AMD Ryzen Z1 Extreme GPU vs NVIDIA N1X 40SM Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data contains no direct benchmark scores for either the AMD Ryzen Z1 Extreme GPU or the NVIDIA N1X 40SM. Both entries show an average benchmark score of zero and no entries in the head-to-head benchmark list. The percentile versus all GPUs is identical for both parts at 50, placing them at the midpoint of the database distribution despite the absence of measured performance data. With zero wins recorded for each side, the head-to-head comparison cannot be resolved through empirical testing results.

What can be established from the database is the theoretical compute ceiling each part is designed to deliver. The NVIDIA N1X 40SM carries a FP32 throughput of 24.02 TFLOPS, which is significantly higher than the AMD Ryzen Z1 Extreme GPU's 8.294 TFLOPS. This represents a raw arithmetic advantage of roughly 2.9 times for the NVIDIA part in single-precision floating-point work. The texture rate tells a similar story, with the N1X 40SM reaching 750.7 GTexel/s compared to 129.6 GTexel/s for the AMD chip, a gap of approximately 5.8 times. The pixel rate is closer, with the NVIDIA part at 93.84 GPixel/s versus 86.40 GPixel/s for the AMD part, a modest 8.6% advantage.

The memory subsystem also diverges sharply. The NVIDIA N1X 40SM uses 128 GB of LPDDR5X across a 256-bit bus, yielding 273.2 GB/s of bandwidth. The AMD Ryzen Z1 Extreme GPU uses 16 GB of LPDDR5 across a 64-bit bus, yielding 51.20 GB/s. The bandwidth ratio is approximately 5.3 times in favor of the NVIDIA part. These figures indicate that any benchmark comparing the two would likely show a substantial performance lead for the N1X 40SM in compute-heavy and memory-bandwidth-intensive workloads, though the database currently lacks the scores to confirm this empirically.

FAQ

Q: What is the FP32 compute difference between the two parts?

A: The NVIDIA N1X 40SM delivers 24.02 TFLOPS, while the AMD Ryzen Z1 Extreme GPU delivers 8.294 TFLOPS. The NVIDIA part is about 2.9 times higher in raw FP32 throughput.

Q: How do the memory configurations compare?

A: The AMD part uses 16 GB of LPDDR5 on a 64-bit bus with 51.20 GB/s bandwidth. The NVIDIA part uses 128 GB of LPDDR5X on a 256-bit bus with 273.2 GB/s bandwidth, roughly 5.3 times the bandwidth of the AMD chip.

Q: Which GPU has more shading units?

A: The NVIDIA N1X 40SM has 5120 shading units. The AMD Ryzen Z1 Extreme GPU has 768 shading units.

Q: What are the boost clocks of each GPU?

A: The AMD Ryzen Z1 Extreme GPU boosts to 2700 MHz. The NVIDIA N1X 40SM boosts to 2346 MHz.

Q: Do both parts support the same API level?

A: No. The AMD part lists DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The NVIDIA part lists N/A for DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan.

Q: What is the TDP of each part?

A: The AMD Ryzen Z1 Extreme GPU has a TDP of 30 W. The NVIDIA N1X 40SM has an unknown TDP in the database.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear split in intended use cases. The NVIDIA N1X 40SM, with its 24.02 TFLOPS FP32, 750.7 GTexel/s texture rate, 5120 shading units, and 273.2 GB/s of memory bandwidth, is positioned for high-throughput compute and graphics workloads. The AMD Ryzen Z1 Extreme GPU, with 8.294 TFLOPS, 129.6 GTexel/s, 768 shading units, and 51.20 GB/s, occupies a lower-power, more constrained segment. The AMD part's TDP of 30 W versus an unknown TDP for the NVIDIA part further suggests the AMD chip is designed for power-limited environments.

The lack of benchmark scores means the verdict rests on specification analysis. For applications that prioritize raw arithmetic throughput, texture fill, and memory bandwidth, the NVIDIA N1X 40SM is the stronger selection based on the recorded data. For systems where power draw is a hard constraint, the AMD Ryzen Z1 Extreme GPU's 30 W TDP is a definitive advantage, though its performance ceiling is far lower. The NVIDIA part has no listed launch MSRP, while the AMD part carries a launch MSRP of 699 USD, which is the only pricing data available in the database.

Specification Differences

The two parts differ across nearly every measurable specification. The AMD Ryzen Z1 Extreme GPU uses a 4 nm process node, while the NVIDIA N1X 40SM uses a 5 nm node, both from TSMC. The AMD chip has a die size of 178 mm² with 25,390 million transistors, giving a transistor density of 142.6M per mm². The NVIDIA chip has a die size of 382 mm², with unknown transistor count and density.

Clock speeds differ in both directions. The AMD part has a base clock of 800 MHz and a boost clock of 2700 MHz. The NVIDIA part has a base clock of 741 MHz and a boost clock of 2346 MHz. The memory clock for the AMD part is 800 MHz with 6.4 Gbps effective, while the NVIDIA part runs at 1067 MHz with 8.5 Gbps effective.

The memory capacity and type are fundamentally different: the AMD part has 16 GB of LPDDR5 on a 64-bit bus with 51.20 GB/s, while the NVIDIA part has 128 GB of LPDDR5X on a 256-bit bus with 273.2 GB/s. The NVIDIA part has a PCIe 5.0 x16 bus interface, while the AMD part lists no bus interface. The AMD part's display output is 1x USB Type-C, while the NVIDIA part lists 1x HDMI. The NVIDIA part is classified as an IGP in slot width, while the AMD part has no slot width listed. The AMD part has dimensions of 280 mm length, 111 mm height, and 21 mm width, while the NVIDIA part has no dimensions recorded.

Architecture Differences

The architectures are from different vendors and generations. The AMD Ryzen Z1 Extreme GPU uses the RDNA 3.0 architecture on the Phoenix chip, classified in the Console GPU (AMD) generation. The NVIDIA N1X 40SM uses the Blackwell 2.0 architecture on the GB20B chip, classified in the Blackwell IGP (N1x) generation.

The compute unit configurations diverge significantly. The AMD part has 768 shading units, 48 texture mapping units, 32 raster operation units, and 12 ray tracing cores. The NVIDIA part has 5120 shading units, 320 texture mapping units, 40 raster operation units, and 40 ray tracing cores. The NVIDIA part also includes 160 tensor cores, while the AMD part lists no tensor cores.

The FP16 performance differs in ratio. The AMD part achieves 16.59 TFLOPS with a 2:1 ratio relative to FP32. The NVIDIA part achieves 24.02 TFLOPS with a 1:1 ratio, meaning its FP16 throughput matches its FP32 throughput. The NVIDIA part's pixel rate is 93.84 GPixel/s versus 86.40 GPixel/s for the AMD part. The texture rate is 750.7 GTexel/s versus 129.6 GTexel/s.

API support also differs. The AMD part lists DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The NVIDIA part lists N/A for all three API categories. The AMD part has a TDP of 30 W and no power connectors. The NVIDIA part has an unknown TDP and also lists no power connectors. The release dates are separated by several years in the database: the AMD part was released in 2023, while the NVIDIA part is listed as releasing in 2026.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Ryzen Z1 Extreme GPU wins in scenarios where power efficiency is paramount. Its 30 W TDP is the only power figure recorded for either part, and it is substantially lower than any assumed power draw for the NVIDIA part, whose TDP is unknown. The AMD part also has a smaller die size at 178 mm² versus 382 mm², which may indicate lower manufacturing costs per wafer, though pricing data is limited to the AMD launch MSRP of 699 USD. The AMD part's higher boost clock of 2700 MHz versus 2346 MHz suggests it can reach higher instantaneous clock speeds, though the NVIDIA part compensates with a far larger compute pipeline.

The NVIDIA N1X 40SM wins in every raw performance category recorded. Its FP32 throughput of 24.02 TFLOPS is nearly three times that of the AMD part. Its texture rate of 750.7 GTexel/s is over five times higher. Its memory bandwidth of 273.2 GB/s is over five times higher. Its shading unit count of 5120 is over six times higher. Its ray tracing core count of 40 is over three times higher. Its tensor cores, which the AMD part lacks entirely, number 160. Its pixel rate of 93.84 GPixel/s is higher than the AMD part's 86.40 GPixel/s. The NVIDIA part also supports a PCIe 5.0 x16 interface, which the AMD part does not list.

For workloads that depend on tensor operations, the NVIDIA part is the only option with recorded tensor cores. For ray tracing, the NVIDIA part has 40 cores versus 12. For memory-intensive applications, the NVIDIA part's 128 GB capacity and 256-bit bus provide a decisive advantage. For power-constrained embedded or handheld designs, the AMD part's 30 W TDP and smaller footprint make it the only viable choice based on the data. The NVIDIA part's classification as an IGP and its unknown TDP suggest it may target a different form factor altogether, but the database does not provide the power figures to confirm that hypothesis.