Intel Arc 130V Mobile vs NVIDIA N1X 40SM Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows no direct benchmark scores for either the Intel Arc 130V Mobile or the NVIDIA N1X 40SM. Both entries carry an average benchmark score of zero and a percentile rank of 50 among all GPUs in the database, with no nearest rivals listed. This means the quantitative comparison must rely entirely on the architectural and specification differences captured in the database, rather than measured performance deltas.

The most substantial gap between the two parts lies in raw compute throughput. The NVIDIA N1X 40SM delivers 24.02 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, while the Intel Arc 130V Mobile produces 3.315 TFLOPS. That places the NVIDIA part at roughly 7.2 times the FP32 throughput of the Intel part, a difference that will dominate any workload built around general-purpose shader math. The texture rate tells a similar story: the N1X 40SM reaches 750.7 GTexel/s against 103.6 GTexel/s for the Arc 130V, a factor of about 7.2 as well. Pixel fill rates differ by a smaller margin but still decisively favor NVIDIA, with 93.84 GPixel/s versus 51.80 GPixel/s, a 1.8x advantage.

Memory bandwidth is another area where the NVIDIA part holds a commanding lead. The N1X 40SM uses a 256-bit LPDDR5X interface running at 1067 MHz with 8.5 Gbps effective data rate, yielding 273.2 GB/s of bandwidth. The Intel part relies on system-shared memory with a bus width and bandwidth marked as system dependent, so no fixed number exists in the database. In practical terms, the NVIDIA part has a known, dedicated memory pipeline, while the Intel part's performance will vary with the host platform's memory configuration.

Clock speeds favor NVIDIA as well. The N1X 40SM boosts to 2346 MHz from a 741 MHz base, while the Arc 130V boosts to 1850 MHz from a 300 MHz base. Higher clocks, combined with far more shading units (5120 versus 896), explain the massive compute gap. The NVIDIA part also carries 320 texture mapping units against 56, and 40 render output units against 28. Ray tracing hardware differs as well: the N1X 40SM includes 40 RT cores, while the Arc 130V has 7.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Arc 130V Mobile wins in areas where its smaller footprint and modest power envelope matter more than raw throughput. It is built on a 3 nm TSMC process, denser than the 5 nm process used for the NVIDIA part. Its die size is 172 mm², less than half the 382 mm² of the N1X 40SM. The Arc 130V draws 37 W, a figure the database lists explicitly, while the N1X 40SM has an unknown TDP. For systems where thermal and power budgets are tight, the Intel part presents a more predictable, lower-power option. It also supports a full API stack: DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The NVIDIA part lists N/A for DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan, which suggests its software interface may be proprietary or incomplete in the database's current records.

The NVIDIA N1X 40SM wins decisively in every category tied to raw performance. Its FP32 output is 24.02 TFLOPS, its FP16 output is also 24.02 TFLOPS at a 1:1 ratio, meaning no rate penalty for half-precision work. The Intel part reaches 6.630 TFLOPS FP16 but at a 2:1 ratio, so it effectively halves its FP32 rate to achieve that number. For machine learning inference, tensor core counts also favor NVIDIA: 160 tensor cores against none listed for Intel. The N1X 40SM has 128 GB of dedicated LPDDR5X memory, a figure that dwarfs the system-shared arrangement of the Intel part. Its PCIe 5.0 x16 bus interface also contrasts with the Intel part's IGP bus interface, which suggests the NVIDIA part can be integrated into a system with a dedicated high-bandwidth connection.

The release dates in the database put the Intel part at 2024-09-23 and the NVIDIA part at 2026-05-31. That nearly two-year gap means the NVIDIA design comes from a later generation, which partially explains its architectural advantages. The Intel part's predecessor is listed as HD Graphics-M, while the NVIDIA part has no predecessor recorded.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher FP32 compute performance?

A: The NVIDIA N1X 40SM delivers 24.02 TFLOPS of FP32, while the Intel Arc 130V Mobile produces 3.315 TFLOPS. The NVIDIA part is approximately 7.2 times faster in this metric.

Q: How do the memory configurations differ?

A: The NVIDIA N1X 40SM uses 128 GB of LPDDR5X on a 256-bit bus with 273.2 GB/s bandwidth. The Intel Arc 130V Mobile uses system-shared memory with system-dependent bandwidth and bus width, meaning its memory performance depends on the host platform.

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

A: Yes, the database lists DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) support for the Intel part, along with OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4. The NVIDIA N1X 40SM lists N/A for all three APIs.

Q: What is the process node difference?

A: The Intel Arc 130V Mobile is built on a 3 nm TSMC process, while the NVIDIA N1X 40SM uses a 5 nm TSMC process. The Intel die measures 172 mm², compared to 382 mm² for the NVIDIA part.

Q: Which GPU has more shading units?

A: The NVIDIA N1X 40SM has 5120 shading units, while the Intel Arc 130V Mobile has 896. The NVIDIA part also has 320 TMUs and 40 ROPs, versus 56 TMUs and 28 ROPs for Intel.

Q: How do ray tracing capabilities compare?

A: The NVIDIA N1X 40SM includes 40 RT cores, while the Intel Arc 130V Mobile has 7 RT cores. The NVIDIA part also includes 160 tensor cores; the Intel part has none listed.

Specification Differences

The database records the following differences between the two parts:

| Specification | Intel Arc 130V Mobile | NVIDIA N1X 40SM |

|---|---|---|

| Chip | Lunar Lake | GB20B |

| Architecture | Xe2-LPG | Blackwell 2.0 |

| Generation | Arc Graphics-M (Lunar Lake) | Blackwell IGP (N1x) |

| Process Node | 3 nm | 5 nm |

| Foundry | TSMC | TSMC |

| Die Size | 172 mm² | 382 mm² |

| Base Clock | 300 MHz | 741 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 1850 MHz | 2346 MHz |

| Memory | System Shared | 128 GB LPDDR5X |

| Memory Bus | System Shared | 256 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | System Dependent | 273.2 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 896 | 5120 |

| TMUs | 56 | 320 |

| ROPs | 28 | 40 |

| RT Cores | 7 | 40 |

| Tensor Cores | None listed | 160 |

| FP32 | 3.315 TFLOPS | 24.02 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | 6.630 TFLOPS (2:1) | 24.02 TFLOPS (1:1) |

| Pixel Rate | 51.80 GPixel/s | 93.84 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 103.6 GTexel/s | 750.7 GTexel/s |

| TDP | 37 W | Unknown |

| Bus Interface | IGP | PCIe 5.0 x16 |

| Display Outputs | Portable Device Dependent | 1x HDMI |

| DirectX | 12 Ultimate (12_2) | N/A |

| OpenGL | 4.6 | N/A |

| Vulkan | 1.4 | N/A |

| Release Date | 2024-09-23 | 2026-05-31 |

Both parts share a production status of Active in the database, and neither has a listed launch MSRP. The Intel part has a known power draw of 37 W, while the NVIDIA part's TDP is unknown. The NVIDIA part uses no power connectors, while the Intel part's power connector field is null.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different architectural lineages. Intel uses Xe2-LPG, the low-power graphics variant of its Xe2 architecture, built for the Lunar Lake chip. NVIDIA uses Blackwell 2.0, a newer architecture on the GB20B chip. The Intel part belongs to the Arc Graphics-M generation, while the NVIDIA part belongs to the Blackwell IGP (N1x) generation.

The process node gap is notable: Intel uses TSMC's 3 nm process, while NVIDIA uses TSMC's 5 nm process. Despite the denser Intel node, the NVIDIA die is significantly larger at 382 mm² versus 172 mm². That larger die accommodates far more execution resources: 5120 shading units, 320 TMUs, 40 ROPs, 40 RT cores, and 160 tensor cores. The Intel part has 896 shading units, 56 TMUs, 28 ROPs, and 7 RT cores, with no tensor core count listed.

Memory architecture also differs fundamentally. The NVIDIA part uses dedicated 128 GB of LPDDR5X on a 256-bit bus, achieving 273.2 GB/s. The Intel part uses system-shared memory, meaning it draws from the host CPU's memory pool. This makes Intel's bandwidth dependent on the platform's memory configuration, while NVIDIA's is fixed.

The NVIDIA part's FP16 rate matches its FP32 rate at 24.02 TFLOPS with a 1:1 ratio, indicating full-rate half-precision execution. The Intel part reaches 6.630 TFLOPS FP16 but at a 2:1 ratio, which means it runs half-precision at half the FP32 rate. For AI workloads that rely on FP16 or tensor operations, the NVIDIA part's architecture is better suited, with 160 tensor cores providing dedicated matrix math hardware.

The NVIDIA part interfaces with the system via PCIe 5.0 x16, while the Intel part uses an IGP (integrated graphics processor) bus interface. The NVIDIA part lists a single HDMI output, while the Intel part's display outputs are marked as portable device dependent. The NVIDIA part has no power connectors listed, consistent with an IGP design, and its TDP remains unknown in the database.

The Verdict

The data points to two very different products. The NVIDIA N1X 40SM is a high-throughput part with massive compute, memory, and feature advantages. It offers 24.02 TFLOPS FP32, 273.2 GB/s of dedicated bandwidth, 40 RT cores, 160 tensor cores, and full-rate FP16 execution. Any workload that stresses shader throughput, ray tracing, or AI inference will favor this part by a wide margin, often by a factor of seven or more over the Intel part.

The Intel Arc 130V Mobile is a lower-power integrated solution. It draws 37 W, uses a denser 3 nm process, and has a smaller die at 172 mm². Its system-shared memory model and limited execution resources cap its performance, but its support for DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4 gives it broad software compatibility. The NVIDIA part's N/A entries for those APIs suggest its software stack may not be fully documented in the database.

For a system where power draw must stay low and standard graphics APIs are required, the Intel part is the safer choice. For a system where raw performance is the priority, the NVIDIA part is the only option between these two. The release date gap of about two years (2024-09-23 versus 2026-05-31) explains some of the NVIDIA part's advantages, as it comes from a later design cycle. The database shows no benchmark wins for either part and no nearest rivals, so the verdict rests entirely on the recorded specifications. Those specifications show a decisive performance lead for NVIDIA, offset only by Intel's lower power draw, denser process, and complete API support.