Intel Arc B770 vs NVIDIA N1 16SM Comparison

The Verdict

The Intel Arc B770 and NVIDIA N1 16SM target fundamentally different segments, and the recorded data makes the separation clear. The Arc B770 is a discrete, dual-slot graphics card built for high-throughput rendering, while the N1 16SM is an integrated graphics processor (IGP) designed for a different power and physical envelope. Users needing maximum raw compute and rasterization throughput should select the Intel part; the data shows it delivers roughly double the FP32 performance, over double the pixel fill rate, and nearly double the texture rate. Users constrained by physical space, power delivery, or requiring a unified memory pool of 128 GB should select the NVIDIA part, as its integrated design uses no power connectors and offers a massive memory capacity that no discrete card in this comparison matches. The N1 16SM also offers PCIe 5.0 connectivity, while the Arc B770 uses PCIe 4.0. Benchmark results indicate the Intel card is the performance leader in every measured throughput category, but the NVIDIA part wins decisively on memory capacity and system integration flexibility.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different architectural generations and design philosophies. The Intel Arc B770 uses the BMG-G31 chip built on the Xe2-HPG architecture, belonging to the Battlemage (Arc 7) generation. Its predecessor is Alchemist. The NVIDIA N1 16SM uses the GB20B chip on the Blackwell 2.0 architecture, part of the Blackwell IGP (N1x) generation. Both are fabricated on a 5 nm process at TSMC, but the NVIDIA die is slightly larger at 382 mm² compared to Intel's 368 mm².

Core configurations differ substantially. The Arc B770 contains 4096 shading units, 256 texture mapping units (TMUs), 128 render output units (ROPs), and 32 ray tracing cores. The N1 16SM contains 2048 shading units, 128 TMUs, 24 ROPs, and 16 ray tracing cores, but it also integrates 64 tensor cores, a feature the Intel part does not list. The Intel card has no tensor core entry in the database.

Clock behavior also separates the two. The Arc B770 runs at a base clock of 2100 MHz and boosts to 2400 MHz. The N1 16SM has a much lower base clock of 741 MHz but boosts to 2346 MHz, nearly matching the Intel boost. Memory clocks differ as well: the Arc B770 operates at 2000 MHz (16 Gbps effective), while the N1 16SM runs at 1067 MHz (8.5 Gbps effective).

API support marks a major architectural divide. The Arc B770 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The N1 16SM lists "N/A" for DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan, indicating it does not expose the same graphics API stack in the recorded data. Display outputs also differ: the Intel card offers 1x HDMI 2.1a and 3x DisplayPort 2.1, while the NVIDIA part provides only 1x HDMI.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains no direct head-to-head benchmark entries for these two parts, and neither has a recorded average benchmark score or nearest rivals list. However, the specification-derived throughput figures provide a quantitative comparison. The Arc B770 delivers 19.66 TFLOPS of FP32 compute, which is 2.05 times the 9.609 TFLOPS of the N1 16SM. In FP16, the Intel card achieves 39.32 TFLOPS (2:1 ratio), while the NVIDIA part delivers 9.609 TFLOPS (1:1 ratio), making the Intel advantage 4.09 times in this workload.

Pixel fill rate shows a similar pattern. The Arc B770 achieves 307.2 GPixel/s, which is 5.46 times the 56.30 GPixel/s of the N1 16SM. Texture rate follows: 614.4 GTexel/s for Intel versus 300.3 GTexel/s for NVIDIA, a 2.05 times advantage. These figures indicate that the Intel part is designed for high-resolution rasterization and texture-heavy rendering, while the NVIDIA IGP offers lower throughput but integrates into a system-on-chip package.

Memory bandwidth favors Intel by a wide margin. The Arc B770 provides 512.0 GB/s over a 256-bit GDDR6 interface, while the N1 16SM provides 273.2 GB/s over a 256-bit LPDDR5X interface. That is an 87% bandwidth advantage for the Intel card. However, the NVIDIA part offers 128 GB of memory versus 16 GB for Intel, a 8 times capacity advantage. The data shows a trade-off: the discrete card has much higher bandwidth per second, but the integrated part has a far larger pool of unified memory.

Specification Differences

The following fields differ between the two parts:

• Chip: BMG-G31 (Intel) versus GB20B (NVIDIA)
• Architecture: Xe2-HPG (Intel) versus Blackwell 2.0 (NVIDIA)
• Generation: Battlemage (Arc 7) (Intel) versus Blackwell IGP (N1x) (NVIDIA)
• Die Size: 368 mm² (Intel) versus 382 mm² (NVIDIA)
• Base Clock: 2100 MHz (Intel) versus 741 MHz (NVIDIA)
• Boost Clock: 2400 MHz (Intel) versus 2346 MHz (NVIDIA)
• Memory Clock: 2000 MHz 16 Gbps effective (Intel) versus 1067 MHz 8.5 Gbps effective (NVIDIA)
• Memory Size: 16 GB (Intel) versus 128 GB (NVIDIA)
• Memory Type: GDDR6 (Intel) versus LPDDR5X (NVIDIA)
• Memory Bandwidth: 512.0 GB/s (Intel) versus 273.2 GB/s (NVIDIA)
• Shading Units: 4096 (Intel) versus 2048 (NVIDIA)
• Texture Mapping Units: 256 (Intel) versus 128 (NVIDIA)
• Render Output Units: 128 (Intel) versus 24 (NVIDIA)
• Ray Tracing Cores: 32 (Intel) versus 16 (NVIDIA)
• Tensor Cores: not listed (Intel) versus 64 (NVIDIA)
• Pixel Rate: 307.2 GPixel/s (Intel) versus 56.30 GPixel/s (NVIDIA)
• Texture Rate: 614.4 GTexel/s (Intel) versus 300.3 GTexel/s (NVIDIA)
• FP32 Performance: 19.66 TFLOPS (Intel) versus 9.609 TFLOPS (NVIDIA)
• FP16 Performance: 39.32 TFLOPS 2:1 (Intel) versus 9.609 TFLOPS 1:1 (NVIDIA)
• TDP: 225 W (Intel) versus unknown (NVIDIA)
• Slot Width: Dual-slot (Intel) versus IGP (NVIDIA)
• Power Connectors: 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin (Intel) versus None (NVIDIA)
• Suggested PSU: 550 W (Intel) versus not listed (NVIDIA)
• Bus Interface: PCIe 4.0 x16 (Intel) versus PCIe 5.0 x16 (NVIDIA)
• Display Outputs: 1x HDMI 2.1a, 3x DisplayPort 2.1 (Intel) versus 1x HDMI (NVIDIA)
• DirectX Support: 12 Ultimate (12_2) (Intel) versus N/A (NVIDIA)
• OpenGL Support: 4.6 (Intel) versus N/A (NVIDIA)
• Vulkan Support: 1.4 (Intel) versus N/A (NVIDIA)
• Release Date: 2025-12-31 (Intel) versus 2026-05-31 (NVIDIA)
• Production Status: not listed (Intel) versus Active (NVIDIA)

FAQ

Q: Which processor has higher FP32 compute performance?

A: The Intel Arc B770 delivers 19.66 TFLOPS, which is 2.05 times the 9.609 TFLOPS of the NVIDIA N1 16SM.

Q: How does memory capacity compare between the two?

A: The NVIDIA N1 16SM offers 128 GB of LPDDR5X memory, which is 8 times the 16 GB of GDDR6 on the Intel Arc B770.

Q: Which part has higher memory bandwidth?

A: The Intel Arc B770 provides 512.0 GB/s, which is 87% higher than the 273.2 GB/s of the NVIDIA N1 16SM.

Q: Does the NVIDIA N1 16SM support DirectX 12 Ultimate?

A: No. The database lists DirectX support as N/A for the NVIDIA part, while the Intel Arc B770 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2).

Q: What is the power connector requirement for each?

A: The Intel Arc B770 requires 1x 6-pin and 1x 8-pin power connectors and lists a suggested PSU of 550 W. The NVIDIA N1 16SM uses no power connectors, as it is an integrated graphics processor.

Q: Which part has more ray tracing cores?

A: The Intel Arc B770 has 32 ray tracing cores, which is double the 16 ray tracing cores of the NVIDIA N1 16SM.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Arc B770 wins in all raw graphics throughput categories. Its FP32 compute of 19.66 TFLOPS is 2.05 times higher than the NVIDIA part, and its FP16 compute of 39.32 TFLOPS is 4.09 times higher. Pixel rate of 307.2 GPixel/s is 5.46 times higher, and texture rate of 614.4 GTexel/s is 2.05 times higher. Memory bandwidth of 512.0 GB/s is 1.87 times higher. The Intel card also offers broader API support with DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, plus four display outputs (1x HDMI 2.1a, 3x DisplayPort 2.1). It uses a PCIe 4.0 x16 interface and is a dual-slot card with a 225 W TDP. This part suits workloads requiring high frame rates, high resolutions, and full graphics API compatibility, such as discrete GPU rendering and gaming.

The NVIDIA N1 16SM wins in memory capacity, offering 128 GB versus 16 GB, which is an 8 times advantage. It also wins on integration: it is an IGP with no power connectors, no suggested PSU requirement, and a single HDMI output. It uses a PCIe 5.0 x16 interface, which is a newer bus generation than the Intel card's PCIe 4.0. The NVIDIA part includes 64 tensor cores, a feature absent from the Intel specification. Its production status is listed as Active. This part suits systems where physical space is minimal, power draw must be minimal, or where a large unified memory pool for data-intensive workloads is more important than raw graphics throughput. The NVIDIA part also has a later release date of 2026-05-31 compared to 2025-12-31 for Intel.