Intel Arc 130T Mobile vs NVIDIA N1 20SM Comparison

# Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded database contains no direct head-to-head benchmark results for the Intel Arc 130T Mobile versus the NVIDIA N1 20SM. Both entries carry an empty benchmark array, zero win counts on either side, and no nearest rival data to derive comparative scores. The absence of measured outcomes means any performance ranking must be inferred from the specification sheets rather than from empirical testing.

What the data does show is a substantial gap in raw compute capability. The NVIDIA N1 20SM delivers 12.01 TFLOPS of FP32 throughput, while the Intel Arc 130T Mobile produces 3.942 TFLOPS. That places the NVIDIA part at roughly three times the single-precision floating-point output of the Intel part. In FP16 workloads, the gap narrows somewhat on paper: the NVIDIA N1 20SM sustains 12.01 TFLOPS at a 1:1 ratio, while the Intel Arc 130T Mobile reaches 7.885 TFLOPS via a 2:1 rate. The Intel part's FP16 figure is a packed-path number, so the practical difference depends on whether software can exploit that mode.

Texture throughput tells a similar story. The NVIDIA N1 20SM reaches 375.4 GTexel/s against the Intel Arc 130T Mobile's 123.2 GTexel/s. Pixel rate, however, slightly favors Intel: 61.60 GPixel/s versus 56.30 GPixel/s. That uncommon split suggests the Intel part has a higher ratio of ROP throughput relative to its shading and texturing resources, which can matter in certain fill-rate-limited scenes.

Both GPUs sit at the 50th percentile in the database's overall GPU distribution, but that percentile reflects their placement among all recorded GPUs, not their standing against each other. With no benchmark scores entered, the percentile values do not distinguish between the two. The practical interpretation: the NVIDIA N1 20SM should dominate in compute-heavy and texture-heavy tasks based on its raw specifications, while the Intel Arc 130T Mobile may hold an edge in specific pixel-fill scenarios.

# Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different architectural lineages. The Intel Arc 130T Mobile uses the Xe-LPG+ architecture on an Arrow Lake-H chip, belonging to the Arc Graphics-M (Arrow Lake) generation. The NVIDIA N1 20SM uses the Blackwell 2.0 architecture on a GB20B chip, part of the Blackwell IGP (N1x) generation. Both are built on a 5 nm process at TSMC, so the underlying transistor geometry is identical.

Core counts differ sharply. The Intel part has 896 shading units, 56 texture mapping units, 28 ROPs, and 7 ray tracing cores. The NVIDIA part has 2560 shading units, 160 TMUs, 24 ROPs, and 20 ray tracing cores. NVIDIA also integrates 80 tensor cores, while the Intel Arc 130T Mobile lists no tensor core count at all. That absence of tensor cores in the Intel entry means any AI or machine learning acceleration on the Intel part is either handled through other pathways or simply not specified in the database.

Die size is another differentiator. The NVIDIA N1 20SM has a recorded die size of 382 mm², while the Intel Arc 130T Mobile's die size is listed as unknown. Transistor counts are unknown for both parts.

Clock behavior diverges as well. The Intel Arc 130T Mobile runs at a 300 MHz base clock and boosts to 2200 MHz. The NVIDIA N1 20SM starts at 741 MHz base and boosts to 2346 MHz. The higher base clock on the NVIDIA part suggests a more sustained performance floor, though the boost clocks are relatively close.

Memory architecture is fundamentally different. The Intel Arc 130T Mobile uses system shared memory, with the memory type, bus width, and bandwidth all listed as system dependent. The NVIDIA N1 20SM has dedicated memory: 128 GB of LPDDR5X on a 256 bit bus, delivering 273.2 GB/s of bandwidth. The NVIDIA memory clock is listed as 1067 MHz with 8.5 Gbps effective. This is a massive advantage for the NVIDIA part in any bandwidth-sensitive workload, since the Intel part's memory performance is entirely dependent on the host system's memory configuration.

API support also separates them. The Intel Arc 130T Mobile lists DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The NVIDIA N1 20SM lists N/A for DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan. That suggests the NVIDIA part may be targeted at a specialized or embedded role rather than general consumer graphics, despite its IGP slot width.

# Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA N1 20SM wins decisively in raw compute throughput. Its 12.01 TFLOPS FP32 is roughly 3.04 times the Intel Arc 130T Mobile's 3.942 TFLOPS. For FP16 work, the NVIDIA part's 12.01 TFLOPS at 1:1 ratio exceeds the Intel part's 7.885 TFLOPS at 2:1, though the margin depends on the Intel part's ability to actually sustain that packed rate. Texture-heavy workloads also favor NVIDIA, with 375.4 GTexel/s versus 123.2 GTexel/s, a roughly threefold advantage.

Memory bandwidth is the clearest win for NVIDIA. The 273.2 GB/s of dedicated LPDDR5X bandwidth stands against the Intel part's system dependent, shared memory approach. In practice, the Intel Arc 130T Mobile's memory bandwidth is whatever the host platform provides, which can vary widely. The NVIDIA part's fixed 256 bit bus and 128 GB capacity give it predictable, high-bandwidth access. This favors the NVIDIA part in large dataset processing, high-resolution textures, and any workload that streams significant data through the GPU.

The Intel Arc 130T Mobile's wins are narrower. Its 61.60 GPixel/s pixel rate edges out the NVIDIA part's 56.30 GPixel/s, a difference of about 9.4 percent. For fill-rate-limited scenarios, such as certain compositing tasks or lower-complexity rendering passes, the Intel part could show a modest advantage. The Intel part also has full modern graphics API support with DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, whereas the NVIDIA part lists none of these. For traditional gaming or general-purpose graphics workloads, the Intel part is the only one of the two with documented API compatibility.

The Intel part's lower base clock of 300 MHz versus 741 MHz suggests it idles at a much lower frequency, which could translate to lower power draw at rest. However, the database lists the Intel TDP at 35 W and does not record a TDP for the NVIDIA part, so a direct power comparison is not possible.

# FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher FP32 compute performance?

A: The NVIDIA N1 20SM, with 12.01 TFLOPS versus the Intel Arc 130T Mobile's 3.942 TFLOPS.

Q: Does the Intel Arc 130T Mobile support DirectX 12 Ultimate?

A: Yes, it lists DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) support, along with OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4. The NVIDIA N1 20SM lists N/A for all three APIs.

Q: How much memory does the NVIDIA N1 20SM have?

A: It has 128 GB of LPDDR5X on a 256 bit bus, with 273.2 GB/s of bandwidth.

Q: What memory does the Intel Arc 130T Mobile use?

A: It uses system shared memory. The size, type, bus width, and bandwidth are all listed as system dependent.

Q: Which GPU has more ray tracing cores?

A: The NVIDIA N1 20SM has 20 ray tracing cores, while the Intel Arc 130T Mobile has 7.

Q: Are both GPUs built on the same process node?

A: Yes, both are fabricated on a 5 nm process at TSMC.

# Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ in nearly every measurable specification. The Intel Arc 130T Mobile uses the Xe-LPG+ architecture on a 5 nm Arrow Lake-H chip, while the NVIDIA N1 20SM uses Blackwell 2.0 on a 5 nm GB20B chip. The NVIDIA part has a recorded die size of 382 mm²; the Intel die size is unknown.

Clock speeds: Intel base 300 MHz, boost 2200 MHz. NVIDIA base 741 MHz, boost 2346 MHz. Memory clocks: Intel lists system shared, NVIDIA lists 1067 MHz with 8.5 Gbps effective.

Memory configuration: Intel uses system shared memory with system dependent size, type, bus width, and bandwidth. NVIDIA uses 128 GB LPDDR5X, 256 bit bus, 273.2 GB/s bandwidth.

Compute resources: Intel has 896 shading units, 56 TMUs, 28 ROPs, 7 RT cores, and no tensor cores. NVIDIA has 2560 shading units, 160 TMUs, 24 ROPs, 20 RT cores, and 80 tensor cores.

Output rates: Intel pixel rate 61.60 GPixel/s, texture rate 123.2 GTexel/s. NVIDIA pixel rate 56.30 GPixel/s, texture rate 375.4 GTexel/s.

Compute throughput: Intel FP32 3.942 TFLOPS, FP16 7.885 TFLOPS (2:1). NVIDIA FP32 12.01 TFLOPS, FP16 12.01 TFLOPS (1:1).

Power: Intel TDP 35 W. NVIDIA TDP unknown. Power connectors: Intel none listed, NVIDIA none. Slot width for both is IGP.

Bus interface: Intel IGP. NVIDIA PCIe 5.0 x16.

Display outputs: Intel portable device dependent. NVIDIA 1x HDMI.

API support: Intel DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, Vulkan 1.4. NVIDIA N/A for all three.

Release dates: Intel 2025-01-12, NVIDIA 2026-05-31. Both are marked as Active production status. Neither has a recorded launch MSRP.

# The Verdict

The database shows two GPUs aimed at different roles despite both being integrated parts. The NVIDIA N1 20SM is the clear performance leader in compute, texturing, memory bandwidth, and ray tracing resources. Its 12.01 TFLOPS FP32, 375.4 GTexel/s, 273.2 GB/s of dedicated LPDDR5X memory, and 20 RT cores put it in a different performance class than the Intel Arc 130T Mobile. The 80 tensor cores add AI acceleration capability that the Intel part does not document.

The Intel Arc 130T Mobile has two meaningful advantages in the recorded data. First, it carries full modern graphics API support with DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, while the NVIDIA part lists N/A for all of these. Second, its pixel rate of 61.60 GPixel/s exceeds the NVIDIA part's 56.30 GPixel/s. The Intel part also has a documented 35 W TDP, whereas the NVIDIA TDP is unknown, which makes the Intel power profile more predictable.

For anyone selecting between these two, the choice depends heavily on the intended workload. If the task requires general graphics rendering, gaming, or applications that rely on established graphics APIs, the Intel Arc 130T Mobile is the only option with documented support in those areas. If the task is compute-focused, requires high memory bandwidth, or benefits from tensor core acceleration, the NVIDIA N1 20SM is overwhelmingly stronger on paper. The NVIDIA part's lack of DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan support in the database suggests it may not be intended for conventional graphics at all, which would make the Intel part the safer pick for display-oriented systems.

The pixel rate advantage for Intel, though modest, means fill-rate-limited workloads could favor the smaller GPU. But for nearly every other metric, the NVIDIA N1 20SM holds a commanding lead. The data does not include benchmark scores or rival comparisons, so these conclusions rest entirely on the specification sheets. Based on those specifications, the NVIDIA N1 20SM is the higher-performance part in raw throughput, while the Intel Arc 130T Mobile offers broader graphics API compatibility and a slight edge in pixel fill rate.