Intel Arc G3 vs NVIDIA N1 16SM Comparison

FAQ

Q: What are the core architectures of the Intel Arc G3 and the NVIDIA N1 16SM?

A: The Intel Arc G3 uses the Xe3-LPG architecture on the Panther Lake chip, part of the Arc Graphics-M (Panther Lake) generation. The NVIDIA N1 16SM uses the Blackwell 2.0 architecture on the GB20B chip, part of the Blackwell IGP (N1x) generation.

Q: How do the process nodes differ between the two?

A: The Intel Arc G3 is fabricated on a 3 nm process at Intel, while the NVIDIA N1 16SM is fabricated on a 5 nm process at TSMC. The Intel part also has a smaller die, though its exact size is not recorded.

Q: What memory configurations do the two GPUs use?

A: The Intel Arc G3 uses System Shared memory, meaning its size, type, bus width, and bandwidth are all system dependent. The NVIDIA N1 16SM uses 128 GB of LPDDR5X memory on a 256 bit bus, delivering 273.2 GB/s of bandwidth.

Q: Which GPU has a higher raw shading throughput?

A: The NVIDIA N1 16SM delivers 9.609 TFLOPS of FP32 compute, which is about 56% higher than the Intel Arc G3's 6.144 TFLOPS. The NVIDIA part also has more shading units, 2048 versus 1280.

Q: What is the difference in API support?

A: The Intel Arc G3 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The NVIDIA N1 16SM lists N/A for DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan, indicating no comparable API support in the recorded data.

Q: Do the two GPUs have the same bus interface?

A: No. The Intel Arc G3 uses an IGP bus interface, while the NVIDIA N1 16SM uses PCIe 5.0 x16. Neither requires external power connectors, and both are IGP slot width.

Architecture Differences

The Intel Arc G3 and NVIDIA N1 16SM represent fundamentally different design philosophies. The Intel part is built on a 3 nm process at Intel's own foundry, while the NVIDIA part uses a 5 nm process at TSMC. The Intel chip, Panther Lake, uses the Xe3-LPG architecture, a low-power graphics variant designed for integrated use. The NVIDIA chip, GB20B, uses Blackwell 2.0, a newer architecture generation aimed at high-bandwidth integrated solutions.

The shading resources differ substantially. The Intel Arc G3 has 1280 shading units, 40 texture mapping units, and 20 raster output units. The NVIDIA N1 16SM has 2048 shading units, 128 TMUs, and 24 ROPs. This means the NVIDIA part has 60% more shading units, 3.2 times the TMUs, and 20% more ROPs. Ray tracing hardware also favors NVIDIA: 16 RT cores versus 10. The NVIDIA part additionally includes 64 tensor cores, while the Intel part has none recorded.

Memory architecture is a major differentiator. The Intel Arc G3 relies entirely on System Shared memory, with bandwidth described as System Dependent. The NVIDIA N1 16SM has dedicated 128 GB of LPDDR5X on a 256 bit bus, yielding 273.2 GB/s. This dedicated memory gives the NVIDIA part a fixed, predictable memory subsystem, whereas the Intel part's performance depends on the host system's memory configuration.

Clock speeds also differ. The Intel Arc G3 has a base clock of 300 MHz and a boost of 2400 MHz. The NVIDIA N1 16SM has a base of 741 MHz and a boost of 2346 MHz. Despite the lower base clock, the NVIDIA part's higher shading unit count produces far greater peak throughput. The Intel part's FP16 performance is 12.29 TFLOPS at a 2:1 ratio, while the NVIDIA part's FP16 is 9.609 TFLOPS at a 1:1 ratio, meaning the Intel part has a strong FP16 advantage when using packed math.

The NVIDIA N1 16SM has a recorded die size of 382 mm², while the Intel Arc G3's die size is unknown. The NVIDIA part also uses a PCIe 5.0 x16 bus interface, whereas the Intel part is strictly an IGP. Display outputs differ as well: the Intel part is Portable Device Dependent, while the NVIDIA part has a single HDMI output. API support is starkly different, with Intel offering full DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, while NVIDIA lists N/A for all three.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data contains no direct head-to-head benchmark scores, so the comparison relies on the hardware specifications and derived performance metrics. The most significant wins for the NVIDIA N1 16SM are in raw compute throughput. Its FP32 performance of 9.609 TFLOPS is 56% higher than the Intel Arc G3's 6.144 TFLOPS. Texture fill rate shows an even larger gap: the NVIDIA part delivers 300.3 GTexel/s versus 96.00 GTexel/s for the Intel part, a 3.1 times advantage. Pixel fill rate favors NVIDIA as well, at 56.30 GPixel/s versus 48.00 GPixel/s, a 17% lead.

The Intel Arc G3 does not come away empty-handed. Its FP16 throughput of 12.29 TFLOPS exceeds the NVIDIA part's 9.609 TFLOPS by 28%, thanks to the 2:1 packed math ratio. This indicates the Intel part can process half-precision workloads faster when the software uses packed FP16 instructions. The Intel part also boosts to 2400 MHz, which is 54 MHz higher than the NVIDIA part's 2346 MHz boost, though this does little to close the overall compute gap.

Memory bandwidth is decisively in NVIDIA's favor. The N1 16SM's 273.2 GB/s is a fixed value, while the Intel Arc G3's bandwidth is System Dependent, meaning it could be higher or lower depending on the host platform. The NVIDIA part's 128 GB of LPDDR5X is also far larger than any shared memory allocation a system might assign to the Intel part, though the Intel part can access all system memory dynamically.

Shader resources reinforce the NVIDIA advantage. The 2048 shading units versus 1280 represents a 60% unit count lead, and the 128 TMUs versus 40 is a 3.2 times lead. The NVIDIA part's 24 ROPs versus 20 is a modest 20% lead. Ray tracing cores favor NVIDIA at 16 versus 10, and the NVIDIA part's 64 tensor cores provide AI acceleration capabilities that the Intel part lacks entirely.

The Verdict

The data indicates a clear performance hierarchy. The NVIDIA N1 16SM dominates in nearly every measured throughput category: FP32 compute, texture fill rate, pixel fill rate, shading unit count, TMU count, ROP count, RT core count, and memory bandwidth. Its 9.609 TFLOPS FP32 and 300.3 GTexel/s texture rate place it well ahead of the Intel Arc G3 in traditional 3D rendering workloads.

The Intel Arc G3 holds specific advantages in FP16 throughput and process node. Its 3 nm process is more advanced than NVIDIA's 5 nm, and its 12.29 TFLOPS FP16 performance exceeds the NVIDIA part's 9.609 TFLOPS. The Intel part also offers full modern API support with DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, whereas the NVIDIA part lists N/A for all APIs. This makes the Intel part the only one of the two with recorded compatibility for standard graphics APIs.

For users who need maximum raw rendering performance, the NVIDIA N1 16SM is the stronger choice based on the recorded data. For users who require FP16 compute throughput or full DirectX 12 Ultimate and Vulkan support, the Intel Arc G3 is the only option that provides those features. The NVIDIA part's lack of recorded API support is a substantial limitation, as it suggests the part may be intended for specialized or embedded use rather than general graphics workloads.

Specification Differences

| Field | Intel Arc G3 | NVIDIA N1 16SM |

|---|---|---|

| Chip | Panther Lake | GB20B |

| Architecture | Xe3-LPG | Blackwell 2.0 |

| Generation | Arc Graphics-M (Panther Lake) | Blackwell IGP (N1x) |

| Process Node | 3 nm | 5 nm |

| Foundry | Intel | TSMC |

| Die Size | unknown | 382 mm² |

| Base Clock | 300 MHz | 741 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 2400 MHz | 2346 MHz |

| Memory Size | System Shared | 128 GB |

| Memory Type | System Shared | LPDDR5X |

| Memory Bus Width | System Shared | 256 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | System Dependent | 273.2 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 1280 | 2048 |

| TMUs | 40 | 128 |

| ROPs | 20 | 24 |

| RT Cores | 10 | 16 |

| Tensor Cores | null | 64 |

| Pixel Rate | 48.00 GPixel/s | 56.30 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 96.00 GTexel/s | 300.3 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 6.144 TFLOPS | 9.609 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | 12.29 TFLOPS (2:1) | 9.609 TFLOPS (1:1) |

| Bus Interface | IGP | PCIe 5.0 x16 |

| Display Outputs | Portable Device Dependent | 1x HDMI |

| DirectX | 12 Ultimate (12_2) | N/A |

| OpenGL | 4.6 | N/A |

| Vulkan | 1.4 | N/A |

The two GPUs share identical release dates, production status, and slot width. Neither has a recorded launch MSRP, and both use no external power connectors. The NVIDIA part's 382 mm² die size is the only physical dimension recorded, while the Intel part's die size is unknown.

Where Each One Wins

NVIDIA N1 16SM wins in raw rendering throughput. The recorded data shows the NVIDIA part ahead in FP32 compute, texture fill rate, pixel fill rate, shading unit count, and memory bandwidth. The 3.1 times texture rate advantage is especially notable, indicating far better performance in texture-heavy scenes. The 273.2 GB/s dedicated memory bandwidth also ensures consistent performance regardless of host system configuration, unlike the Intel part's system-dependent bandwidth.

Intel Arc G3 wins in FP16 compute and API compatibility. The 12.29 TFLOPS FP16 throughput is 28% higher than the NVIDIA part, making the Intel part the better choice for half-precision compute workloads that use packed math. The Intel part's DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4 support means it can run standard graphics applications, while the NVIDIA part has no recorded API support. The Intel part also uses a more advanced 3 nm process, which may offer efficiency benefits, though no TDP data is recorded for the NVIDIA part.

Use-case split: For gaming, content creation, or any workload requiring standard graphics APIs, the Intel Arc G3 is the only viable option between the two, as the NVIDIA part lacks recorded DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan support. For compute-heavy tasks that use FP32 or FP16 without API requirements, the NVIDIA N1 16SM delivers higher throughput across nearly all measured metrics. The NVIDIA part's 64 tensor cores also provide AI acceleration that the Intel part cannot match. For systems with limited memory bandwidth, the NVIDIA part's fixed 273.2 GB/s is a safer bet, while the Intel part's performance will vary with the host system's memory.