Intel Arc G3 vs NVIDIA N1 20SM Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows both GPUs sit at the 50th percentile among all GPUs in the database, with an average benchmark score of 0 for each. This places them as direct mid-pack competitors with no aggregate performance separation. However, the specification differences reveal a substantial delta in raw compute capacity.

The NVIDIA N1 20SM delivers 12.01 TFLOPS of FP32 throughput, which is roughly 95.5% higher than the Intel Arc G3's 6.144 TFLOPS. This near-doubling of floating-point performance indicates the NVIDIA part carries a decisive advantage in workloads that scale with shader throughput. The FP16 comparison shows the same magnitude of difference: NVIDIA maintains a 1:1 ratio at 12.01 TFLOPS, while Intel achieves 12.29 TFLOPS using a 2:1 rate. Interestingly, the Intel part actually posts a slightly higher FP16 figure, but this comes from the half-rate execution path, meaning NVIDIA's 12.01 TFLOPS at full rate is more sustainable for sustained FP16 compute.

Texture throughput favors NVIDIA even more strongly. The N1 20SM reaches 375.4 GTexel/s against Intel's 96.00 GTexel/s, a 291% advantage. This stems from the NVIDIA part's 160 texture mapping units versus Intel's 40 TMUs. Pixel fill rates show a narrower gap: NVIDIA posts 56.30 GPixel/s versus Intel's 48.00 GPixel/s, a 17.3% advantage, driven by 24 ROPs against 20 ROPs on the Intel side.

Clock behavior differs notably. The Intel Arc G3 has a lower base clock at 300 MHz but boosts to 2400 MHz. NVIDIA starts at 741 MHz base and reaches 2346 MHz boost. The Intel boost clock is 2.3% higher, but NVIDIA's base clock is 147% higher, suggesting the NVIDIA part maintains higher sustained frequencies under load. The NVIDIA memory clock is explicitly listed at 1067 MHz with 8.5 Gbps effective data rate, while Intel's memory clock is described as "System Shared," indicating it relies on system memory timing rather than dedicated VRAM clocks.

Architecture Differences

The two parts come from fundamentally different design lineages. Intel's Arc G3 uses the Panther Lake chip with Xe3-LPG architecture, belonging to the Arc Graphics-M (Panther Lake) generation. It is fabricated on a 3 nm process at Intel's own foundry. NVIDIA's N1 20SM uses the GB20B chip with Blackwell 2.0 architecture, part of the Blackwell IGP (N1x) generation, built on a 5 nm process at TSMC. The die size for NVIDIA is recorded at 382 mm², while Intel's die size is unknown in the database.

Transistor counts are listed as unknown for both parts, and neither has a transistor density figure. The NVIDIA die is substantially larger, which aligns with its higher core counts and dedicated memory controller. Intel integrates its memory controller for system-shared memory, while NVIDIA brings a 256-bit LPDDR5X interface with 128 GB capacity and 273.2 GB/s bandwidth.

Core configuration differences are pronounced. NVIDIA fields 2560 shading units, 160 TMUs, 24 ROPs, 20 ray tracing cores, and 80 tensor cores. Intel counters with 1280 shading units, 40 TMUs, 20 ROPs, and 10 ray tracing cores, with no tensor core count listed. NVIDIA doubles Intel's shader count, quadruples TMU count, and doubles RT core count. The tensor core presence on NVIDIA is a significant architectural differentiator, as the Intel part has no tensor core entry in the database.

The API support diverges completely. Intel lists DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. NVIDIA lists N/A for DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan, which indicates the database records no API compatibility for this part. This is a major functional distinction for software compatibility. The bus interface also differs: Intel uses an IGP connection, while NVIDIA uses PCIe 5.0 x16. Display outputs are "Portable Device Dependent" for Intel and 1x HDMI for NVIDIA.

The Verdict

Benchmark data indicates these are mid-pack GPUs with identical aggregate standing, but the underlying specifications tell a different story. The NVIDIA N1 20SM holds a commanding lead in raw compute metrics: 12.01 TFLOPS FP32 versus 6.144 TFLOPS, 375.4 GTexel/s versus 96.00 GTexel/s, and 56.30 GPixel/s versus 48.00 GPixel/s. It also has dedicated memory with 273.2 GB/s bandwidth and 128 GB capacity, while Intel relies on system-shared memory with bandwidth described as "System Dependent."

The Intel side does retain advantages in specific areas. Its FP16 peak of 12.29 TFLOPS exceeds NVIDIA's 12.01 TFLOPS, though this comes from a 2:1 rate rather than a full-rate path. Intel also boosts to a higher clock (2400 MHz versus 2346 MHz), and its 3 nm process node is smaller than NVIDIA's 5 nm. The Intel part lists full API support for DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, whereas NVIDIA's API fields are all listed as N/A.

The data suggests NVIDIA wins on compute density and memory subsystem, while Intel wins on process node and API coverage. The NVIDIA part's 382 mm² die with 2560 shaders and 80 tensor cores positions it for heavier parallel workloads. The Intel part's 1280 shaders and 10 RT cores, combined with system-shared memory, indicate a lighter configuration. For users who need confirmed API compatibility and a smaller process node, Intel is the documented choice. For users who prioritize raw throughput and dedicated memory, NVIDIA is the clear leader in every measured throughput metric except FP16 peak.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher FP32 performance?

A: The NVIDIA N1 20SM delivers 12.01 TFLOPS FP32, which is 95.5% higher than the Intel Arc G3's 6.144 TFLOPS.

Q: Do both GPUs support the same graphics APIs?

A: No. Intel lists DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. NVIDIA lists N/A for DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan in the database.

Q: How much memory does each GPU have?

A: NVIDIA has 128 GB of LPDDR5X memory on a 256-bit bus with 273.2 GB/s bandwidth. Intel uses system-shared memory with no dedicated capacity figure, and its bandwidth is listed as "System Dependent."

Q: What are the boost clocks for each part?

A: Intel boosts to 2400 MHz from a 300 MHz base. NVIDIA boosts to 2346 MHz from a 741 MHz base. Intel's boost is 2.3% higher, but NVIDIA's base clock is 147% higher.

Q: Which GPU has more shading units?

A: NVIDIA has exactly double: 2560 shading units versus Intel's 1280. NVIDIA also has 160 TMUs versus 40, and 24 ROPs versus 20.

Q: What process nodes are used?

A: Intel uses a 3 nm process at its own foundry. NVIDIA uses a 5 nm process at TSMC. NVIDIA's die size is 382 mm², while Intel's die size is unknown.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA N1 20SM wins decisively in compute throughput. Its FP32 rate of 12.01 TFLOPS nearly doubles Intel's 6.144 TFLOPS, making it the stronger choice for shader-heavy rendering and general parallel compute. The texture rate of 375.4 GTexel/s versus 96.00 GTexel/s gives NVIDIA a 291% advantage in texturing workloads, which directly benefits detailed surface rendering. The pixel rate advantage is smaller but still present at 56.30 GPixel/s versus 48.00 GPixel/s. NVIDIA's dedicated 128 GB LPDDR5X memory with 273.2 GB/s bandwidth eliminates reliance on system memory, which is a clear win for memory-intensive applications. The presence of 80 tensor cores, absent on Intel, provides a dedicated path for tensor operations.

The Intel Arc G3 wins on process technology with its 3 nm node versus NVIDIA's 5 nm node. Its FP16 peak of 12.29 TFLOPS edges out NVIDIA's 12.01 TFLOPS, offering a higher theoretical half-precision ceiling. The boost clock of 2400 MHz exceeds NVIDIA's 2346 MHz, providing a slightly higher peak frequency. Intel also holds the API advantage with confirmed support for DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, while NVIDIA's API support is listed as N/A. The IGP bus interface and portable-device-dependent display outputs position Intel for tightly integrated mobile systems, whereas NVIDIA's PCIe 5.0 x16 interface suggests a more expandable platform.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Arc G3 | NVIDIA N1 20SM |

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

| Architecture | Xe3-LPG | Blackwell 2.0 |

| 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 | 2560 |

| TMUs | 40 | 160 |

| ROPs | 20 | 24 |

| Ray Tracing Cores | 10 | 20 |

| Tensor Cores | null | 80 |

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

| Texture Rate | 96.00 GTexel/s | 375.4 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 6.144 TFLOPS | 12.01 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | 12.29 TFLOPS (2:1) | 12.01 TFLOPS (1:1) |

| TDP | 25 W | unknown |

| 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 table highlights the key differentiators. NVIDIA leads in every computational throughput metric except FP16 peak and boost clock. Intel leads in process node and API support. Both share a production status of Active and the same release date of 2026-05-31. Neither part has a launch MSRP recorded, and both use IGP slot width with no power connectors. The NVIDIA part's 80 tensor cores and 20 RT cores give it a dual advantage in accelerated workloads, while Intel's 10 RT cores and no tensor core entry indicate a more limited feature set for those specialized paths.