Intel Arc 130V Mobile vs NVIDIA N1X 48SM Comparison

FAQ

Q: What are the core architectural identities of these two mobile GPUs?

A: The Intel Arc 130V Mobile uses the Lunar Lake chip with Xe2-LPG architecture on a 3 nm TSMC process. The NVIDIA N1X 48SM uses the GB20B chip with Blackwell 2.0 architecture on a 5 nm TSMC process.

Q: How do the shading unit counts compare?

A: The NVIDIA N1X 48SM has 6144 shading units, which is substantially more than the Intel Arc 130V Mobile's 896 shading units.

Q: What is the memory configuration difference?

A: The Intel Arc 130V Mobile uses system shared memory with system dependent bandwidth. The NVIDIA N1X 48SM has 128 GB of LPDDR5X memory on a 256 bit bus with 273.2 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Which GPU has higher boost clocks?

A: The NVIDIA N1X 48SM boosts to 2346 MHz, while the Intel Arc 130V Mobile boosts to 1850 MHz.

Q: What API support does each GPU offer?

A: The Intel Arc 130V Mobile supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The NVIDIA N1X 48SM lists N/A for DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan in the database.

Q: What are the physical dimensions of these chips?

A: The Intel Arc 130V Mobile has a die size of 172 mm², while the NVIDIA N1X 48SM has a die size of 382 mm². Both are integrated graphics processors (IGP).

Architecture Differences

The Intel Arc 130V Mobile and NVIDIA N1X 48SM represent two fundamentally different design approaches for integrated graphics. The Intel part is built on Lunar Lake silicon using Xe2-LPG architecture, fabricated on a 3 nm process at TSMC. The NVIDIA part uses the GB20B chip with Blackwell 2.0 architecture, fabricated on a 5 nm process also at TSMC. The process node difference gives Intel a density advantage per area, though the database records the NVIDIA die at 382 mm² versus 172 mm² for Intel, a much larger physical implementation.

The compute resources differ dramatically. Intel fields 896 shading units, 56 texture mapping units, 28 raster operation units, and 7 ray tracing cores. NVIDIA fields 6144 shading units, 384 texture mapping units, 48 raster operation units, 48 ray tracing cores, and 192 tensor cores. The NVIDIA part has no listed tensor cores for Intel, which means the Blackwell GPU carries dedicated AI acceleration hardware that the Intel part does not expose in its specifications.

Clock behavior also separates the two. Intel runs a base clock of 300 MHz and boosts to 1850 MHz. NVIDIA runs a base clock of 741 MHz and boosts to 2346 MHz. The higher boost clock on the NVIDIA part compounds with its larger shader array for a significant raw throughput advantage.

Memory architecture is another major divergence. The Intel Arc 130V Mobile uses system shared memory with system dependent bandwidth, meaning its performance scales with the host platform's memory configuration. The NVIDIA N1X 48SM integrates 128 GB of LPDDR5X memory on a 256 bit bus, delivering 273.2 GB/s of dedicated bandwidth. This removes the NVIDIA part's dependence on system memory performance and provides a fixed, high-bandwidth pool.

The bus interface differs as well. Intel connects via an integrated graphics processor (IGP) interface with no external power connectors. NVIDIA also uses an IGP slot width but connects through PCIe 5.0 x16 and lists no power connectors. The NVIDIA part lists a single HDMI display output, while Intel's display outputs are portable device dependent.

API support shows a notable split. Intel supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. NVIDIA lists N/A for all three APIs in the database, which indicates the recorded data does not confirm standard graphics API compatibility for the Blackwell IGP.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database records no direct head-to-head benchmark scores for these two GPUs, and neither part has individual benchmark entries. The analysis therefore relies on the recorded specification data and the derived throughput figures.

The largest gap appears in raw compute throughput. The NVIDIA N1X 48SM delivers 28.83 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, while the Intel Arc 130V Mobile delivers 3.315 TFLOPS. The NVIDIA part is roughly 8.7 times faster in single-precision floating point work. This is the dominant specification difference between the two.

Texture processing shows a similar pattern. NVIDIA achieves 900.9 GTexel/s of texture fill rate versus Intel's 103.6 GTexel/s. The NVIDIA part is approximately 8.7 times faster here as well, consistent with its much larger TMU count.

Pixel throughput narrows the gap slightly but still favors NVIDIA. The Blackwell part reaches 112.6 GPixel/s, while the Intel part reaches 51.80 GPixel/s. NVIDIA is roughly 2.2 times faster in pixel fill rate, a smaller margin than the shader and texture comparisons because the Intel part's 28 ROPs are relatively closer to NVIDIA's 48 ROPs than their shading units are.

FP16 compute inverts the efficiency story. Intel achieves 6.630 TFLOPS at a 2:1 ratio, while NVIDIA achieves 28.83 TFLOPS at a 1:1 ratio. NVIDIA still holds a large absolute lead, but the Intel part doubles its FP32 rate when using FP16, indicating a more aggressive packed math approach. NVIDIA's 1:1 FP16 ratio means its FP16 throughput equals its FP32 throughput, which is typical for parts that treat FP16 as a first-class compute path.

Memory bandwidth favors NVIDIA decisively. The 273.2 GB/s of dedicated LPDDR5X bandwidth stands against Intel's system dependent figure, which has no fixed value in the database. In a mobile platform with shared memory, Intel's bandwidth would vary with the system's memory configuration, while NVIDIA's is fixed and substantial.

Clock speed differences reinforce the compute gap. NVIDIA's 2346 MHz boost is 496 MHz higher than Intel's 1850 MHz boost. Combined with the larger shader array, this clock advantage allows NVIDIA to extract more throughput per instruction issue cycle.

The die size difference is worth interpreting. NVIDIA's 382 mm² die is more than double Intel's 172 mm² die. This reflects the much larger compute and memory resources on the NVIDIA part, though the Intel part achieves its results on a more advanced 3 nm process versus NVIDIA's 5 nm process.

The Verdict

The data positions these two GPUs for entirely different workloads. The NVIDIA N1X 48SM is the clear performance leader across every measured throughput category. Its 28.83 TFLOPS FP32, 900.9 GTexel/s texture rate, 112.6 GPixel/s pixel rate, and 273.2 GB/s memory bandwidth place it far above the Intel Arc 130V Mobile in raw capability.

The Intel Arc 130V Mobile is a low-power integrated solution. Its 37 W TDP is recorded, while the NVIDIA part's TDP is unknown in the database. The Intel part runs at a 300 MHz base clock, which suggests a design focused on idle efficiency and modest sustained loads rather than maximum performance. Its 3.315 TFLOPS FP32 and 103.6 GTexel/s texture rate are adequate for basic graphics work but not competitive with the NVIDIA part's compute class.

The NVIDIA N1X 48SM also carries features Intel lacks. The 192 tensor cores provide a dedicated matrix math path that Intel does not expose. The 48 ray tracing cores versus Intel's 7 give NVIDIA a substantial advantage in ray-traced workloads, assuming software support exists given the N/A API listings.

For a user choosing between these two, the decision hinges on performance requirements versus power constraints. The Intel part suits systems where 37 W is the available budget and integrated graphics are the only option. The NVIDIA part suits systems that need maximum integrated performance, with 128 GB of dedicated memory and PCIe 5.0 x16 connectivity, though its power draw is not recorded.

The release dates differ by about 20 months. Intel launched on 2024-09-23, while NVIDIA is dated 2026-05-31. The NVIDIA part is the newer design and reflects a later stage of integrated GPU development.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Arc 130V Mobile | NVIDIA N1X 48SM |

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

| Chip | Lunar Lake | GB20B |

| Architecture | Xe2-LPG | Blackwell 2.0 |

| Process Node | 3 nm | 5 nm |

| Die Size | 172 mm² | 382 mm² |

| Base Clock | 300 MHz | 741 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 1850 MHz | 2346 MHz |

| Memory Size | System Shared | 128 GB |

| Memory Type | System Shared | LPDDR5X |

| Memory Bus Width | System Shared | 256 bit |

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

| Shading Units | 896 | 6144 |

| TMUs | 56 | 384 |

| ROPs | 28 | 48 |

| Ray Tracing Cores | 7 | 48 |

| Tensor Cores | Not listed | 192 |

| Pixel Rate | 51.80 GPixel/s | 112.6 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 103.6 GTexel/s | 900.9 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Performance | 3.315 TFLOPS | 28.83 TFLOPS |

| FP16 Performance | 6.630 TFLOPS (2:1) | 28.83 TFLOPS (1:1) |

| 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 |

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA N1X 48SM wins every recorded performance metric. It dominates FP32 compute with 28.83 TFLOPS against 3.315 TFLOPS. It dominates FP16 compute with 28.83 TFLOPS against 6.630 TFLOPS. It dominates texture work with 900.9 GTexel/s against 103.6 GTexel/s. It dominates pixel work with 112.6 GPixel/s against 51.80 GPixel/s. It provides fixed 273.2 GB/s memory bandwidth, while Intel's bandwidth is system dependent and unquantified.

The NVIDIA part also wins in feature breadth. Its 192 tensor cores and 48 ray tracing cores give it dedicated hardware for AI inference and ray-traced rendering. Intel's 7 ray tracing cores are present but far fewer, and Intel has no listed tensor core count.

The Intel Arc 130V Mobile wins in efficiency-oriented attributes. Its 37 W TDP is the only recorded power figure between the two, and it achieves its performance on a 3 nm process with a 172 mm² die. The NVIDIA part's TDP is unknown, so no direct power comparison is possible from the database. Intel also wins on API compatibility as recorded: DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4 are all listed, while NVIDIA's API fields are N/A.

The Intel part wins on process technology. The 3 nm node is more advanced than NVIDIA's 5 nm node, which matters for transistor density and power efficiency per unit of compute. The die size difference reflects this: Intel delivers its feature set in 172 mm², while NVIDIA requires 382 mm².

For practical use cases, the NVIDIA N1X 48SM is the choice for compute-heavy integrated graphics workloads, large memory footprints, and AI-adjacent tasks via its tensor cores. The Intel Arc 130V Mobile is the choice for low-power integrated graphics with confirmed standard API support and a smaller physical footprint. The database shows no benchmark scores for either part, so real-world application performance remains unquantified, but the specification deltas are unambiguous.