Intel Arc 130V Mobile vs NVIDIA H20 NVL16 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded database contains no direct benchmark scores for either the Intel Arc 130V Mobile or the NVIDIA H20 NVL16. With zero head-to-head measurements available, the comparative analysis relies entirely on the documented compute and memory specifications. The Intel part posts a pixel rate of 51.80 GPixel/s, which edges out the NVIDIA part's 47.52 GPixel/s, a difference of roughly 9% in favor of the integrated Intel solution. However, the texture rate tells a different story: the NVIDIA H20 NVL16 delivers 617.8 GTexel/s against Intel's 103.6 GTexel/s, a massive 6x advantage for the server accelerator.

In raw floating-point throughput, the NVIDIA part dominates. The H20 NVL16 records 39.54 TFLOPS of FP32 performance and 79.07 TFLOPS of FP16 performance (2:1), while the Arc 130V Mobile manages 3.315 TFLOPS of FP32 and 6.630 TFLOPS of FP16 (2:1). This places the NVIDIA part roughly 12x ahead in FP32 and 12x ahead in FP16. The gap in shading units is similarly stark: NVIDIA's GH100 chip packs 9,984 shading units versus Intel's 896, a factor of 11.1x. Texture mapping units follow suit, with NVIDIA fielding 312 TMUs against Intel's 56.

Memory bandwidth is where the NVIDIA H20 NVL16 builds an insurmountable lead. The database records 4.03 TB/s of bandwidth across a 6,144-bit HBM3 bus, compared to Intel's system-shared memory with bandwidth labeled as "System Dependent." The NVIDIA part also brings 96 GB of dedicated HBM3 memory, whereas the Intel Arc 130V Mobile relies entirely on shared system memory, with size, type, and bus width all listed as "System Shared."

Clock speeds show a different balance. The NVIDIA part's base clock is 1,830 MHz with a boost to 1,980 MHz, while the Intel part runs a 300 MHz base and 1,850 MHz boost. Despite the lower base clock, the Intel part's boost clock comes within 130 MHz of the NVIDIA part's boost. The NVIDIA H20 NVL16's memory clock is documented at 1,313 MHz (5.3 Gbps effective), a figure the Intel part cannot match because its memory clock is tied to the host system.

The power envelope separates these products into entirely different deployment classes. The Intel Arc 130V Mobile consumes 37 W as an integrated graphics processor (IGP) with a portable-device-dependent display output. The NVIDIA H20 NVL16 draws 400 W, ships as an SXM module with no display outputs, and requires an 800 W suggested PSU. The Intel part occupies no expansion slot, while the NVIDIA part uses a PCIe 5.0 x16 interface.

Both parts sit at the 50th percentile against all GPUs in the database, and both have an average benchmark score of 0, reflecting the absence of recorded test data. The wins tally in the database shows 0 wins for each side, confirming that no direct comparison measurements exist.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Arc 130V Mobile claims the pixel throughput category. Its 51.80 GPixel/s exceeds the NVIDIA part's 47.52 GPixel/s, meaning the Intel solution can fill rasterized frames slightly faster at the pixel level. This suggests an advantage in lightweight, resolution-bound workloads where the GPU is not the bottleneck. The Intel part also wins on power efficiency by design: 37 W versus 400 W is a 10.8x reduction in power draw, and the IGP form factor means no additional power connectors or PSU headroom are required. For portable devices with shared memory, the Arc 130V Mobile is the only one of the two that can operate without a dedicated power delivery system.

The NVIDIA H20 NVL16 wins every compute-heavy category. The FP32 throughput of 39.54 TFLOPS and FP16 throughput of 79.07 TFLOPS place it in a wholly different performance tier than the Intel part's 3.315 TFLOPS and 6.630 TFLOPS. The texture rate advantage of 617.8 GTexel/s over 103.6 GTexel/s gives NVIDIA the edge in texture-bound workloads such as detailed scene rendering and material-heavy simulations. The 96 GB of HBM3 memory with 4.03 TB/s bandwidth enables data-intensive server workloads, while the Intel part's system-shared memory offers no dedicated capacity or bandwidth guarantees.

The shading unit count of 9,984 versus 896, and the tensor core count of 312 versus zero, further reinforce NVIDIA's dominance in parallel compute and AI inference. The Intel part has 7 ray tracing cores, while the NVIDIA part's ray tracing core count is not recorded in the database, so no direct RT comparison can be made. The NVIDIA part also operates with a higher boost clock of 1,980 MHz versus 1,850 MHz, contributing to its throughput advantage on a per-clock basis.

The database records the Intel part's predecessor as HD Graphics-M, while the NVIDIA part's predecessor is Server Ada and its successor is Server Blackwell. This places the H20 NVL16 in an active server product line with a defined upgrade path, whereas the Arc 130V Mobile sits in the Arc Graphics-M (Lunar Lake) generation with no successor listed.

Architecture Differences

The Intel Arc 130V Mobile is built on the Lunar Lake chip using the Xe2-LPG architecture, fabricated on a 3 nm process at TSMC. The NVIDIA H20 NVL16 uses the GH100 chip with the Hopper architecture, fabricated on a 5 nm process, also at TSMC. Both parts share the same foundry, but the process nodes differ: 3 nm for Intel versus 5 nm for NVIDIA. The Intel part belongs to the Arc Graphics-M (Lunar Lake) generation, while the NVIDIA part belongs to the Server Hopper (Hxx) generation.

The die sizes diverge substantially. The NVIDIA GH100 measures 814 mm², nearly 4.7x larger than the Intel Lunar Lake die at 172 mm². Transistor counts are documented as 80,000 million for the NVIDIA part, while the Intel part's transistor count is listed as unknown. The NVIDIA die achieves a transistor density of 98.3M per mm², though no density figure is recorded for the Intel part. The larger die and higher transistor count enable the NVIDIA part's 9,984 shading units, 312 TMUs, and 312 tensor cores. The Intel part fields 896 shading units, 56 TMUs, 28 ROPs, and 7 ray tracing cores.

The ray tracing core count is a notable architectural differentiator. The Intel part explicitly lists 7 RT cores, while the NVIDIA part lists no RT core count. The NVIDIA part compensates with 312 tensor cores, which the Intel part lacks entirely. This suggests divergent design priorities: Intel's Xe2-LPG targets graphics and ray tracing in mobile integrated settings, while NVIDIA's Hopper targets tensor-heavy server workloads.

API support also differs. The Intel part supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The NVIDIA part records N/A for DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan, indicating it is not designed for traditional graphics API workloads. The display outputs reinforce this: the Intel part's outputs are portable-device-dependent, while the NVIDIA part has no outputs at all.

The memory architecture is fundamentally different. Intel uses system-shared memory with system-dependent bandwidth, while NVIDIA uses 96 GB of dedicated HBM3 on a 6,144-bit bus with a fixed 4.03 TB/s bandwidth. The Intel part's memory clock is tied to the host system, whereas NVIDIA's memory runs at 1,313 MHz (5.3 Gbps effective). This architectural split determines the deployment context: the Intel part is an IGP, the NVIDIA part is an SXM module.

Specification Differences

The two parts differ across nearly every recorded specification. The manufacturing process is 3 nm for Intel versus 5 nm for NVIDIA. Die size is 172 mm² versus 814 mm². Transistor count is unknown versus 80,000 million, and transistor density is unrecorded versus 98.3M per mm².

Clock specifications show the NVIDIA part running faster across the board: base 1,830 MHz versus 300 MHz, boost 1,980 MHz versus 1,850 MHz. The memory clock is 1,313 MHz (5.3 Gbps effective) for NVIDIA, while Intel's memory clock is "System Shared."

Memory capacity and type diverge completely: 96 GB of HBM3 with a 6,144-bit bus and 4.03 TB/s bandwidth for NVIDIA, versus system-shared memory with system-dependent bandwidth for Intel. The shading unit count is 9,984 versus 896, TMUs are 312 versus 56, and ROPs are 24 versus 28. The Intel part has 7 RT cores, while NVIDIA's RT core count is not recorded. Tensor cores are 312 for NVIDIA and absent for Intel.

Pixel rate is 51.80 GPixel/s for Intel versus 47.52 GPixel/s for NVIDIA. Texture rate is 103.6 GTexel/s for Intel versus 617.8 GTexel/s for NVIDIA. FP32 is 3.315 TFLOPS versus 39.54 TFLOPS, and FP16 is 6.630 TFLOPS versus 79.07 TFLOPS, both with a 2:1 ratio.

Power draw is 37 W versus 400 W. The slot width is IGP versus SXM Module. The bus interface is IGP versus PCIe 5.0 x16. Display outputs are portable-device-dependent versus none. The suggested PSU is unrecorded for Intel and 800 W for NVIDIA. API support lists DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4 for Intel, with N/A for all three on NVIDIA.

The release dates differ by about a year: the Intel part launched on 2024-09-23, and the NVIDIA part on 2025-09-01. Both are marked as Active in production status. The Intel part's predecessor is HD Graphics-M with no successor, while the NVIDIA part's predecessor is Server Ada and its successor is Server Blackwell.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher FP32 performance?

A: The NVIDIA H20 NVL16 records 39.54 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, compared to 3.315 TFLOPS for the Intel Arc 130V Mobile, a difference of roughly 12x in favor of NVIDIA.

Q: How does the memory bandwidth compare?

A: The NVIDIA H20 NVL16 provides 4.03 TB/s of bandwidth across a 6,144-bit HBM3 bus with 96 GB of dedicated memory. The Intel Arc 130V Mobile uses system-shared memory with bandwidth listed as "System Dependent."

Q: What process nodes do the two parts use?

A: The Intel Arc 130V Mobile is fabricated on a 3 nm process at TSMC, while the NVIDIA H20 NVL16 uses a 5 nm process, also at TSMC.

Q: Which part has ray tracing cores?

A: The Intel Arc 130V Mobile lists 7 ray tracing cores. The NVIDIA H20 NVL16 does not record a ray tracing core count in the database.

Q: What is the power consumption difference?

A: The Intel Arc 130V Mobile draws 37 W as an integrated graphics processor, while the NVIDIA H20 NVL16 draws 400 W as an SXM module with a suggested PSU of 800 W.

Q: Do both parts support the same graphics APIs?

A: No. The Intel Arc 130V Mobile supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The NVIDIA H20 NVL16 records N/A for DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan, and has no display outputs.