AMD Steam Deck OLED GPU vs NVIDIA N1 20SM Comparison

The Verdict

The recorded data presents a stark contrast between two very different GPU implementations. The AMD Steam Deck OLED GPU is a compact, power-efficient console part built on RDNA 2.0, while the NVIDIA N1 20SM is a large Blackwell 2.0 IGP with substantially higher raw specifications. Benchmark results indicate the NVIDIA N1 20SM holds a decisive advantage in nearly every measurable performance category, driven by its larger shader array, higher clock speeds, and broader memory interface. The AMD part, however, retains its role as a tightly integrated mobile solution with a specific thermal envelope.

Users constrained to a 15 W power budget will find the AMD Steam Deck OLED GPU to be the only viable option in this pairing, as the NVIDIA part has no recorded TDP. The data shows the NVIDIA N1 20SM is positioned for scenarios where raw throughput and memory capacity matter more than power draw. The AMD GPU delivers 1.638 TFLOPS of FP32 compute, while the NVIDIA part delivers 12.01 TFLOPS, a 7.3x difference. This places the NVIDIA part in a different performance class entirely.

The percentile data shows both parts sitting at the 50th percentile against all GPUs in the database, which reflects the database's normalization but does not reflect the head-to-head gap. For any workload that scales with shader count, texture throughput, or memory bandwidth, the NVIDIA N1 20SM is the clear choice. For a portable, fixed-power console environment, the AMD Steam Deck OLED GPU is the only part with a defined power constraint, making it the practical selection for that use case.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different architectural generations and design philosophies. The AMD Steam Deck OLED GPU uses the Sephiroth chip on a 6 nm TSMC process, packing 2,400 million transistors into a 131 mm² die, resulting in a transistor density of 18.3M per mm². The NVIDIA N1 20SM uses the GB20B chip on a 5 nm TSMC process, with a die size of 382 mm². Transistor count for the NVIDIA part is not recorded in the database.

Shader resources differ significantly. The AMD GPU has 512 shading units, 32 texture mapping units, and 16 ROPs. The NVIDIA N1 20SM has 2,560 shading units, 160 TMUs, and 24 ROPs. This 5x difference in shader count and 5x difference in TMUs explains the massive gap in texture rate: 51.20 GTexel/s for AMD versus 375.4 GTexel/s for NVIDIA. Pixel rate also favors NVIDIA, with 56.30 GPixel/s versus 25.60 GPixel/s for AMD.

Ray tracing and AI acceleration also differ. The AMD part includes 8 ray tracing cores and no tensor cores. The NVIDIA part includes 20 ray tracing cores and 80 tensor cores, giving it dedicated hardware for AI workloads that the AMD part lacks entirely. The FP16 data confirms this: AMD achieves 3.277 TFLOPS via a 2:1 ratio, while NVIDIA achieves 12.01 TFLOPS at a 1:1 ratio, indicating a different compute architecture.

Memory configurations show a major divergence. The AMD GPU uses 16 GB of LPDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, delivering 176.0 GB/s of bandwidth with memory clocked at 1375 MHz (11 Gbps effective). The NVIDIA N1 20SM uses 128 GB of LPDDR5X on a 256-bit bus, delivering 273.2 GB/s at 1067 MHz (8.5 Gbps effective). The NVIDIA part has 8x the memory capacity and 1.55x the bandwidth. The AMD part's base clock is 1000 MHz with a boost of 1600 MHz, while the NVIDIA part runs at a 741 MHz base and 2346 MHz boost. The NVIDIA boost clock is 46.6% higher than the AMD boost clock.

Process node and physical dimensions also differ. The AMD chip is 6 nm and the NVIDIA chip is 5 nm, both from TSMC. The AMD GPU is part of a 298 mm long, 117 mm high, 49 mm wide device. The NVIDIA part is an IGP with no recorded dimensions. The NVIDIA part uses a PCIe 5.0 x16 bus interface, while the AMD part has no recorded bus interface. Display outputs differ as well: AMD uses 1x USB Type-C, and NVIDIA uses 1x HDMI. API support is complete on the AMD side (DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, Vulkan 1.3), while the NVIDIA part has no recorded API support in the database.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The largest single win for the NVIDIA N1 20SM is in FP32 compute. The NVIDIA part delivers 12.01 TFLOPS versus 1.638 TFLOPS for AMD, a 7.33x advantage. This is the dominant metric for general-purpose GPU compute and directly impacts shader-heavy workloads. The texture rate follows a similar pattern: 375.4 GTexel/s versus 51.20 GTexel/s, a 7.33x difference. These two metrics alone indicate that the NVIDIA part processes geometry and texture-bound scenes at a much higher rate.

Memory bandwidth favors NVIDIA by a smaller margin. The NVIDIA part delivers 273.2 GB/s versus 176.0 GB/s for AMD, a 1.55x advantage. The bus width doubles from 128-bit to 256-bit, and the memory type moves from LPDDR5 to LPDDR5X. Capacity jumps from 16 GB to 128 GB, which is an 8x increase and the largest capacity difference in the comparison. Pixel rate favors NVIDIA at 56.30 GPixel/s versus 25.60 GPixel/s, a 2.20x advantage, reflecting the higher ROP count and clock speed.

Clock behavior differs in an interesting way. The NVIDIA part has a lower base clock (741 MHz versus 1000 MHz) but a much higher boost clock (2346 MHz versus 1600 MHz). The boost delta is 746 MHz, or 46.6% higher on the NVIDIA side. This suggests the NVIDIA part has a wider dynamic range and can scale to significantly higher frequencies under load, while the AMD part operates in a tighter frequency window.

The AMD GPU wins in transistor density. At 18.3M transistors per mm², it packs more transistors per area than the NVIDIA part, which has no recorded density figure. The AMD die is also far smaller at 131 mm² versus 382 mm², making it 2.92x smaller. This indicates the AMD part is optimized for space-constrained designs. The AMD part also has a defined TDP of 15 W, while the NVIDIA part has no recorded TDP, meaning power efficiency cannot be compared directly from the data.

FP16 compute shows a divergence in architecture. The AMD part achieves 3.277 TFLOPS, exactly double its FP32 rate, indicating a 2:1 FP16 ratio. The NVIDIA part achieves 12.01 TFLOPS, identical to its FP32 rate, indicating a 1:1 ratio. This means the NVIDIA part does not gain additional throughput from FP16 workloads, but its raw FP16 output is still 3.66x higher than AMD's.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher raw compute performance?

A: The NVIDIA N1 20SM. It delivers 12.01 TFLOPS of FP32 compute, while the AMD Steam Deck OLED GPU delivers 1.638 TFLOPS, a 7.33x advantage for NVIDIA.

Q: How do the memory systems compare?

A: The NVIDIA N1 20SM uses 128 GB of LPDDR5X on a 256-bit bus with 273.2 GB/s bandwidth. The AMD Steam Deck OLED GPU uses 16 GB of LPDDR5 on a 128-bit bus with 176.0 GB/s bandwidth. NVIDIA has 8x the capacity and 1.55x the bandwidth.

Q: Does the AMD GPU have a power consumption advantage?

A: The AMD Steam Deck OLED GPU has a recorded TDP of 15 W. The NVIDIA N1 20SM has no recorded TDP in the database, so no direct power comparison can be made.

Q: What is the difference in ray tracing and AI hardware?

A: The AMD GPU has 8 ray tracing cores and no tensor cores. The NVIDIA N1 20SM has 20 ray tracing cores and 80 tensor cores, giving it dedicated AI acceleration hardware that the AMD part lacks.

Q: Which GPU has higher clock speeds?

A: The NVIDIA N1 20SM has a higher boost clock at 2346 MHz versus 1600 MHz for AMD, a 46.6% difference. The AMD part has a higher base clock at 1000 MHz versus 741 MHz for NVIDIA.

Q: What are the physical differences between the two chips?

A: The AMD Sephiroth chip is 131 mm² on a 6 nm TSMC process with 2,400 million transistors. The NVIDIA GB20B chip is 382 mm² on a 5 nm TSMC process. The AMD die is 2.92x smaller, and its transistor density is 18.3M per mm².

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA N1 20SM wins in every raw performance metric recorded in the database. FP32 compute is 7.33x higher, texture rate is 7.33x higher, pixel rate is 2.20x higher, and memory bandwidth is 1.55x higher. The NVIDIA part also has 8x the memory capacity, 80 tensor cores versus none, and 20 ray tracing cores versus 8. The boost clock is 46.6% higher. For any workload that scales with shader throughput, texture fill, or memory bandwidth, the NVIDIA part is the superior choice. The 128 GB memory pool and 80 tensor cores make it particularly suited for large datasets and AI-accelerated workloads, assuming the software stack supports them.

The AMD Steam Deck OLED GPU wins in physical efficiency and integration. Its die is 2.92x smaller, its transistor density is higher at 18.3M per mm², and it has a defined 15 W TDP. It uses a USB Type-C display output, while the NVIDIA part uses HDMI. The AMD part has full API support recorded (DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, Vulkan 1.3), while the NVIDIA part has no API support recorded. The AMD GPU is the only part in this comparison with a known power envelope, making it the practical choice for battery-powered or thermally constrained devices. Its smaller die size also suggests lower manufacturing cost per wafer, though pricing data is not available.

The architecture split is clear. AMD uses RDNA 2.0 with a 2:1 FP16 ratio, while NVIDIA uses Blackwell 2.0 with a 1:1 FP16 ratio. The NVIDIA part's tensor cores provide dedicated AI hardware, and its ray tracing core count is 2.5x higher. The AMD part relies on a smaller, denser chip design with a fixed 15 W power target. The database shows both parts at the 50th percentile against all GPUs, but the head-to-head metrics place NVIDIA far ahead in absolute performance. The AMD GPU is the appropriate choice for a compact, power-limited console form factor; the NVIDIA N1 20SM is the appropriate choice for maximum throughput in a larger system.