Intel Arc 140T Mobile vs NVIDIA N1 20SM Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The recorded data for these two mobile graphics parts shows a clean split along architectural lines. The Intel Arc 140T Mobile, built on the Xe-LPG+ architecture, carries 1024 shading units, 64 texture mapping units, and 32 ROPs. It also includes 8 ray tracing cores. The NVIDIA N1 20SM, based on Blackwell 2.0, fields 2560 shading units, 160 TMUs, 24 ROPs, 20 RT cores, and 80 tensor cores. The raw compute disparity is substantial: the NVIDIA part delivers 12.01 TFLOPS FP32 against Intel's 4.813 TFLOPS, a 2.5x gap in raw shader throughput.

The NVIDIA N1 20SM also wins decisively in texture throughput with 375.4 GTexel/s versus Intel's 150.4 GTexel/s. This matters for scenes dense with textured surfaces. However, the Intel Arc 140T Mobile counters with a higher pixel rate: 75.20 GPixel/s versus NVIDIA's 56.30 GPixel/s. That means Intel's part can fill more pixels per second, which can favor certain rasterization workloads where pixel output is the limiting factor.

The NVIDIA part's memory subsystem is another clear win: 128 GB of LPDDR5X on a 256-bit bus delivers 273.2 GB/s of bandwidth. The Intel part uses system-shared memory with bandwidth described as "System Dependent," meaning its performance in memory-bound scenarios will vary with the host platform. NVIDIA's frame buffer is fixed and dedicated, while Intel's is shared and variable, an important distinction for sustained workloads.

In terms of API support, Intel lists DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The NVIDIA N1 20SM lists DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan as N/A. This suggests Intel's part targets conventional graphics APIs, while NVIDIA's part may be aimed at compute or proprietary pipelines. For traditional game compatibility, Intel has the documented advantage.

The NVIDIA part also includes 80 tensor cores, which Intel's entry does not list at all. This indicates a significant gap for AI-accelerated workloads. The Intel part lists no tensor core count, so any neural network inference or training acceleration would rely purely on shader compute.

Architecture Differences

The two chips diverge at the silicon level. Intel's Arc 140T Mobile uses the Arrow Lake-H chip, fabricated by TSMC on a 5 nm process. NVIDIA's N1 20SM uses the GB20B chip, also TSMC 5 nm. Both are integrated graphics parts (IGP) with active production status, but their design philosophies differ.

Intel's architecture is Xe-LPG+, a graphics-focused design that prioritizes pixel throughput and API compatibility. Its FP16 rate is 9.626 TFLOPS at a 2:1 ratio, meaning it can execute two FP16 operations per FP32 operation. NVIDIA's FP16 rate is 12.01 TFLOPS at a 1:1 ratio, meaning it does not double FP16 throughput relative to FP32. For mixed-precision work, Intel's architecture can exploit FP16 efficiency, while NVIDIA's design treats both precisions equally.

The die sizes tell a different story. NVIDIA's die is 382 mm², which is remarkably large for an integrated part. Intel's die size is not recorded. The NVIDIA chip carries 2560 shading units, 160 TMUs, 20 RT cores, and 80 tensor cores, a much more expansive compute layout. Intel's 1024 shading units, 64 TMUs, 8 RT cores, and no tensor cores indicate a smaller, more modest design.

Clock behavior also differs. Intel's base clock is 300 MHz with a boost of 2350 MHz. NVIDIA's base clock is 741 MHz with a boost of 2346 MHz. The boost clocks are nearly identical, but NVIDIA's base clock is far higher. This suggests NVIDIA's part idles at a higher frequency and may sustain closer-to-boost operation under load, while Intel's part starts much lower and ramps aggressively.

Memory integration is another architectural split. Intel uses system-shared memory, meaning the GPU has no dedicated VRAM and relies on the host's RAM. NVIDIA uses 128 GB of LPDDR5X on a 256-bit bus with a fixed bandwidth of 273.2 GB/s. NVIDIA's memory clock is 1067 MHz with 8.5 Gbps effective, while Intel's memory clock is listed as "System Shared." The presence of dedicated high-bandwidth memory on NVIDIA's side is a structural advantage for data-heavy workloads.

The bus interface also differs: Intel uses IGP (integrated graphics processor) while NVIDIA uses PCIe 5.0 x16. This means NVIDIA's part can be connected as a discrete-style device on a high-bandwidth PCIe link, whereas Intel's part is embedded in the processor package. Display outputs differ as well: Intel lists "Portable Device Dependent," while NVIDIA lists a single HDMI output.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher raw shader compute?

A: The NVIDIA N1 20SM delivers 12.01 TFLOPS FP32, which is 2.5 times the Intel Arc 140T Mobile's 4.813 TFLOPS. NVIDIA also has 2560 shading units versus Intel's 1024.

Q: How do the memory systems compare?

A: NVIDIA uses 128 GB of LPDDR5X on a 256-bit bus with 273.2 GB/s bandwidth. Intel uses system-shared memory with bandwidth described as "System Dependent," so its effective memory performance varies with the host platform.

Q: Does the NVIDIA part support DirectX?

A: The database lists DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan as N/A for the NVIDIA N1 20SM. The Intel Arc 140T Mobile lists DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4.

Q: Which GPU has tensor cores?

A: The NVIDIA N1 20SM has 80 tensor cores. The Intel Arc 140T Mobile lists no tensor core count in the database.

Q: What is the pixel throughput difference?

A: Intel leads with 75.20 GPixel/s versus NVIDIA's 56.30 GPixel/s. Intel's texture rate is 150.4 GTexel/s, while NVIDIA's is 375.4 GTexel/s.

Q: What are the boost clocks?

A: Intel's boost clock is 2350 MHz, and NVIDIA's is 2346 MHz. The base clocks differ more: Intel at 300 MHz and NVIDIA at 741 MHz.

Specification Differences

The database records these direct specification differences:

• Shading units: Intel 1024, NVIDIA 2560
• Texture mapping units: Intel 64, NVIDIA 160
• ROP units: Intel 32, NVIDIA 24
• Ray tracing cores: Intel 8, NVIDIA 20
• Tensor cores: Intel none listed, NVIDIA 80
• Pixel rate: Intel 75.20 GPixel/s, NVIDIA 56.30 GPixel/s
• Texture rate: Intel 150.4 GTexel/s, NVIDIA 375.4 GTexel/s
• FP32 performance: Intel 4.813 TFLOPS, NVIDIA 12.01 TFLOPS
• FP16 performance: Intel 9.626 TFLOPS (2:1), NVIDIA 12.01 TFLOPS (1:1)
• Base clock: Intel 300 MHz, NVIDIA 741 MHz
• Boost clock: Intel 2350 MHz, NVIDIA 2346 MHz
• Memory size: Intel system shared, NVIDIA 128 GB
• Memory type: Intel system shared, NVIDIA LPDDR5X
• Memory bus width: Intel system shared, NVIDIA 256 bit
• Memory bandwidth: Intel system dependent, NVIDIA 273.2 GB/s
• Memory clock: Intel system shared, NVIDIA 1067 MHz 8.5 Gbps effective
• Bus interface: Intel IGP, NVIDIA PCIe 5.0 x16
• Display outputs: Intel portable device dependent, NVIDIA 1x HDMI
• Die size: Intel unknown, NVIDIA 382 mm²
• API support: Intel DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, Vulkan 1.4; NVIDIA N/A for all three
• Power connectors: Intel none listed, NVIDIA none
• TDP: Intel 35 W, NVIDIA unknown

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains no head-to-head benchmark entries, no wins for either part, and no average benchmark scores. The percentile versus all GPUs is 50 for both, placing them at the median of the entire GPU population. Without measured workload results, the comparison must rely on theoretical specifications.

The clearest margin is in FP32 compute: NVIDIA's 12.01 TFLOPS versus Intel's 4.813 TFLOPS represents a 149% advantage for NVIDIA. In texture rate, NVIDIA's 375.4 GTexel/s versus Intel's 150.4 GTexel/s is a 149.6% advantage. In shading units, NVIDIA's 2560 versus Intel's 1024 is a 150% advantage. These are near-identical margins, suggesting the NVIDIA part was designed with roughly 2.5x the shader and texture throughput of the Intel part.

Intel's counterpoints are narrower but still recorded. The pixel rate advantage is 75.20 GPixel/s versus 56.30 GPixel/s, a 33.6% lead for Intel. The FP16 rate, when normalized to the FP32 rate, shows Intel's 2:1 ratio produces 9.626 TFLOPS, which is 2.0x its FP32 number. NVIDIA's 1:1 ratio produces exactly 12.01 TFLOPS, equal to its FP32 number. For workloads that can use FP16, Intel's effective raw throughput is higher than its FP32 number suggests, but still below NVIDIA's absolute FP16 figure.

The memory bandwidth gap is stark: NVIDIA's 273.2 GB/s is fixed and dedicated, while Intel's is "System Dependent." In a system with fast RAM, Intel's bandwidth could approach or perhaps match NVIDIA's, but the database records no measurement to confirm this. The 256-bit bus on NVIDIA gives it a structural advantage that Intel's shared-memory approach cannot guarantee.

Clock behavior favors Intel on boost frequency by a tiny margin: 2350 MHz versus 2346 MHz, a 0.17% difference. The base clock gap is larger: 741 MHz versus 300 MHz, a 147% advantage for NVIDIA. This suggests NVIDIA's part can hold higher frequencies at idle or low load, while Intel relies on aggressive boosting to reach its peak.

The ray tracing core count favors NVIDIA: 20 versus 8, a 150% advantage. The tensor core count favors NVIDIA absolutely, as Intel lists none. No benchmark data exists to translate these counts into real-world performance differences, so the implications remain speculative but directionally clear.

The Verdict

The data indicates two very different design targets. The Intel Arc 140T Mobile is a conventional integrated GPU with broad API support, a low 35 W TDP, and a focus on pixel throughput. Its 75.20 GPixel/s pixel rate exceeds NVIDIA's 56.30 GPixel/s, and its DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4 support make it suitable for standard graphics workloads. Its FP16 capability at a 2:1 ratio adds flexibility for mixed-precision compute.

The NVIDIA N1 20SM is a much larger compute engine. Its 382 mm² die, 2560 shading units, 80 tensor cores, and 12.01 TFLOPS FP32 place it in a different performance class. The 128 GB LPDDR5X frame buffer with 273.2 GB/s of dedicated bandwidth is a decisive advantage for any workload that consumes large datasets. The PCIe 5.0 x16 interface and single HDMI output suggest a more specialized deployment, possibly as a dedicated compute accelerator rather than a general-purpose graphics solution.

The lack of DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan support on the NVIDIA part is a critical constraint. If the intended software stack does not use those APIs, the NVIDIA part's raw compute and memory advantages could dominate. If traditional graphics APIs are required, the Intel part is the only one with documented support. The database records no benchmarks to resolve this tension, so the choice depends entirely on the target application's API requirements and memory needs.

For pixel-bound rasterization with conventional APIs, the Intel Arc 140T Mobile's higher pixel rate and documented API compatibility make it the functional choice. For compute-heavy, memory-intensive workloads that do not rely on conventional graphics APIs, the NVIDIA N1 20SM's 2.5x shader throughput, 80 tensor cores, and dedicated 273.2 GB/s memory make it the stronger option. The recorded data supports both conclusions, but only within their respective use cases.