Intel Arc Graphics 1 Xe Mobile vs NVIDIA N1 16SM Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database does not contain a single direct benchmark comparison between the Intel Arc Graphics 1 Xe Mobile and the NVIDIA N1 16SM. The recorded head-to-head benchmark array is empty, and neither part has an average benchmark score or a list of nearest rivals. This means a score-based comparison cannot be constructed from the available measurements. The data instead offers a comparison of architectural capabilities and theoretical throughput figures, which indicate the NVIDIA part holds a substantial lead in raw compute.

The NVIDIA N1 16SM delivers 9.609 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, while the Intel Arc Graphics 1 Xe Mobile reaches 588.8 GFLOPS. That is a 16.3x difference in raw shader throughput. The texture rate follows the same pattern: the NVIDIA part processes 300.3 GTexel/s versus 18.40 GTexel/s for the Intel part, a 16.3x advantage. Pixel throughput is similarly lopsided, with the NVIDIA IGP hitting 56.30 GPixel/s against the Intel part's 9.200 GPixel/s, a 6.1x gap.

The FP16 comparison is notable for the different execution ratios. The Intel Arc Graphics 1 Xe Mobile runs FP16 at a 2:1 rate, producing 1,177.6 GFLOPS, which is double its FP32 figure. The NVIDIA N1 16SM runs FP16 at a 1:1 rate, meaning it also produces 9.609 TFLOPS, identical to its FP32 throughput. Even with the Intel part's FP16 advantage over its own FP32, the NVIDIA part still delivers 8.2x more FP16 performance.

Neither part has any recorded benchmark wins in the database. The winsA and winsB fields are both zero, and the head-to-head benchmark array contains no entries. Any claims about specific application-level victories cannot be supported by the recorded data. The comparison must rely on compute specifications and architectural analysis.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Arc Graphics 1 Xe Mobile has no measurable benchmark victories in the database, so identifying a use case where it wins requires examining its feature set rather than its performance. It supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The NVIDIA N1 16SM lists no API support in the database, with DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan all marked as N/A. This means the Intel part is the only one of the two with documented compatibility for mainstream graphics APIs, making it the logical choice for software that relies on those standards.

The Intel part also carries the Arc Graphics-M (Wildcat Lake) generation label and is built on a 3 nm process at Intel's own foundry. It uses the Xe3-LPG architecture and includes 1 ray tracing core. The NVIDIA part uses the Blackwell 2.0 architecture on a 5 nm process from TSMC, includes 16 ray tracing cores, and has 64 tensor cores. For ray tracing workloads, the NVIDIA part has 16x more ray tracing cores, and the tensor core count gives it a dedicated path for AI-related tasks that the Intel part lacks entirely.

Memory allocation favors the NVIDIA part strongly. The N1 16SM uses 128 GB of LPDDR5X on a 256-bit bus, delivering 273.2 GB/s of bandwidth. The Intel part uses system shared memory with system dependent bandwidth, so no fixed bandwidth figure exists in the database. The NVIDIA part also reports a memory clock of 1067 MHz with 8.5 Gbps effective transfer rate. The Intel part's memory clock is listed as system shared, meaning it has no dedicated memory clock of its own.

The NVIDIA part wins on every measurable compute metric: shading units (2048 versus 128), texture mapping units (128 versus 8), render output units (24 versus 4), ray tracing cores (16 versus 1), and tensor cores (64 versus none). Its pixel rate, texture rate, and FP32 and FP16 throughput all exceed the Intel part by wide margins. The NVIDIA part also uses a PCIe 5.0 x16 bus interface, while the Intel part is listed as IGP with no bus interface beyond that.

Architecture Differences

The two parts come from different foundries and process nodes. Intel fabricated the Arc Graphics 1 Xe Mobile on its own 3 nm process, while NVIDIA used TSMC's 5 nm process for the N1 16SM. The die size for the NVIDIA part is 382 mm²; the Intel die size is listed as unknown. Transistor counts for both are unknown. The Intel part uses the Xe3-LPG architecture within the Arc Graphics-M (Wildcat Lake) generation, while the NVIDIA part uses Blackwell 2.0 within the Blackwell IGP (N1x) generation. The NVIDIA chip is designated GB20B, and the Intel chip is Wildcat Lake.

The compute configuration is where the architectures diverge most clearly. The Intel part has 128 shading units, 8 TMUs, 4 ROPs, 1 ray tracing core, and no tensor cores. The NVIDIA part has 2048 shading units, 128 TMUs, 24 ROPs, 16 ray tracing cores, and 64 tensor cores. Clock behavior also differs. The Intel part has a base clock of 300 MHz and a boost clock of 2300 MHz. The NVIDIA part has a base clock of 741 MHz and a boost clock of 2346 MHz. The NVIDIA boost clock is only 46 MHz higher, but its base clock is more than double the Intel part's base clock.

Memory architecture is fundamentally different. The Intel part uses system shared memory, meaning its capacity, type, bus width, and bandwidth are all listed as system shared or system dependent. The NVIDIA part has a dedicated 128 GB LPDDR5X pool on a 256-bit bus with 273.2 GB/s bandwidth. The NVIDIA memory clock is 1067 MHz with 8.5 Gbps effective. The Intel part has no dedicated memory clock.

API support is another major split. The Intel part supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The NVIDIA part lists N/A for DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan. The NVIDIA part also has a single HDMI display output, while the Intel part lists portable device dependent outputs. The power configuration differs as well: the Intel part has a TDP of 25 W, while the NVIDIA part's TDP is unknown. Both are IGP parts with no power connectors, and neither has a suggested PSU listed.

Release timing is close. The Intel part was released on April 15, 2026, and the NVIDIA part on May 31, 2026. The Intel part lists HD Graphics-M as its predecessor, while the NVIDIA part has no predecessor listed. Neither part has a successor listed. Both parts hold a 50th percentile position among all GPUs in the database, and both have an average benchmark score of zero.

FAQ

Q: Which part has higher FP32 performance?

A: The NVIDIA N1 16SM delivers 9.609 TFLOPS of FP32, while the Intel Arc Graphics 1 Xe Mobile delivers 588.8 GFLOPS. The NVIDIA part is roughly 16.3x higher.

Q: Does the Intel part support DirectX 12 Ultimate?

A: Yes. The Intel Arc Graphics 1 Xe Mobile supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The NVIDIA N1 16SM lists N/A for all three APIs in the database.

Q: What memory configuration does the NVIDIA part use?

A: The NVIDIA N1 16SM uses 128 GB of LPDDR5X on a 256-bit bus with 273.2 GB/s bandwidth. The memory clock is 1067 MHz with 8.5 Gbps effective. The Intel part uses system shared memory with system dependent bandwidth.

Q: How many ray tracing cores does each part have?

A: The Intel Arc Graphics 1 Xe Mobile has 1 ray tracing core. The NVIDIA N1 16SM has 16 ray tracing cores.

Q: What process nodes are used?

A: The Intel part is fabricated on a 3 nm process at Intel's foundry. The NVIDIA part is fabricated on a 5 nm process at TSMC.

Q: Does the NVIDIA part have tensor cores?

A: Yes. The NVIDIA N1 16SM has 64 tensor cores. The Intel Arc Graphics 1 Xe Mobile has no tensor cores listed.

The Verdict

The recorded data shows a decisive performance advantage for the NVIDIA N1 16SM across every compute metric. Its FP32 throughput of 9.609 TFLOPS, FP16 throughput of 9.609 TFLOPS, texture rate of 300.3 GTexel/s, and pixel rate of 56.30 GPixel/s all dwarf the Intel part's corresponding figures. The NVIDIA part also offers dedicated memory with 273.2 GB/s bandwidth, 16 ray tracing cores, and 64 tensor cores. For any workload that depends on raw shader throughput, memory bandwidth, ray tracing, or AI acceleration, the NVIDIA part is the clear choice based on the database specifications.

The Intel Arc Graphics 1 Xe Mobile does have one documented advantage: API compatibility. Its support for DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4 gives it a functional path to standard graphics software, while the NVIDIA part lists no API support at all. The Intel part also has a lower TDP at 25 W, though the NVIDIA part's TDP is unknown, so a direct power comparison cannot be made.

A buyer who needs a part with documented mainstream graphics API support should choose the Intel Arc Graphics 1 Xe Mobile. A buyer who needs maximum compute throughput, dedicated memory, ray tracing capability, or tensor core acceleration should choose the NVIDIA N1 16SM. The data supports no other conclusion.