Intel Arc 130T Mobile vs NVIDIA N1 16SM Comparison

The Verdict

The database records two active mobile integrated graphics parts that occupy different performance and feature positions. The Intel Arc 130T Mobile, released on 2025-01-12, uses the Xe-LPG+ architecture on a 5 nm TSMC process, while the NVIDIA N1 16SM, released on 2026-05-31, uses the Blackwell 2.0 architecture on a 5 nm TSMC process with a 382 mm² die. Benchmark results indicate a clear performance hierarchy: the NVIDIA N1 16SM delivers substantially higher raw compute, with 9.609 TFLOPS FP32 versus 3.942 TFLOPS for the Intel part. The data shows the NVIDIA part sits in a different performance tier, despite both parts registering a 50th percentile position among all GPUs in the database.

For users constrained to the Intel platform, the Arc 130T Mobile offers a complete DirectX 12 Ultimate feature set, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4 support. The NVIDIA N1 16SM, however, records N/A for DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan APIs, which indicates a narrower software compatibility profile. The recorded data suggests the NVIDIA part targets compute or specialized workloads rather than general gaming compatibility. The Intel part, with its full API support and 35 W TDP, serves as a general-purpose integrated GPU for portable devices. The NVIDIA part, with 128 GB of LPDDR5X memory and 273.2 GB/s bandwidth, serves workloads that require large memory capacity and high bandwidth, but the API limitations must factor into any selection.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA N1 16SM wins decisively in raw compute throughput. Its FP32 performance of 9.609 TFLOPS is approximately 2.44 times the Intel Arc 130T Mobile's 3.942 TFLOPS. Texture processing also favors NVIDIA heavily: 300.3 GTexel/s versus 123.2 GTexel/s, a 2.44x advantage. Shader resources differ accordingly, with 2048 shading units, 128 TMUs, and 64 tensor cores on the NVIDIA side versus 896 shading units, 56 TMUs, and no listed tensor cores on the Intel side. Ray tracing hardware also favors NVIDIA, with 16 RT cores versus 7 RT cores.

The Intel Arc 130T Mobile wins in pixel throughput and API compatibility. Its pixel rate of 61.60 GPixel/s exceeds the NVIDIA part's 56.30 GPixel/s, a 5.30 GPixel/s margin. The Intel part also supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, while the NVIDIA part lists N/A for all three. The Intel part runs at a 300 MHz base clock and 2200 MHz boost clock, whereas the NVIDIA part runs at 741 MHz base and 2346 MHz boost. The higher boost clock on NVIDIA contributes to its compute advantage, but the Intel part achieves higher pixel throughput despite lower clock speeds, indicating a different rendering pipeline balance.

Memory configuration differs fundamentally. The Intel part uses system shared memory, with bandwidth described as system dependent. The NVIDIA part uses 128 GB of LPDDR5X on a 256 bit bus, delivering 273.2 GB/s at a memory clock of 1067 MHz (8.5 Gbps effective). For workloads that depend on memory capacity or bandwidth, the NVIDIA part holds a clear advantage. For integrated graphics that must share system memory flexibly, the Intel part offers a simpler integration path.

Architecture Differences

The Intel Arc 130T Mobile uses the Xe-LPG+ architecture, built on the Arrow Lake-H chip, and belongs to the Arc Graphics-M (Arrow Lake) generation. The NVIDIA N1 16SM uses the Blackwell 2.0 architecture on the GB20B chip, belonging to the Blackwell IGP (N1x) generation. Both parts are fabricated by TSMC on a 5 nm process node. The NVIDIA die measures 382 mm², while the Intel die size is recorded as unknown.

Shading unit counts differ by more than 2x: 2048 on NVIDIA versus 896 on Intel. Texture mapping units follow the same ratio: 128 versus 56. Raster output units reverse the trend slightly, with 28 on Intel versus 24 on NVIDIA. Ray tracing cores number 16 on NVIDIA and 7 on Intel. Tensor cores appear only on the NVIDIA part, with 64 available; the Intel part lists no tensor core count. The NVIDIA part carries 64 tensor cores, which supports AI-accelerated workloads, while the Intel part's tensor capabilities remain unspecified in the database.

Clock behavior differs. The Intel part has a 300 MHz base clock and a 2200 MHz boost clock. The NVIDIA part has a 741 MHz base clock and a 2346 MHz boost clock. The NVIDIA part therefore operates at higher clocks at both ends of the spectrum. The Intel part's lower base clock suggests a more aggressive power-saving idle state, consistent with its 35 W TDP. The NVIDIA TDP is recorded as unknown, so direct power comparison is not possible from the database.

Memory architecture diverges completely. Intel uses system shared memory with system dependent bandwidth. NVIDIA uses a dedicated 128 GB LPDDR5X pool on a 256 bit bus with 273.2 GB/s bandwidth. The NVIDIA memory clock runs at 1067 MHz with 8.5 Gbps effective data rate. The Intel part has no dedicated memory clock, bus width, or bandwidth figures in the database beyond the shared system designation.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher FP32 compute performance?

A: The NVIDIA N1 16SM delivers 9.609 TFLOPS FP32, which is approximately 2.44 times the Intel Arc 130T Mobile's 3.942 TFLOPS.

Q: Do both GPUs support DirectX 12 Ultimate?

A: No. The Intel Arc 130T Mobile supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The NVIDIA N1 16SM records N/A for DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan.

Q: How much memory does each GPU use?

A: The Intel Arc 130T Mobile uses system shared memory with system dependent bandwidth. The NVIDIA N1 16SM uses 128 GB of LPDDR5X on a 256 bit bus with 273.2 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Which GPU has more ray tracing cores?

A: The NVIDIA N1 16SM has 16 RT cores, while the Intel Arc 130T Mobile has 7 RT cores.

Q: What are the release dates for these parts?

A: The Intel Arc 130T Mobile was released on 2025-01-12. The NVIDIA N1 16SM was released on 2026-05-31.

Q: Which GPU has a higher pixel fill rate?

A: The Intel Arc 130T Mobile has a pixel rate of 61.60 GPixel/s, which exceeds the NVIDIA N1 16SM's 56.30 GPixel/s.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database records no direct head-to-head benchmark scores for these two parts, but the specification data provides a basis for comparison. In FP32 compute, the NVIDIA N1 16SM delivers 9.609 TFLOPS against the Intel Arc 130T Mobile's 3.942 TFLOPS. This represents a 5.667 TFLOPS gap, meaning the NVIDIA part offers roughly 144% more FP32 throughput. The FP16 comparison shows a different ratio: the Intel part reaches 7.885 TFLOPS with a 2:1 ratio, while the NVIDIA part reaches 9.609 TFLOPS with a 1:1 ratio. The NVIDIA part still leads in FP16, but the margin narrows to 1.724 TFLOPS.

Texture fill rate shows the NVIDIA part at 300.3 GTexel/s versus 123.2 GTexel/s for Intel. The 177.1 GTexel/s difference reflects the NVIDIA part's 128 TMUs against Intel's 56 TMUs. Pixel fill rate, however, favors Intel: 61.60 GPixel/s versus 56.30 GPixel/s. This 5.30 GPixel/s advantage for Intel comes despite fewer shading units (896 versus 2048) and fewer TMUs (56 versus 128), which indicates the Intel part's raster pipeline is tuned differently relative to its compute resources.

Memory bandwidth produces the largest single-specification gap. The NVIDIA part records 273.2 GB/s from its 256 bit LPDDR5X interface. The Intel part's bandwidth is system dependent, so no fixed comparison number exists, but the NVIDIA part's dedicated 128 GB pool at 273.2 GB/s establishes a clear capacity and bandwidth advantage for memory-intensive workloads. The Intel part's system shared memory approach ties its bandwidth to the host platform's memory subsystem.

Clock speeds show the NVIDIA part boosting to 2346 MHz versus 2200 MHz for Intel, a 146 MHz difference. Base clocks differ more significantly: 741 MHz for NVIDIA versus 300 MHz for Intel, a 441 MHz gap. The Intel part's lower base clock aligns with its 35 W TDP, while the NVIDIA TDP remains unknown in the database. The NVIDIA part also uses a PCIe 5.0 x16 bus interface, while the Intel part uses an IGP bus interface.

Specification Differences

The two parts differ across nearly every recorded specification. Process node is identical: both use 5 nm TSMC fabrication. Die size differs, with the NVIDIA part at 382 mm² and the Intel part unknown. Transistor counts are unknown for both. Clock speeds differ: Intel base 300 MHz, boost 2200 MHz; NVIDIA base 741 MHz, boost 2346 MHz. Memory configuration differs completely: Intel uses system shared memory, while NVIDIA uses 128 GB LPDDR5X at 1067 MHz (8.5 Gbps effective) on a 256 bit bus with 273.2 GB/s bandwidth.

Compute resources differ: shading units 896 versus 2048, TMUs 56 versus 128, ROPs 28 versus 24, RT cores 7 versus 16, tensor cores null versus 64. Pixel rate favors Intel at 61.60 GPixel/s versus 56.30 GPixel/s. Texture rate favors NVIDIA at 300.3 GTexel/s versus 123.2 GTexel/s. FP32 favors NVIDIA at 9.609 TFLOPS versus 3.942 TFLOPS. FP16 favors NVIDIA at 9.609 TFLOPS (1:1) versus 7.885 TFLOPS (2:1).

The TDP is 35 W for Intel and unknown for NVIDIA. Both use IGP slot width. Power connectors are null for Intel and none for NVIDIA. The bus interface is IGP for Intel and PCIe 5.0 x16 for NVIDIA. Display outputs are portable device dependent for Intel and 1x HDMI for NVIDIA. API support favors Intel: DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, Vulkan 1.4, versus N/A for all three on NVIDIA. Release dates differ: 2025-01-12 for Intel, 2026-05-31 for NVIDIA. The Intel part lists its predecessor as HD Graphics-M; the NVIDIA part lists no predecessor. Both parts list no successor. Neither part has a launch MSRP recorded in the database.