Intel Arc 140T Mobile vs NVIDIA N1 16SM Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows no direct benchmark results between the Intel Arc 140T Mobile and the NVIDIA N1 16SM. Both GPUs have empty benchmark arrays, no head-to-head comparisons, and zero wins on either side. The database also assigns both parts a 50th percentile ranking versus all GPUs, with average benchmark scores of zero. This means a quantitative performance comparison cannot be constructed from the available measurements. Instead, the comparison rests on the recorded hardware specifications, which reveal substantial differences in compute resources, memory architecture, and feature support.

The most significant specification gap is raw shading throughput. The NVIDIA N1 16SM delivers 9.609 TFLOPS of FP32 compute, while the Intel Arc 140T Mobile delivers 4.813 TFLOPS. That places the NVIDIA part at almost exactly double the FP32 performance of the Intel part. The texture rate tells a similar story: the N1 16SM processes 300.3 GTexel/s versus 150.4 GTexel/s for the Arc 140T, again a 2:1 advantage. These figures indicate that in workloads dominated by shader math and texture sampling, the NVIDIA part should complete tasks in roughly half the time, assuming identical instruction efficiency.

The Intel part counters in two specific areas. Its pixel rate is 75.20 GPixel/s, which is 33.6% higher than the NVIDIA part's 56.30 GPixel/s. This suggests the Intel GPU has a relative strength in fill-rate limited scenarios, such as simple geometry with heavy overdraw or low-resolution rendering where pixel throughput is the bottleneck. Additionally, the Intel part supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, while the NVIDIA part lists N/A for all three APIs. For any application relying on those graphics APIs, the Intel GPU is the only functional option of the two.

FP16 compute also differs in direction. The Intel Arc 140T achieves 9.626 TFLOPS FP16 using a 2:1 ratio, which is slightly above its FP32 figure. The NVIDIA N1 16SM achieves 9.609 TFLOPS FP16 at a 1:1 ratio, meaning it does not gain throughput from reduced precision. In FP16-heavy workloads, the Intel part edges ahead by 0.017 TFLOPS, a negligible margin but a notable architectural difference.

The Verdict

The data indicates a clear split: the NVIDIA N1 16SM is the stronger compute device, while the Intel Arc 140T Mobile is the more compatible graphics solution. The NVIDIA part doubles the FP32 throughput, doubles the texture rate, and carries twice the shading units (2048 versus 1024), twice the texture mapping units (128 versus 64), and twice the ray tracing cores (16 versus 8). It also has 64 tensor cores, which the Intel part lacks entirely. For any workload that scales with shader count, texture fetch rate, or tensor operations, the N1 16SM is the decisive choice.

The Intel part wins on pixel throughput, API compatibility, and power envelope. Its 75.20 GPixel/s pixel rate exceeds the NVIDIA part by 18.9 GPixel/s. Its support for DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4 makes it usable across the standard PC graphics stack, whereas the NVIDIA part reports no DirectX, OpenGL, or Vulkan support. The Intel part also has a recorded 35 W TDP, while the NVIDIA part has no TDP recorded, so the Intel GPU is the only one with a documented power budget.

The database assigns both parts a 50th percentile ranking, but that percentile reflects an empty benchmark history rather than measured equivalence. The verdict from specifications alone: pick the NVIDIA N1 16SM for compute-heavy and tensor-accelerated tasks, pick the Intel Arc 140T Mobile for conventional graphics APIs and fill-rate sensitive rendering.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher FP32 compute performance?

A: The NVIDIA N1 16SM delivers 9.609 TFLOPS FP32, which is 4.796 TFLOPS higher than the Intel Arc 140T Mobile's 4.813 TFLOPS. That is a 99.7% advantage for the NVIDIA part.

Q: Does the Intel Arc 140T Mobile support DirectX 12?

A: Yes, the Intel part lists DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), along with OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4. The NVIDIA N1 16SM lists N/A for DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan.

Q: How much memory does each GPU have?

A: The NVIDIA N1 16SM has 128 GB of LPDDR5X memory on a 256-bit bus with 273.2 GB/s bandwidth. The Intel Arc 140T Mobile uses system shared memory, with system-dependent bandwidth.

Q: Which GPU has more ray tracing cores?

A: The NVIDIA N1 16SM has 16 ray tracing cores, while the Intel Arc 140T Mobile has 8. The NVIDIA part also has 64 tensor cores, while the Intel part has none recorded.

Q: What is the pixel rate difference?

A: The Intel Arc 140T Mobile achieves 75.20 GPixel/s, which is 18.9 GPixel/s higher than the NVIDIA N1 16SM's 56.30 GPixel/s. The Intel part leads by 33.6%.

Q: Are both GPUs on the same manufacturing node?

A: Yes, both use a 5 nm process from TSMC. The NVIDIA part has a recorded die size of 382 mm², while the Intel part has no die size recorded.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ across nearly every measured specification. The NVIDIA N1 16SM uses a GB20B chip with the Blackwell 2.0 architecture, while the Intel Arc 140T Mobile uses an Arrow Lake-H chip with the Xe-LPG+ architecture. The NVIDIA part belongs to the Blackwell IGP (N1x) generation, whereas the Intel part is from Arc Graphics-M (Arrow Lake).

Clock speeds differ notably: the NVIDIA base clock is 741 MHz with a boost of 2346 MHz, while the Intel base clock is 300 MHz with a boost of 2350 MHz. The boost clocks are nearly identical, but the base clock gap is substantial. Memory also diverges entirely: the NVIDIA part has 128 GB of LPDDR5X on a 256-bit bus with 273.2 GB/s bandwidth at 1067 MHz (8.5 Gbps effective), while the Intel part uses system shared memory with system-dependent bandwidth.

Compute unit counts favor NVIDIA: 2048 shading units versus 1024, 128 TMUs versus 64, and 16 RT cores versus 8. The NVIDIA part also records 64 tensor cores, while the Intel part has none. The ROP count is the exception: Intel has 32 ROPs, NVIDIA has 24. The NVIDIA part has a die size of 382 mm², while the Intel die size is unknown. The Intel part records a 35 W TDP, while the NVIDIA TDP is unknown. The NVIDIA part lists a PCIe 5.0 x16 bus interface, while the Intel part uses an IGP bus interface. Display outputs also differ: the NVIDIA part lists 1x HDMI, the Intel part lists portable device dependent outputs. The NVIDIA part has no power connectors, and its release date is later than the Intel part.

Architecture Differences

The architecture split is fundamental. Intel uses Xe-LPG+, built on the Arrow Lake-H chip, and belongs to the Arc Graphics-M (Arrow Lake) generation. NVIDIA uses Blackwell 2.0, built on the GB20B chip, and belongs to the Blackwell IGP (N1x) generation. Both are fabricated on TSMC's 5 nm process, but the transistor counts are unknown for both parts.

The compute architecture differs in FP16 handling. The Intel part achieves 9.626 TFLOPS FP16 through a 2:1 ratio, meaning it performs two FP16 operations per FP32 operation. The NVIDIA part achieves 9.609 TFLOPS FP16 at a 1:1 ratio, meaning it performs FP16 at the same rate as FP32. This indicates the Intel architecture is optimized for reduced-precision throughput, while the NVIDIA architecture treats FP16 and FP32 equally.

Tensor core availability is a major architectural differentiator. The NVIDIA part has 64 tensor cores, which are absent from the Intel part's recorded specifications. Ray tracing hardware also differs: the NVIDIA part has 16 RT cores, the Intel part has 8. The rendering pipeline differs as well: the Intel part has 32 ROPs versus 24 on the NVIDIA part, giving Intel a pixel throughput advantage despite having half the shading units.

The NVIDIA part reports no DirectX, OpenGL, or Vulkan support in its API fields, while the Intel part reports full support for DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. This suggests the NVIDIA part is not designed for standard graphics API workloads, while the Intel part is fully integrated into the conventional graphics stack.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA N1 16SM wins in compute-heavy scenarios. Its 9.609 TFLOPS FP32 is double the Intel part's 4.813 TFLOPS, and its 300.3 GTexel/s texture rate is double the Intel part's 150.4 GTexel/s. With 2048 shading units, 128 TMUs, 16 RT cores, and 64 tensor cores, the NVIDIA part dominates shader-bound, texture-bound, ray tracing, and tensor workloads. Its 128 GB of LPDDR5X memory with 273.2 GB/s bandwidth provides a large, fast memory pool that the Intel part cannot match with system shared memory.

The Intel Arc 140T Mobile wins in fill-rate and API compatibility. Its 75.20 GPixel/s pixel rate exceeds the NVIDIA part by 33.6%, which matters for pixel-bound rendering. Its support for DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4 means it can run the standard graphics software stack, while the NVIDIA part reports no API support. The Intel part also has a recorded 35 W TDP, giving it a documented power envelope, whereas the NVIDIA TDP is unknown.

Use-case separation is therefore clear. Applications that rely on conventional graphics APIs, pixel throughput, or power-bounded mobile operation favor the Intel part. Applications that demand raw shader compute, texture throughput, tensor acceleration, or large dedicated memory favor the NVIDIA part. The data does not support a single winner across all scenarios; the choice depends on whether the workload is compute-bound or graphics-bound.