Intel Arc 130V Mobile vs NVIDIA Rubin GPU Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains no shared benchmark scores for the Intel Arc 130V Mobile and the NVIDIA Rubin GPU. Both parts show zero recorded benchmark entries, and the head-to-head comparison list is empty. Without direct measurements, the comparison must rely on the recorded hardware specifications and the performance indicators those specifications imply.

The Intel Arc 130V Mobile delivers 3.315 TFLOPS of FP32 compute and 6.630 TFLOPS of FP16 compute using the 2:1 ratio. The NVIDIA Rubin GPU delivers 130.0 TFLOPS of FP32 and 260.0 TFLOPS of FP16, also at the 2:1 ratio. The NVIDIA part provides approximately 39 times the FP32 throughput of the Intel part, a margin that reflects their entirely different market positions. The Intel Arc 130V Mobile is an integrated graphics processor for mobile devices, while the NVIDIA Rubin GPU is a server accelerator module.

Texture throughput follows the same pattern. The Intel part sustains 103.6 GTexel/s, while the NVIDIA part reaches 2,031.2 GTexel/s. That is a 19.6 times advantage for the NVIDIA Rubin GPU. Pixel rate is closer: 51.80 GPixel/s for Intel versus 54.41 GPixel/s for NVIDIA, a difference of about 5%. This narrow gap is notable because the NVIDIA part uses only 24 ROPs, while the Intel part uses 28 ROPs. The NVIDIA advantage in pixel throughput comes from its much higher clock speed, not from a larger ROP count.

Clock behavior also differs substantially. The Intel Arc 130V Mobile has a base clock of 300 MHz and a boost clock of 1850 MHz, a 6.2 times multiplier between base and boost. The NVIDIA Rubin GPU has a base clock of 700 MHz and a boost clock of 2267 MHz, a 3.2 times multiplier. The NVIDIA part operates at a higher absolute frequency at both idle and peak states. The Intel part has a wider relative boost range, which suggests more aggressive power management scaling for mobile workloads.

The percentile ranking against all GPUs in the database is identical for both parts at the 50th percentile. This is a consequence of the absence of benchmark data for either product; the percentile field reflects no measured performance for either device. The average benchmark score for both is 0, confirming that neither part has been tested in the database.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different manufacturers and target different computing environments. The Intel Arc 130V Mobile is built by Intel on the Lunar Lake chip, using the Xe2-LPG architecture, and belongs to the Arc Graphics-M (Lunar Lake) generation. The NVIDIA Rubin GPU is built by NVIDIA on the GR100 chip, using the Rubin architecture, and belongs to the Server Rubin (Rxx) generation.

Both parts are fabricated on a 3 nm process node at TSMC. This is the only major manufacturing similarity. The die sizes diverge sharply: the Intel chip measures 172 mm², while the NVIDIA chip measures 1456 mm², an 8.5 times difference in silicon area. The transistor count for the Intel part is listed as unknown, while the NVIDIA part contains 336,000 million transistors. The transistor density for the NVIDIA part is recorded as 230.8M per mm²; no density figure is available for the Intel part.

The Intel Arc 130V Mobile uses system-shared memory. Its memory size, type, and bus width are all listed as system shared, and bandwidth is system dependent. The NVIDIA Rubin GPU uses 288 GB of HBM4 memory on a 16384-bit bus, delivering 22.1 TB/s of bandwidth. The NVIDIA memory clock is 2695 MHz, stated as 10.8 Gbps effective. The Intel part has no dedicated memory clock because it relies on the host system's memory.

The Intel GPU includes 896 shading units, 56 texture mapping units, 28 ROPs, and 7 ray tracing cores. It has no tensor core count listed. The NVIDIA GPU includes 28672 shading units, 896 TMUs, 24 ROPs, and 896 tensor cores. The ray tracing core count for the NVIDIA part is not listed. The NVIDIA part has 32 times the shading units and 16 times the TMUs of the Intel part, but fewer ROPs.

API support differs completely. The Intel Arc 130V Mobile supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The NVIDIA Rubin GPU lists N/A for DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan, reflecting its server-oriented role with no display output. The Intel part lists display outputs as portable device dependent, while the NVIDIA part has no outputs at all.

Power requirements are in different leagues. The Intel Arc 130V Mobile has a TDP of 37 W and uses an IGP slot width with no power connectors. The NVIDIA Rubin GPU has a TDP of 2300 W, uses an SXM Module slot width, and requires a suggested power supply of 2700 W. The NVIDIA part uses a PCIe 6.0 x16 bus interface, while the Intel part uses an IGP bus interface.

Release timing also separates the two. The Intel part was released on 2024-09-23, while the NVIDIA part is dated 2025-12-31. The Intel part lists its predecessor as HD Graphics-M, while the NVIDIA part lists Server Blackwell as its predecessor. Neither part has a successor listed. Production status for both is active.

The Verdict

The data defines two distinct products with no overlapping use cases. The Intel Arc 130V Mobile is an integrated GPU for portable devices, with a 37 W TDP, system shared memory, and no power connectors. The NVIDIA Rubin GPU is a server accelerator module with a 2300 W TDP, 288 GB of HBM4, and a suggested power supply of 2700 W.

Benchmark results are absent for both parts, so no measured performance comparison is possible. The specification data shows the NVIDIA Rubin GPU delivering 130.0 TFLOPS of FP32 and 260.0 TFLOPS of FP16, against 3.315 TFLOPS and 6.630 TFLOPS for the Intel part. The NVIDIA part also provides 22.1 TB/s of memory bandwidth versus system dependent bandwidth for the Intel part.

The Intel part enables portable graphics with DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4 support. The NVIDIA part offers no graphics APIs and no display outputs, confirming its compute-only server role. The choice between these parts is determined by the target platform, not by direct competition.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher FP32 performance?

A: The NVIDIA Rubin GPU delivers 130.0 TFLOPS of FP32, while the Intel Arc 130V Mobile delivers 3.315 TFLOPS. The NVIDIA part is roughly 39 times faster in FP32 compute.

Q: What memory configuration does each GPU use?

A: The Intel Arc 130V Mobile uses system shared memory with system dependent bandwidth. The NVIDIA Rubin GPU uses 288 GB of HBM4 memory on a 16384-bit bus with 22.1 TB/s bandwidth.

Q: Do both GPUs support DirectX 12?

A: No. The Intel Arc 130V Mobile supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The NVIDIA Rubin GPU lists N/A for DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan.

Q: What are the power requirements for each GPU?

A: The Intel Arc 130V Mobile has a 37 W TDP and uses an IGP slot width. The NVIDIA Rubin GPU has a 2300 W TDP, uses an SXM Module slot width, and requires a suggested power supply of 2700 W.

Q: Which GPU has more shading units?

A: The NVIDIA Rubin GPU has 28672 shading units, while the Intel Arc 130V Mobile has 896 shading units. The NVIDIA part provides 32 times the shading unit count.

Q: What is the process node for each GPU?

A: Both the Intel Arc 130V Mobile and the NVIDIA Rubin GPU are fabricated on a 3 nm process node at TSMC.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Arc 130V Mobile wins in portability and integration. Its 37 W TDP and IGP slot width allow it to function inside mobile devices without external power connectors. It supports display outputs, with the specifics dependent on the portable device. It also maintains full graphics API coverage with DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, making it suitable for rendering workloads on laptops and similar systems. Its pixel rate of 51.80 GPixel/s is within 5% of the NVIDIA part's 54.41 GPixel/s, despite a fraction of the power envelope.

The NVIDIA Rubin GPU wins in raw compute and memory capacity. Its 130.0 TFLOPS FP32 and 260.0 TFLOPS FP16 figures place it in a different performance class entirely. The 288 GB HBM4 memory pool with 22.1 TB/s bandwidth provides enormous data throughput for server workloads. Its 896 tensor cores give it dedicated matrix processing hardware, which the Intel part lacks entirely. The NVIDIA part also has a higher boost clock at 2267 MHz versus 1850 MHz for the Intel part, and its base clock of 700 MHz exceeds the Intel part's 300 MHz base clock.

The NVIDIA part wins on transistor count and die area, with 336,000 million transistors on a 1456 mm² die versus an unknown transistor count on a 172 mm² die for Intel. The NVIDIA part also wins on texture rate, delivering 2031.2 GTexel/s against 103.6 GTexel/s for Intel.

The Intel part wins on ROP count, with 28 ROPs against 24 for NVIDIA, though the NVIDIA part still achieves higher pixel throughput through clock speed. The Intel part also holds the release date advantage, having launched on 2024-09-23, while the NVIDIA part is dated 2025-12-31.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ across nearly every recorded specification field.

Chip and architecture: Intel uses the Lunar Lake chip with Xe2-LPG architecture. NVIDIA uses the GR100 chip with Rubin architecture.

Process and foundry: Both use 3 nm TSMC, but the NVIDIA die measures 1456 mm² versus 172 mm² for Intel. NVIDIA records 336,000 million transistors with a density of 230.8M per mm²; Intel lists an unknown transistor count.

Clocks: Intel runs at 300 MHz base and 1850 MHz boost. NVIDIA runs at 700 MHz base and 2267 MHz boost. Intel memory clock is system shared; NVIDIA memory clock is 2695 MHz, stated as 10.8 Gbps effective.

Memory: Intel uses system shared memory with system dependent bandwidth. NVIDIA uses 288 GB HBM4 on a 16384-bit bus with 22.1 TB/s bandwidth.

Compute units: Intel has 896 shading units, 56 TMUs, 28 ROPs, and 7 ray tracing cores. NVIDIA has 28672 shading units, 896 TMUs, 24 ROPs, and 896 tensor cores. NVIDIA lists no ray tracing core count; Intel lists no tensor core count.

Throughput: Intel produces 51.80 GPixel/s and 103.6 GTexel/s. NVIDIA produces 54.41 GPixel/s and 2031.2 GTexel/s. FP32 is 3.315 TFLOPS for Intel and 130.0 TFLOPS for NVIDIA. FP16 is 6.630 TFLOPS for Intel and 260.0 TFLOPS for NVIDIA, both at the 2:1 ratio.

Power and form factor: Intel has a 37 W TDP with IGP slot width and no power connectors. NVIDIA has a 2300 W TDP with SXM Module slot width and a suggested power supply of 2700 W.

Bus and outputs: Intel uses an IGP bus interface with portable device dependent display outputs. NVIDIA uses PCIe 6.0 x16 with no display outputs.

APIs: Intel supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. NVIDIA lists N/A for all three.

Release and lineage: Intel launched on 2024-09-23 with predecessor HD Graphics-M. NVIDIA is dated 2025-12-31 with predecessor Server Blackwell. Both are active in production status, and neither has a successor listed.