AMD Steam Machine GPU vs NVIDIA N1 16SM Comparison

FAQ

Q: What are the two GPUs compared here?

A: The AMD Steam Machine GPU, a Console GPU (Valve) based on the Navi 33 chip with RDNA 3.0 architecture, and the NVIDIA N1 16SM, a Blackwell IGP (N1x) based on the GB20B chip with Blackwell 2.0 architecture.

Q: Which GPU has the higher FP32 compute throughput?

A: The AMD Steam Machine GPU delivers 17.56 TFLOPS FP32, which is substantially higher than the NVIDIA N1 16SM's 9.609 TFLOPS FP32. The AMD part is roughly 83% ahead in raw FP32 throughput.

Q: How do the memory configurations differ?

A: The AMD Steam Machine GPU uses 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus with 288.0 GB/s bandwidth. The NVIDIA N1 16SM uses 128 GB of LPDDR5X on a 256-bit bus with 273.2 GB/s bandwidth. The NVIDIA part has far more capacity, while the AMD part has slightly higher bandwidth.

Q: Which GPU has more shading units?

A: The NVIDIA N1 16SM has 2048 shading units, compared to 1792 on the AMD Steam Machine GPU. The NVIDIA part also has more TMUs (128 vs 112) and includes 64 tensor cores, while the AMD part does not list tensor cores.

Q: What are the pixel rates for each GPU?

A: The AMD Steam Machine GPU achieves a pixel rate of 156.8 GPixel/s, while the NVIDIA N1 16SM delivers 56.30 GPixel/s. The AMD part is more than 2.7 times higher in pixel throughput.

Q: Which GPU has a higher boost clock?

A: The AMD Steam Machine GPU boosts to 2450 MHz, while the NVIDIA N1 16SM boosts to 2346 MHz. The AMD part also runs a higher base clock at 1720 MHz versus 741 MHz on the NVIDIA part.

Architecture Differences

The AMD Steam Machine GPU and the NVIDIA N1 16SM represent two fundamentally different design approaches. The AMD part uses RDNA 3.0 architecture on a 6 nm process at TSMC, with the Navi 33 chip carrying the codename Hotpink Bonefish. The NVIDIA N1 16SM is built on Blackwell 2.0 architecture, uses the GB20B chip, and is fabricated on a 5 nm process at TSMC. The process node difference gives the NVIDIA part a smaller transistor geometry, though the AMD part has a documented transistor count of 13,300 million on a 204 mm² die, resulting in a transistor density of 65.2M per mm². The NVIDIA die is larger at 382 mm², but its transistor count is not recorded in the database.

Ray tracing hardware differs between the two. The AMD Steam Machine GPU includes 28 RT cores, while the NVIDIA N1 16SM has 16 RT cores. The NVIDIA part also includes 64 tensor cores, a feature not listed on the AMD side. Shader organization favors NVIDIA in raw unit counts: 2048 shading units and 128 TMUs versus 1792 shading units and 112 TMUs on the AMD part. However, the AMD part has 64 ROPs, which is nearly 2.7 times the 24 ROPs on the NVIDIA part. This ROP advantage directly explains the large pixel rate gap.

The NVIDIA N1 16SM is classified as an IGP (integrated graphics processor) with a slot width designation of IGP, while the AMD Steam Machine GPU is a discrete console GPU. The NVIDIA part connects via PCIe 5.0 x16, whereas the AMD part does not list a bus interface. Both GPUs require no power connectors. Display outputs differ as well: the AMD part provides 1x HDMI 2.1a and 1x DisplayPort 2.1, while the NVIDIA part lists only 1x HDMI.

API support separates the two clearly. The AMD Steam Machine GPU supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The NVIDIA N1 16SM lists DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan as N/A. This makes the AMD part the only one of the two with documented modern graphics API compatibility.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded head-to-head benchmark list is empty, so the comparison relies on the technical specifications in the database. The largest advantage for the AMD Steam Machine GPU appears in pixel throughput. The AMD part delivers 156.8 GPixel/s against 56.30 GPixel/s on the NVIDIA N1 16SM, a lead of approximately 2.8 times. This stems from the 64 ROPs on the AMD side versus 24 ROPs on the NVIDIA side.

FP32 compute also favors the AMD part decisively. The AMD Steam Machine GPU reaches 17.56 TFLOPS, while the NVIDIA N1 16SM reaches 9.609 TFLOPS. The AMD part leads by roughly 7.95 TFLOPS, which is about 83% higher. FP16 performance is identical to FP32 on both parts at a 1:1 ratio, so the same margin applies in half-precision workloads.

Texture throughput is one area where the NVIDIA part pulls ahead. The NVIDIA N1 16SM achieves 300.3 GTexel/s against 274.4 GTexel/s on the AMD Steam Machine GPU, a lead of about 9.4%. This comes from the NVIDIA part's higher TMU count (128 versus 112), which offsets its lower clock speeds.

Memory bandwidth is close between the two. The AMD Steam Machine GPU has 288.0 GB/s, and the NVIDIA N1 16SM has 273.2 GB/s. The AMD part leads by about 5.4%, despite the NVIDIA part having a wider 256-bit bus. The AMD part compensates with a much higher memory clock of 2250 MHz (18 Gbps effective) versus 1067 MHz (8.5 Gbps effective) on the NVIDIA part.

Clock speeds favor the AMD part across the board. The AMD Steam Machine GPU runs a base clock of 1720 MHz and a boost clock of 2450 MHz, with a game clock of 2250 MHz. The NVIDIA N1 16SM runs a base clock of 741 MHz and a boost of 2346 MHz. The AMD base clock is more than double the NVIDIA base clock, which explains much of the compute advantage despite the NVIDIA part having more shading units.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ across nearly every recorded specification field. Process node: 6 nm on the AMD part, 5 nm on the NVIDIA part. Die size: 204 mm² on the AMD part, 382 mm² on the NVIDIA part. Transistor count: 13,300 million on the AMD part, unknown on the NVIDIA part. Transistor density: 65.2M per mm² on the AMD part, not recorded on the NVIDIA part.

Memory configuration: 8 GB GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus with 288.0 GB/s bandwidth on the AMD part, versus 128 GB LPDDR5X on a 256-bit bus with 273.2 GB/s bandwidth on the NVIDIA part. Memory clock: 2250 MHz (18 Gbps effective) on the AMD part, 1067 MHz (8.5 Gbps effective) on the NVIDIA part.

Compute units: 1792 shading units, 112 TMUs, 64 ROPs, 28 RT cores on the AMD part, versus 2048 shading units, 128 TMUs, 24 ROPs, 16 RT cores, and 64 tensor cores on the NVIDIA part. Pixel rate: 156.8 GPixel/s on the AMD part, 56.30 GPixel/s on the NVIDIA part. Texture rate: 274.4 GTexel/s on the AMD part, 300.3 GTexel/s on the NVIDIA part. FP32 and FP16: 17.56 TFLOPS on the AMD part, 9.609 TFLOPS on the NVIDIA part.

Power: 110 W TDP on the AMD part, unknown TDP on the NVIDIA part. Neither requires power connectors. Form factor: the NVIDIA part is an IGP, the AMD part is a discrete console GPU. Bus interface: PCIe 5.0 x16 on the NVIDIA part, not listed on the AMD part. Display outputs: 1x HDMI 2.1a and 1x DisplayPort 2.1 on the AMD part, 1x HDMI on the NVIDIA part. API support: DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, Vulkan 1.4 on the AMD part; N/A on all three for the NVIDIA part. Dimensions: the AMD part measures 156 mm by 152 mm by 162 mm, while the NVIDIA part has no recorded dimensions. Release dates: the AMD part released on 2026-06-28, the NVIDIA part on 2026-05-31. Both are listed as Active in production.

The Verdict

The data presents two very different products. The AMD Steam Machine GPU is built for traditional graphics workloads with full API support, high pixel throughput, and strong FP32 compute. The NVIDIA N1 16SM is an integrated processor with a massive 128 GB memory pool, tensor cores, and a wider memory bus, but it lacks documented API support and falls well behind in pixel rate and FP32 performance.

For gaming and general graphics rendering, the AMD Steam Machine GPU is the stronger part on paper. Its 17.56 TFLOPS FP32, 156.8 GPixel/s pixel rate, and DirectX 12 Ultimate support align with what modern games require. The NVIDIA N1 16SM cannot match these figures, and with DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan all listed as N/A, its role in conventional gaming is unclear from the recorded data.

For memory capacity and AI-adjacent workloads, the NVIDIA N1 16SM has clear advantages. Its 128 GB of LPDDR5X is 16 times the capacity of the AMD part, and its 64 tensor cores provide hardware not present on the AMD side. The NVIDIA part also offers a higher texture rate at 300.3 GTexel/s, which could benefit texture-heavy tasks that do not depend on pixel output.

Both GPUs sit at the 50th percentile against all GPUs in the database, with average benchmark scores of zero, so neither has recorded performance data to separate them empirically. The specification analysis must stand on its own.

Where Each One Wins

AMD Steam Machine GPU wins in:

• FP32 compute: 17.56 TFLOPS versus 9.609 TFLOPS, a lead of roughly 83%.
• FP16 compute: 17.56 TFLOPS versus 9.609 TFLOPS, same margin.
• Pixel rate: 156.8 GPixel/s versus 56.30 GPixel/s, a lead of about 2.8 times.
• Memory bandwidth: 288.0 GB/s versus 273.2 GB/s, a lead of about 5.4%.
• ROP count: 64 versus 24.
• RT core count: 28 versus 16.
• Clock speeds: base 1720 MHz versus 741 MHz, boost 2450 MHz versus 2346 MHz.
• API support: DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, Vulkan 1.4 versus N/A on all.
• Display outputs: 1x HDMI 2.1a plus 1x DisplayPort 2.1 versus 1x HDMI.
• Power efficiency: 110 W TDP documented on the AMD part, unknown on the NVIDIA part.

NVIDIA N1 16SM wins in:

• Memory capacity: 128 GB versus 8 GB, a 16-fold advantage.
• Shading units: 2048 versus 1792.
• TMUs: 128 versus 112.
• Tensor cores: 64 versus none listed.
• Texture rate: 300.3 GTexel/s versus 274.4 GTexel/s, a lead of about 9.4%.
• Memory bus width: 256-bit versus 128-bit.
• Process node: 5 nm versus 6 nm.
• Bus interface: PCIe 5.0 x16 versus not listed.

The AMD Steam Machine GPU is the clear choice for rasterization-heavy graphics work, given its massive pixel rate and compute advantages plus full API support. The NVIDIA N1 16SM is positioned for workloads that need enormous memory capacity and tensor core acceleration, though its lack of documented graphics API support limits its applicability in standard gaming scenarios. The two parts target different roles, and the recorded data supports each one only in its respective domain.