Intel Arc 140T Mobile vs NVIDIA N1X 48SM Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded database contains no direct head-to-head benchmark entries for the Intel Arc 140T Mobile and the NVIDIA N1X 48SM. Both products show zero benchmark scores, zero wins in head-to-head comparisons, and an average benchmark score of zero. The percentile versus all GPUs is identical at 50 for both parts, placing them at the midpoint of the database distribution despite their very different specifications.

Without measured performance data, the analysis must rely on the theoretical throughput figures recorded in the database. The NVIDIA N1X 48SM delivers 28.83 TFLOPS of FP32 compute, while the Intel Arc 140T Mobile delivers 4.813 TFLOPS. This represents a 6.0x advantage for the NVIDIA part in raw single-precision floating-point throughput. The texture rate shows a similar magnitude of difference: 900.9 GTexel/s for the N1X 48SM versus 150.4 GTexel/s for the Arc 140T, a 6.0x ratio. Pixel throughput favors the NVIDIA part at 112.6 GPixel/s against 75.20 GPixel/s, a 1.5x advantage.

The FP16 comparison is instructive. The Intel part achieves 9.626 TFLOPS with a 2:1 ratio, meaning it halves its FP32 rate to double the half-precision throughput. The NVIDIA part achieves 28.83 TFLOPS with a 1:1 ratio, indicating it maintains the same throughput for both FP16 and FP32 operations. The NVIDIA part leads by 3.0x in FP16 performance.

Both parts share the same 5 nm process node and TSMC foundry, so process technology does not explain the throughput gap. The differences come from the scale of each implementation. The NVIDIA N1X 48SM uses 6144 shading units, 384 texture mapping units, 48 ROPs, 48 ray tracing cores, and 192 tensor cores. The Intel Arc 140T Mobile uses 1024 shading units, 64 TMUs, 32 ROPs, and 8 ray tracing cores, with no tensor core count recorded.

Clock speeds are close. The Intel part boosts to 2350 MHz from a 300 MHz base. The NVIDIA part boosts to 2346 MHz from a 741 MHz base. The boost clocks differ by only 4 MHz, so the performance gap is almost entirely a function of execution resource count, not frequency.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher FP32 compute throughput?

A: The NVIDIA N1X 48SM records 28.83 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, which is 6.0x the 4.813 TFLOPS of the Intel Arc 140T Mobile.

Q: Do both GPUs use the same manufacturing process?

A: Yes, both are built on a 5 nm process at TSMC. The Intel part uses the Arrow Lake-H chip with Xe-LPG+ architecture, while the NVIDIA part uses the GB20B chip with Blackwell 2.0 architecture.

Q: What memory configurations do the two GPUs use?

A: The Intel Arc 140T Mobile uses system shared memory with system dependent bandwidth. The NVIDIA N1X 48SM uses 128 GB of LPDDR5X on a 256 bit bus with 273.2 GB/s of bandwidth.

Q: Which GPU has more ray tracing cores?

A: The NVIDIA N1X 48SM has 48 ray tracing cores, while the Intel Arc 140T Mobile has 8, a 6.0x difference.

Q: What are the API support differences?

A: The Intel Arc 140T Mobile supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The NVIDIA N1X 48SM records N/A for DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan in the database.

Q: How do the boost clocks compare?

A: The Intel Arc 140T Mobile boosts to 2350 MHz, and the NVIDIA N1X 48SM boosts to 2346 MHz, a difference of 4 MHz in favor of the Intel part.

Architecture Differences

The Intel Arc 140T Mobile is built on the Arrow Lake-H chip using the Xe-LPG+ architecture. It belongs to the Arc Graphics-M (Arrow Lake) generation. The NVIDIA N1X 48SM is built on the GB20B chip using the Blackwell 2.0 architecture and belongs to the Blackwell IGP (N1x) generation.

The execution resource counts differ substantially. The NVIDIA part has 6144 shading units versus 1024 for the Intel part, a 6.0x ratio. Texture mapping units number 384 versus 64, also a 6.0x ratio. ROPs are 48 versus 32, a 1.5x ratio. Ray tracing cores are 48 versus 8, a 6.0x ratio. The NVIDIA part also includes 192 tensor cores, while the Intel part has no tensor core count recorded.

The NVIDIA N1X 48SM reports a die size of 382 mm². No die size is recorded for the Intel Arc 140T Mobile, and both parts list transistor counts as unknown.

Memory architecture diverges sharply. The Intel part uses system shared memory with system dependent bandwidth, which ties performance to the host platform. The NVIDIA part uses a dedicated 128 GB LPDDR5X pool on a 256 bit bus, delivering 273.2 GB/s of bandwidth. The NVIDIA memory clock is recorded as 1067 MHz with 8.5 Gbps effective transfer rate.

The NVIDIA part exposes PCIe 5.0 x16 as its bus interface, while the Intel part uses an IGP bus interface. Both are integrated graphics products in terms of slot width, but the NVIDIA part's PCIe 5.0 x16 interface and dedicated memory suggest a different integration approach. The Intel part has no power connectors recorded, while the NVIDIA part records none as its power connector configuration.

Display outputs differ as well. The NVIDIA part records 1x HDMI, while the Intel part lists portable device dependent outputs. The NVIDIA part records N/A for DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan, which indicates the database lacks API validation for this product, whereas the Intel part carries full API entries.

The release dates differ. The Intel Arc 140T Mobile has a release date of 2025-01-12, and the NVIDIA N1X 48SM has a release date of 2026-05-31.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ in nearly every recorded specification field. The Intel Arc 140T Mobile has a base clock of 300 MHz and a boost clock of 2350 MHz. The NVIDIA N1X 48SM has a base clock of 741 MHz and a boost clock of 2346 MHz. The NVIDIA part has a 441 MHz higher base clock and a 4 MHz lower boost clock.

Shading units: 1024 for Intel, 6144 for NVIDIA. TMUs: 64 for Intel, 384 for NVIDIA. ROPs: 32 for Intel, 48 for NVIDIA. Ray tracing cores: 8 for Intel, 48 for NVIDIA. Tensor cores: not recorded for Intel, 192 for NVIDIA.

Pixel rate: 75.20 GPixel/s for Intel, 112.6 GPixel/s for NVIDIA. Texture rate: 150.4 GTexel/s for Intel, 900.9 GTexel/s for NVIDIA. FP32: 4.813 TFLOPS for Intel, 28.83 TFLOPS for NVIDIA. FP16: 9.626 TFLOPS (2:1) for Intel, 28.83 TFLOPS (1:1) for NVIDIA.

Memory: system shared for Intel, 128 GB LPDDR5X for NVIDIA. Bus width: system shared for Intel, 256 bit for NVIDIA. Bandwidth: system dependent for Intel, 273.2 GB/s for NVIDIA. Memory clock: system shared for Intel, 1067 MHz 8.5 Gbps effective for NVIDIA.

TDP: 35 W for Intel, unknown for NVIDIA. Power connectors: null for Intel, none for NVIDIA. Bus interface: IGP for Intel, PCIe 5.0 x16 for NVIDIA. Display outputs: portable device dependent for Intel, 1x HDMI for NVIDIA.

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

Die size: unknown for Intel, 382 mm² for NVIDIA. Production status: active for both. Launch MSRP: not recorded for either product.

The Verdict

The database shows a clear performance hierarchy based on theoretical throughput. The NVIDIA N1X 48SM leads in every compute metric: FP32 by 6.0x, FP16 by 3.0x, texture rate by 6.0x, and pixel rate by 1.5x. It also has 6.0x the shading units, 6.0x the TMUs, 6.0x the ray tracing cores, and 6.0x the texture throughput of the Intel part.

The Intel Arc 140T Mobile counters with a 4 MHz higher boost clock, a 35 W TDP that is recorded, and full API support for DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The NVIDIA part has no recorded API support, which limits its applicability in standard graphics API comparisons.

The NVIDIA part uses a dedicated 128 GB LPDDR5X memory pool with 273.2 GB/s bandwidth, while the Intel part depends on system shared memory with system dependent bandwidth. This gives the NVIDIA part a memory bandwidth advantage that is not quantifiable against the Intel part because the Intel bandwidth figure is platform dependent.

The NVIDIA part also carries a larger die at 382 mm² and includes 192 tensor cores, which the Intel part does not record. The NVIDIA part has 48 ROPs versus 32 for Intel, giving it a 1.5x pixel throughput advantage.

Users of the Intel Arc 140T Mobile receive an integrated graphics solution with a 35 W TDP, a 2350 MHz boost clock, and portable device dependent display outputs. Users of the NVIDIA N1X 48SM receive a PCIe 5.0 x16 device with 128 GB of dedicated memory, 6.0x the shading resources, and 6.0x the ray tracing cores.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA N1X 48SM wins in raw compute throughput categories. Its FP32 rate of 28.83 TFLOPS dominates the Intel part's 4.813 TFLOPS. Its FP16 rate of 28.83 TFLOPS with a 1:1 ratio doubles the efficiency of the Intel part's 2:1 ratio implementation at 9.626 TFLOPS. Texture throughput of 900.9 GTexel/s versus 150.4 GTexel/s indicates the NVIDIA part can sustain far heavier texture-bound workloads. Pixel throughput of 112.6 GPixel/s versus 75.20 GPixel/s gives it a fill rate advantage for rasterization-heavy scenes.

The NVIDIA part also wins on memory resources. Its 128 GB LPDDR5X pool on a 256 bit bus with 273.2 GB/s bandwidth provides deterministic memory performance, unlike the Intel part's system dependent bandwidth. The 192 tensor cores give the NVIDIA part an advantage in workloads that use tensor operations, though the database does not record a tensor core count for the Intel part to compare against.

The Intel Arc 140T Mobile wins on API compatibility. It records DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4 support, while the NVIDIA part records N/A for all three. For software stacks that require these APIs, the Intel part is the only option with confirmed support.

The Intel part also wins on power efficiency as recorded. Its TDP of 35 W is documented, while the NVIDIA part has an unknown TDP. The Intel part's base clock of 300 MHz is substantially lower than the NVIDIA part's 741 MHz, which may indicate lower idle power draw, though no power measurements are recorded in the database.

The Intel part wins on boost clock margin, reaching 2350 MHz against 2346 MHz for the NVIDIA part. This 4 MHz difference is negligible in practice but favors the Intel part in the specification comparison.

The NVIDIA part wins on die size documentation, with a recorded 382 mm² die against an unknown value for the Intel part. The NVIDIA part also wins on bus interface, using PCIe 5.0 x16 rather than the IGP interface of the Intel part.

The release dates indicate the NVIDIA part comes later, with a 2026-05-31 release date against 2025-01-12 for the Intel part. Both products remain in active production status according to the database.