDIA part has a structural advantage. The benchmark database shows no direct head-to-head tests between the two, so conclusions must be drawn from their individual specification sheets and the available average scores.

Architecture Differences

The architectural split is fundamental. The RX 9070 GRE uses the Navi 48 chip built on RDNA 4.0, manufactured on a 4 nm TSMC process. It packs 53,900 million transistors into a 357 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 151.0 million transistors per mm². The N1 16SM uses the GB20B chip on Blackwell 2.0, fabricated on a 5 nm TSMC process with a slightly larger die at 382 mm². Transistor counts for the NVIDIA chip are not recorded in the database.

Shader resources differ substantially. The RX 9070 GRE carries 3,072 shading units, 192 texture mapping units, and 96 raster operations pipelines. The N1 16SM has 2,048 shading units, 128 TMUs, and only 24 ROPs. Ray tracing hardware follows a similar pattern: the AMD part has 48 RT cores, while the NVIDIA part has 16 RT cores. The NVIDIA chip does include 64 tensor cores, a feature entirely absent from the AMD specification sheet.

Clock behavior also diverges. The RX 9070 GRE lists a base clock of 1420 MHz, a game clock of 2220 MHz, and a boost clock of 2790 MHz. The N1 16SM runs much lower at a 741 MHz base and 2346 MHz boost, which explains its comparatively modest compute figures despite similar process technology vintage. Memory architecture is another major fork: the AMD card uses 12 GB of GDDR6 on a 192-bit bus, while the NVIDIA IGP uses 128 GB of LPDDR5X on a 256-bit bus. The AMD memory runs at 2250 MHz (18 Gbps effective) versus 1067 MHz (8.5 Gbps effective) for the NVIDIA part.

Where Each One Wins

The RX 9070 GRE wins decisively in rasterization performance. Its pixel rate of 267.8 GPixel/s is nearly five times the N1 16SM's 56.30 GPixel/s. Texture fill also favors AMD at 535.7 GTexel/s versus 300.3 GTexel/s. The FP32 compute advantage, 34.28 TFLOPS against 9.609 TFLOPS, indicates the AMD card handles shader-heavy workloads with far greater headroom. The RX 9070 GRE also benefits from a 220 W TDP and dual-slot cooling with 2x 8-pin power connectors, reflecting its design as a performance-oriented add-in board.

The N1 16SM wins on memory capacity and integration. Its 128 GB of LPDDR5X memory is more than ten times the capacity of the AMD card, which could matter for large datasets or virtualized workloads where capacity trumps speed. The IGP form factor requires no power connectors and no expansion slot beyond PCIe 5.0 x16, making it suitable for systems where a discrete card is impractical. The 64 tensor cores give the NVIDIA part a dedicated path for AI inference tasks, a capability the AMD card does not list. The N1 16SM also uses less aggressive clock speeds, which may imply lower thermal demands, though its TDP is not recorded in the database.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has higher FP32 compute performance?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 9070 GRE delivers 34.28 TFLOPS, while the NVIDIA N1 16SM delivers 9.609 TFLOPS. The AMD card is about 3.5 times faster in this metric.

Q: How do their memory configurations compare?

A: The RX 9070 GRE has 12 GB of GDDR6 on a 192-bit bus with 432.0 GB/s bandwidth. The N1 16SM has 128 GB of LPDDR5X on a 256-bit bus with 273.2 GB/s bandwidth. The AMD card has higher bandwidth, but the NVIDIA part has far more capacity.

Q: What are the production statuses of these two parts?

A: Both are listed as Active in the database. The RX 9070 GRE was released on May 7, 2025, while the N1 16SM has a release date of May 31, 2026.

Q: Does the N1 16SM support DirectX, OpenGL, or Vulkan?

A: The database lists DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan support as N/A for the NVIDIA N1 16SM. The RX 9070 GRE supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4.

Q: How does the RX 9070 GRE rank against all GPUs in the database?

A: It sits in the 87th percentile with an average benchmark score of 57,367. Its nearest rivals include the Intel Arc A580 (57,756, 0.7% ahead), the AMD Radeon RX 5600 OEM (58,085, 1.2% ahead), the Intel Arc A570M (58,239, 1.5% ahead), and the AMD Radeon RX 6950 XT (58,392, 1.8% ahead).

Q: What is the process node difference?

A: The RX 9070 GRE uses a 4 nm TSMC process, while the N1 16SM uses a 5 nm TSMC process. The AMD chip achieves a transistor density of 151.0 million per mm²; the NVIDIA chip's density is not recorded.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains no direct head-to-head benchmark entries between the RX 9070 GRE and the N1 16SM, and the NVIDIA part has no recorded benchmark scores or nearest rivals. The comparison therefore relies on the specification-level data and the AMD card's independently measured results.

The RX 9070 GRE scores 5,424 in 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 and 109,309 in Geekbench OpenCL. Its average benchmark score across the database is 57,367. The N1 16SM has an average benchmark score of 0 with no individual test results recorded, which complicates any quantitative comparison. The percentile rankings tell the story: 87th for AMD versus 50th for NVIDIA.

The largest performance gaps appear in fixed-function throughput. The RX 9070 GRE's 267.8 GPixel/s pixel rate is approximately 4.76 times the N1 16SM's 56.30 GPixel/s. Texture rate shows a smaller but still significant gap: 535.7 GTexel/s versus 300.3 GTexel/s, a factor of roughly 1.78. FP32 compute, at 34.28 TFLOPS versus 9.609 TFLOPS, gives the AMD card a 3.57x lead. Memory bandwidth favors AMD by a factor of 1.58, with 432.0 GB/s versus 273.2 GB/s.

The N1 16SM counters with memory capacity: 128 GB versus 12 GB is a 10.67x advantage. It also has 64 tensor cores where the AMD card lists none, and its 382 mm² die is slightly larger than the AMD's 357 mm². The NVIDIA part's base clock of 741 MHz is dramatically lower than the AMD's 1420 MHz, but its boost clock of 2346 MHz approaches the AMD's 2790 MHz. These figures suggest the N1 16SM relies on burst behavior rather than sustained clock rates.

Specification Differences

The two parts differ across nearly every recorded specification. Process node: 4 nm for AMD, 5 nm for NVIDIA. Die size: 357 mm² for AMD, 382 mm² for NVIDIA. Transistor count: 53,900 million for AMD, unknown for NVIDIA. Transistor density: 151.0M per mm² for AMD, not recorded for NVIDIA.

Clock speeds: AMD runs at 1420 MHz base and 2790 MHz boost with a 2220 MHz game clock; NVIDIA runs at 741 MHz base and 2346 MHz boost with no game clock listed. Memory clocks: AMD at 2250 MHz (18 Gbps effective), NVIDIA at 1067 MHz (8.5 Gbps effective). Memory type and bus: AMD uses 12 GB GDDR6 on 192-bit; NVIDIA uses 128 GB LPDDR5X on 256-bit. Bandwidth: 432.0 GB/s for AMD, 273.2 GB/s for NVIDIA.

Compute units: AMD has 3,072 shaders, 192 TMUs, 96 ROPs, and 48 RT cores; NVIDIA has 2,048 shaders, 128 TMUs, 24 ROPs, and 16 RT cores. Tensor cores: NVIDIA has 64, AMD lists none. Pixel and texture rates: AMD at 267.8 GPixel/s and 535.7 GTexel/s; NVIDIA at 56.30 GPixel/s and 300.3 GTexel/s. FP32 and FP16: AMD at 34.28 TFLOPS (1:1 ratio); NVIDIA at 9.609 TFLOPS (1:1 ratio).

Power and physical design: AMD has a 220 W TDP, dual-slot width, 2x 8-pin connectors, and a 550 W suggested PSU; NVIDIA has unknown TDP, IGP slot width, no power connectors, and no suggested PSU. Bus interface: both use PCIe 5.0 x16. Display outputs: AMD offers 1x HDMI 2.1b and 3x DisplayPort 2.1a; NVIDIA offers a single HDMI output. API support: AMD lists DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4; NVIDIA lists N/A for all three. Release dates: AMD on May 7, 2025; NVIDIA on May 31, 2026. The AMD part has a recorded launch MSRP of 549 USD; the NVIDIA part has no launch MSRP recorded.