Intel Arc 140V Mobile vs NVIDIA N1 20SM Comparison

FAQ

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

A: The Intel Arc 140V Mobile is based on the Xe2-LPG architecture from the Lunar Lake chip, belonging to the Arc Graphics-M generation. The NVIDIA N1 20SM uses the Blackwell 2.0 architecture from the GB20B chip, part of the Blackwell IGP generation.

Q: How do the manufacturing processes compare between the two?

A: The Intel part is fabricated on a 3 nm process, while the NVIDIA part uses a 5 nm process. Both are produced by TSMC. The die sizes differ substantially, with Intel at 172 mm² and NVIDIA at 382 mm².

Q: What are the memory configurations for each GPU?

A: The Intel Arc 140V Mobile uses system shared memory, with its bandwidth listed as system dependent. The NVIDIA N1 20SM has a dedicated 128 GB LPDDR5X memory pool on a 256 bit bus, delivering 273.2 GB/s of bandwidth.

Q: Which GPU has a higher boost clock speed?

A: The NVIDIA N1 20SM boosts to 2346 MHz, while the Intel Arc 140V Mobile boosts to 1950 MHz. The base clocks are 741 MHz for NVIDIA and 300 MHz for Intel.

Q: Do both GPUs support DirectX 12 Ultimate?

A: No. The Intel Arc 140V Mobile supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The NVIDIA N1 20SM lists N/A for DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan in the database.

Q: What is the release timeline for these two products?

A: The Intel Arc 140V Mobile was released on September 23, 2024. The NVIDIA N1 20SM has a release date of May 31, 2026. Both are currently marked as Active in production status.

Architecture Differences

The Intel Arc 140V Mobile and NVIDIA N1 20SM represent two fundamentally different design philosophies within the mobile integrated graphics space. The Intel part uses the Xe2-LPG architecture, which is a low-power derivative of Intel's discrete GPU designs, optimized for integration into the Lunar Lake chip. The NVIDIA N1 20SM uses the Blackwell 2.0 architecture, a newer generation that builds upon NVIDIA's data center and workstation GPU designs but adapted for an IGP form factor.

The process nodes diverge significantly. Intel uses a 3 nm TSMC process, while NVIDIA uses a 5 nm TSMC process. The die sizes tell an interesting story: Intel's chip is 172 mm², while NVIDIA's is 382 mm², more than double. This size difference suggests NVIDIA has allocated substantially more silicon area to the GPU portion of its package, which aligns with its much larger memory interface and dedicated memory pool.

The shading unit counts differ by a factor of 2.5. The Intel part has 1024 shading units, while the NVIDIA part has 2560. Texture mapping units also favor NVIDIA heavily, with 160 versus Intel's 64. However, the raster operation units tell a different story: Intel has 32 ROPs, while NVIDIA has only 24. This inversion is notable because it suggests Intel may have optimized for fill-rate-bound scenarios, while NVIDIA focused on compute throughput.

Ray tracing cores also differ, with Intel offering 8 and NVIDIA offering 20. The NVIDIA part additionally includes 80 tensor cores, a feature entirely absent from the Intel specification. The Intel GPU relies on its 1024 shading units for all compute tasks, while NVIDIA can offload tensor operations to dedicated hardware.

The memory architecture is the most dramatic divergence. Intel uses system shared memory, meaning the GPU borrows from the CPU's memory pool with bandwidth that depends on the host system. NVIDIA integrates a dedicated 128 GB LPDDR5X memory array on a 256 bit bus, providing 273.2 GB/s of fixed bandwidth. This is a fundamental difference in how each platform approaches memory provisioning, with NVIDIA opting for a self-contained solution.

Clock behavior also differs. The Intel part runs at a 300 MHz base and 1950 MHz boost, while the NVIDIA part runs at 741 MHz base and 2346 MHz boost. Despite the higher boost, NVIDIA's pixel rate is actually slightly lower at 56.30 GPixel/s compared to Intel's 62.40 GPixel/s, due to the ROP count difference. The texture rate, however, strongly favors NVIDIA at 375.4 GTexel/s versus Intel's 124.8 GTexel/s.

The Verdict

The recorded data presents a clear compute hierarchy. The NVIDIA N1 20SM delivers 12.01 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, which is 3.01 times the Intel Arc 140V Mobile's 3.994 TFLOPS. In FP16, NVIDIA again holds a commanding lead with 12.01 TFLOPS at a 1:1 ratio, while Intel offers 7.987 TFLOPS at a 2:1 ratio. The NVIDIA part's 1:1 FP16 ratio means it does not rely on packed math to reach its figure, suggesting more consistent performance across workloads that use mixed precision.

For applications that depend on texture throughput, NVIDIA's 375.4 GTexel/s is 3.01 times Intel's 124.8 GTexel/s. This translates directly to advantages in games and rendering workloads that sample many textures per pixel. The NVIDIA part also has 80 tensor cores, which the Intel part lacks entirely, giving NVIDIA a dedicated path for AI inference and machine learning tasks.

The Intel part holds advantages in specific areas. Its pixel rate of 62.40 GPixel/s exceeds NVIDIA's 56.30 GPixel/s by about 10.8%. This suggests Intel may handle certain fill-rate-bound scenarios, such as simple 2D rendering or specific post-processing effects, more efficiently. Additionally, Intel's 32 ROPs versus NVIDIA's 24 ROPs supports this observation.

The memory situation complicates any straightforward verdict. Intel's system shared memory approach means performance is partly dependent on the host system's memory configuration, which is not a fixed specification. NVIDIA's dedicated 128 GB pool with 273.2 GB/s bandwidth is a fixed, known quantity. For workloads that are memory-bandwidth sensitive, NVIDIA's deterministic memory subsystem provides a more predictable performance envelope.

The API support difference is critical for software compatibility. Intel supports DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, making it suitable for a wide range of existing PC games and applications. The NVIDIA part lists N/A for all three APIs, which means its software ecosystem is either proprietary or not yet documented in the database. This could restrict the NVIDIA part to specific, custom workloads rather than general-purpose graphics.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ across nearly every measured specification. The process node is 3 nm for Intel and 5 nm for NVIDIA. The die sizes are 172 mm² for Intel and 382 mm² for NVIDIA. Base clocks are 300 MHz for Intel and 741 MHz for NVIDIA. Boost clocks are 1950 MHz for Intel and 2346 MHz for NVIDIA.

Memory configurations are entirely different. Intel uses system shared memory with system dependent bandwidth, while NVIDIA has 128 GB of LPDDR5X on a 256 bit bus with 273.2 GB/s bandwidth. The shading unit count is 1024 for Intel and 2560 for NVIDIA. TMUs are 64 versus 160, and ROPs are 32 versus 24. Ray tracing cores number 8 for Intel and 20 for NVIDIA. Tensor cores are absent on Intel and number 80 on NVIDIA.

Compute rates show NVIDIA's dominance in most areas. Pixel rates are 62.40 GPixel/s for Intel and 56.30 GPixel/s for NVIDIA. Texture rates are 124.8 GTexel/s for Intel and 375.4 GTexel/s for NVIDIA. FP32 performance is 3.994 TFLOPS for Intel and 12.01 TFLOPS for NVIDIA. FP16 performance is 7.987 TFLOPS (2:1) for Intel and 12.01 TFLOPS (1:1) for NVIDIA.

The power specifications differ in completeness. Intel lists a TDP of 37 W. NVIDIA lists its TDP as unknown, with power connectors listed as "None". Both are IGP slot width devices. The bus interfaces are IGP for Intel and PCIe 5.0 x16 for NVIDIA. Display outputs are "Portable Device Dependent" for Intel and "1x HDMI" for NVIDIA. API support includes DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4 for Intel, while NVIDIA lists N/A across all three.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains no direct head-to-head benchmark results between these two GPUs. The wins counters for both are zero, and the benchmark arrays are empty. This means the comparison must rely entirely on the recorded specification data and derived performance metrics.

The largest computed advantage for NVIDIA is in FP32 throughput. At 12.01 TFLOPS versus 3.994 TFLOPS, NVIDIA delivers approximately 3.01 times the raw single-precision compute. This is the single biggest numerical gap in the comparison. The FP16 comparison is also lopsided but with a nuance: NVIDIA's 12.01 TFLOPS at 1:1 ratio means its FP16 rate equals its FP32 rate, while Intel's 7.987 TFLOPS at 2:1 means its FP16 rate is double its FP32 rate. For workloads that use FP16 natively, NVIDIA still leads by about 1.5 times. For workloads that use FP32, NVIDIA leads by the full 3.01 times.

Texture throughput shows a similar pattern. NVIDIA's 375.4 GTexel/s is exactly 3.01 times Intel's 124.8 GTexel/s. This ratio matches the FP32 ratio, which is expected given that both are derived from the shading unit count and clock speed. The consistency of this 3.01 factor across FP32 and texture rate suggests that NVIDIA's advantage is structural, coming from the higher core count and clock speed rather than any architectural efficiency difference.

The pixel rate is the one metric where Intel leads. Intel's 62.40 GPixel/s exceeds NVIDIA's 56.30 GPixel/s by 10.8%. This is a modest but real advantage. The ROP count difference (32 versus 24) is the primary driver. For scenarios that are pixel-fill-rate limited, such as high-resolution 2D compositing or certain alpha-blending-heavy effects, Intel may sustain higher throughput.

The memory bandwidth comparison is one-sided but conditional. NVIDIA's 273.2 GB/s is a fixed specification. Intel's bandwidth is "System Dependent," meaning it could be higher or lower than NVIDIA's depending on the host platform's memory configuration. This is not a fixed advantage for either side, but rather a variable that depends on the overall system design.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Arc 140V Mobile wins in scenarios that are sensitive to pixel fill rate. Its 62.40 GPixel/s and 32 ROPs provide a measurable advantage over NVIDIA's 56.30 GPixel/s and 24 ROPs. Applications that render many small primitives or rely heavily on framebuffer operations may see better performance on the Intel part. The Intel GPU also supports DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, which gives it broad compatibility with existing software ecosystems. For general-purpose PC graphics workloads, the Intel part is the only one of the two with documented API support, making it the safer choice for standard gaming and productivity applications.

The NVIDIA N1 20SM wins decisively in compute-heavy and texture-heavy workloads. Its 12.01 TFLOPS FP32 and FP16 performance, combined with 375.4 GTexel/s texture rate, positions it as the superior choice for rendering, simulation, and any workload that stresses arithmetic throughput. The 80 tensor cores provide dedicated hardware for AI inference and machine learning tasks, which the Intel part cannot accelerate at all. The 128 GB dedicated memory pool with 273.2 GB/s bandwidth removes any dependency on system memory configuration, ensuring consistent performance across different host platforms.

The ray tracing comparison favors NVIDIA with 20 RT cores versus Intel's 8. For ray-traced lighting, shadows, and reflections, NVIDIA has more than double the dedicated hardware. The NVIDIA part's 20 SM configuration, as indicated by its name, suggests a design tuned for parallel compute throughput rather than traditional graphics pipeline efficiency.

The power characteristics are ambiguous. Intel lists a 37 W TDP, while NVIDIA's TDP is unknown. Without a measured power figure for NVIDIA, no direct efficiency comparison is possible. The Intel part's 3 nm process node suggests it may have an efficiency advantage, but the database does not provide the data to confirm this. The NVIDIA part uses a larger 5 nm process and has substantially more hardware, which could imply higher power consumption, but this is not recorded.

The release dates could influence software maturity. Intel released in September 2024, while NVIDIA is scheduled for May 2026. The NVIDIA part has not yet shipped, so its driver ecosystem and real-world performance are unproven. Intel's part has been available longer, which may mean more mature drivers and broader software compatibility. The database records no benchmark scores for either part, so actual performance validation remains absent.