Intel Arc 140V Mobile vs NVIDIA N1X 40SM Comparison

The Verdict

The database records two fundamentally different mobile graphics solutions. The Intel Arc 140V Mobile, built on the Lunar Lake chip with the Xe2-LPG architecture, is an integrated graphics processor released on September 23, 2024. The NVIDIA N1X 40SM, based on the GB20B chip with the Blackwell 2.0 architecture, is an IGP released on May 31, 2026. The recorded data shows a massive performance gulf between them, driven by core counts, clock speeds, and memory configuration.

The NVIDIA N1X 40SM is the clear performance leader across every measurable compute category. Its FP32 throughput of 24.02 TFLOPS is roughly six times the Intel Arc 140V's 3.994 TFLOPS. The texture rate of 750.7 GTexel/s versus 124.8 GTexel/s represents a six-fold advantage in fill-rate-bound workloads. The pixel rate of 93.84 GPixel/s versus 62.40 GPixel/s shows a smaller but still decisive 50% lead in rasterization throughput. For any application that stresses GPU compute, the N1X 40SM is the only choice.

The Intel Arc 140V Mobile wins in the areas of ecosystem compatibility and power envelope. It supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The NVIDIA part lists N/A for all three APIs, meaning software written for those standards has no recorded support path. The Intel part also carries a 37 W TDP, while the NVIDIA part has an unknown power draw. For systems where software compatibility and predictable power limits matter, the Intel part is the safer selection.

The verdict from the data: choose the NVIDIA N1X 40SM for raw compute performance and memory capacity. Choose the Intel Arc 140V Mobile for API compatibility and a known power ceiling.

Where Each One Wins

NVIDIA N1X 40SM wins on compute throughput. The shading unit count of 5120 versus 1024 gives the NVIDIA part a five-fold raw shader advantage. The boost clock of 2346 MHz versus 1950 MHz adds another 20% on top. The FP32 output of 24.02 TFLOPS confirms the scaling. The tensor core count of 160 versus none recorded for Intel means the NVIDIA part has dedicated hardware for AI workloads, and its FP16 rate of 24.02 TFLOPS (1:1) matches its FP32 rate, unlike the Intel part's FP16 rate of 7.987 TFLOPS (2:1).

NVIDIA N1X 40SM wins on memory bandwidth. The 273.2 GB/s bandwidth from 128 GB of LPDDR5X on a 256-bit bus is a decisive advantage over the Intel part's system-shared memory with system-dependent bandwidth. The NVIDIA memory clock is listed at 1067 MHz with 8.5 Gbps effective. For workloads that stream large datasets, the NVIDIA part has no recorded competition.

NVIDIA N1X 40SM wins on geometry and texture work. The 320 TMUs versus 64 TMUs and 40 ROPs versus 32 ROPs give the NVIDIA part higher peak rates for texture sampling and pixel output. The 40 RT cores versus 8 RT cores indicate a five-fold advantage in ray tracing hardware.

Intel Arc 140V Mobile wins on API support. DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4 are all listed for the Intel part. The NVIDIA part has N/A for all three. For existing software titles built on those APIs, the Intel part is the only one with recorded compatibility.

Intel Arc 140V Mobile wins on power predictability. The 37 W TDP gives system designers a fixed thermal budget. The NVIDIA part's TDP is unknown, so no power envelope can be stated. The Intel part also uses an integrated power delivery scheme (no power connectors listed), while the NVIDIA part lists no power connectors as well.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different foundries and process nodes. The Intel Arc 140V Mobile uses a 3 nm process at TSMC with a die size of 172 mm². The NVIDIA N1X 40SM uses a 5 nm process at TSMC with a die size of 382 mm². The larger die gives NVIDIA more room for its higher component counts. Both have unknown transistor counts.

The Intel architecture is Xe2-LPG, part of the Arc Graphics-M generation for Lunar Lake. It uses 1024 shading units, 64 TMUs, 32 ROPs, and 8 RT cores. No tensor cores are recorded. The base clock is 300 MHz, and the boost clock is 1950 MHz. Memory is system shared, meaning size, bus width, and bandwidth all depend on the host system.

The NVIDIA architecture is Blackwell 2.0, part of the Blackwell IGP generation for the N1x platform. It uses 5120 shading units, 320 TMUs, 40 ROPs, 40 RT cores, and 160 tensor cores. The base clock is 741 MHz, and the boost clock is 2346 MHz. Memory is dedicated: 128 GB of LPDDR5X on a 256-bit bus with 273.2 GB/s bandwidth.

The Intel part uses an IGP bus interface with no PCIe connection. The NVIDIA part uses PCIe 5.0 x16. The Intel display outputs are portable-device dependent, while the NVIDIA part lists 1x HDMI. The NVIDIA part has no power connectors, matching its IGP form factor.

The API difference is stark. Intel supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. NVIDIA lists N/A for all three. This means the NVIDIA part's software stack is not recorded for those standards.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher FP32 throughput?

A: The NVIDIA N1X 40SM delivers 24.02 TFLOPS, compared to the Intel Arc 140V Mobile's 3.994 TFLOPS.

Q: Does the Intel Arc 140V Mobile have tensor cores?

A: No tensor core count is recorded for the Intel part. The NVIDIA N1X 40SM has 160 tensor cores.

Q: What memory configuration does the NVIDIA N1X 40SM use?

A: It uses 128 GB of LPDDR5X on a 256-bit bus with a bandwidth of 273.2 GB/s.

Q: Which GPU supports DirectX 12 Ultimate?

A: The Intel Arc 140V Mobile supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2). The NVIDIA N1X 40SM lists N/A for DirectX support.

Q: What is the TDP of the Intel Arc 140V Mobile?

A: The recorded TDP is 37 W. The NVIDIA N1X 40SM has an unknown TDP.

Q: How do the ray tracing core counts compare?

A: The NVIDIA N1X 40SM has 40 RT cores. The Intel Arc 140V Mobile has 8 RT cores.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

No synthetic benchmark scores are recorded for either part. The database shows no head-to-head benchmark results, no average benchmark scores, and no nearest rival comparisons. The analysis below relies entirely on the hardware specifications and derived throughput rates recorded in the database.

The largest recorded win for the NVIDIA N1X 40SM is in FP32 compute. At 24.02 TFLOPS versus 3.994 TFLOPS, the NVIDIA part is approximately six times faster. This ratio comes directly from the shading unit count (5120 versus 1024) and the boost clock advantage (2346 MHz versus 1950 MHz). The FP16 comparison is similar in scale but different in ratio: the NVIDIA part hits 24.02 TFLOPS at a 1:1 ratio, while the Intel part reaches 7.987 TFLOPS at a 2:1 ratio. The NVIDIA part is roughly three times faster in FP16.

The texture rate is the second-largest gap. The NVIDIA part records 750.7 GTexel/s from 320 TMUs at 2346 MHz. The Intel part records 124.8 GTexel/s from 64 TMUs at 1950 MHz. The NVIDIA part is six times faster. The pixel rate shows a smaller advantage: 93.84 GPixel/s versus 62.40 GPixel/s, a 50% lead for NVIDIA.

The memory bandwidth gap is decisive for large data sets. The NVIDIA part's 273.2 GB/s from dedicated LPDDR5X is not directly comparable to the Intel part's system-dependent bandwidth, but the recorded numbers favor NVIDIA by a wide margin. The Intel part has no dedicated memory bus width or speed, so its bandwidth is entirely dependent on the host system.

The clock speeds tell a mixed story. The NVIDIA part has a higher boost clock (2346 MHz versus 1950 MHz) and a higher base clock (741 MHz versus 300 MHz). The Intel part's base clock of 300 MHz is below the NVIDIA part's base clock by more than a factor of two. However, the Intel part's lower power envelope of 37 W suggests the clock speeds are tuned for efficiency rather than peak performance.

The ray tracing hardware follows the same pattern as compute: 40 RT cores versus 8 RT cores is a five-fold advantage for NVIDIA. The tensor core count of 160 versus none recorded gives NVIDIA a monopoly on recorded AI acceleration.

The pixel rate gap is the smallest among the throughput metrics. The NVIDIA part's 93.84 GPixel/s versus the Intel part's 62.40 GPixel/s is a 50% lead. This suggests that ROP-bound workloads see the smallest difference between the two parts.

Specification Differences

Process node: Intel uses 3 nm at TSMC. NVIDIA uses 5 nm at TSMC.

Die size: Intel measures 172 mm². NVIDIA measures 382 mm².

Base clock: Intel runs at 300 MHz. NVIDIA runs at 741 MHz.

Boost clock: Intel reaches 1950 MHz. NVIDIA reaches 2346 MHz.

Memory size: Intel uses system-shared memory. NVIDIA has 128 GB.

Memory type: Intel uses system-shared memory. NVIDIA uses LPDDR5X.

Memory bus width: Intel uses system-shared bus. NVIDIA uses 256 bit.

Memory bandwidth: Intel is system-dependent. NVIDIA is 273.2 GB/s.

Memory clock: Intel is system-shared. NVIDIA is 1067 MHz, 8.5 Gbps effective.

Shading units: Intel has 1024. NVIDIA has 5120.

Texture mapping units: Intel has 64. NVIDIA has 320.

Raster output units: Intel has 32. NVIDIA has 40.

Ray tracing cores: Intel has 8. NVIDIA has 40.

Tensor cores: Intel has none recorded. NVIDIA has 160.

Pixel rate: Intel records 62.40 GPixel/s. NVIDIA records 93.84 GPixel/s.

Texture rate: Intel records 124.8 GTexel/s. NVIDIA records 750.7 GTexel/s.

FP32 performance: Intel records 3.994 TFLOPS. NVIDIA records 24.02 TFLOPS.

FP16 performance: Intel records 7.987 TFLOPS (2:1). NVIDIA records 24.02 TFLOPS (1:1).

TDP: Intel is 37 W. NVIDIA is unknown.

Power connectors: Intel lists none. NVIDIA lists none.

Bus interface: Intel uses IGP. NVIDIA uses PCIe 5.0 x16.

Display outputs: Intel lists portable-device dependent. NVIDIA lists 1x HDMI.

DirectX support: Intel lists 12 Ultimate (12_2). NVIDIA lists N/A.

OpenGL support: Intel lists 4.6. NVIDIA lists N/A.

Vulkan support: Intel lists 1.4. NVIDIA lists N/A.

Release date: Intel released on September 23, 2024. NVIDIA releases on May 31, 2026.

Production status: Both list Active.

Predecessor: Intel lists HD Graphics-M. NVIDIA lists none.

Launch MSRP: Neither part has a recorded launch MSRP.