Intel Arc Graphics 1 Xe Mobile vs NVIDIA N1 20SM Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data contains no direct head-to-head benchmark results for the Intel Arc Graphics 1 Xe Mobile and the NVIDIA N1 20SM. The database shows zero wins for each part in their comparative evaluation, and the average benchmark score for both entries is zero. This absence of measured performance data means the comparison must rely entirely on architectural specifications and theoretical throughput figures rather than application-level testing.

The raw compute figures, however, reveal a substantial gap. The Intel part delivers 588.8 GFLOPS of FP32 throughput, while the NVIDIA part delivers 12.01 TFLOPS. That places the NVIDIA solution at roughly 20 times the raw shader throughput of the Intel solution, a difference that would translate into massive frame rate disparities in any GPU-bound workload. The pixel rate tells a similar story: Intel records 9.200 GPixel/s, NVIDIA records 56.30 GPixel/s, a sixfold advantage. Texture rate widens further, with Intel at 18.40 GTexel/s versus NVIDIA at 375.4 GTexel/s, a 20-fold margin.

The shading unit counts reinforce this hierarchy. Intel uses 128 shading units, NVIDIA uses 2560. The TMU counts are 8 versus 160, and the ROP counts are 4 versus 24. These architectural resources scale directly with the throughput figures, indicating that the NVIDIA part is designed for a completely different performance class. The FP16 comparison shows Intel at 1,177.6 GFLOPS with a 2:1 ratio, while NVIDIA matches its FP32 rate at 12.01 TFLOPS with a 1:1 ratio, so NVIDIA also leads in half-precision work by a wide margin.

Clock speeds narrow the gap slightly. Intel has a base clock of 300 MHz and a boost of 2300 MHz. NVIDIA has a base of 741 MHz and a boost of 2346 MHz. The boost clocks are nearly identical, but NVIDIA starts from a much higher base frequency. That higher base clock, combined with the substantially larger execution resources, explains why the theoretical peak rates diverge so sharply. The boost clock difference is only 46 MHz in NVIDIA's favor, yet the shading unit count is 20 times larger.

Without benchmark scores, the percentile ranking for both parts sits at 50, the median of all GPUs in the database. This identical percentile does not reflect equivalent performance; it reflects the absence of recorded measurements. The database has no wins assigned to either product in their head-to-head section, so the performance relationship must be inferred from the specification sheet alone.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different manufacturers, different foundries, and different architectural lineages. Intel builds the Arc Graphics 1 Xe Mobile on the Xe3-LPG architecture using the Wildcat Lake chip. The process node is 3 nm, and the foundry is Intel. NVIDIA builds the N1 20SM on the Blackwell 2.0 architecture using the GB20B chip. The process node is 5 nm, and the foundry is TSMC. The transistor counts for both are listed as unknown, so no density comparison is possible from the recorded data. The die size for Intel is unknown, while NVIDIA records a 382 mm² die.

The memory subsystems are fundamentally different. Intel uses system shared memory, meaning the GPU accesses the same memory pool as the CPU. The memory type, bus width, and capacity are all listed as system shared, and bandwidth is system dependent. NVIDIA uses a dedicated 128 GB pool of LPDDR5X memory on a 256-bit bus. The memory clock is 1067 MHz with 8.5 Gbps effective data rate, producing 273.2 GB/s of bandwidth. This dedicated high-bandwidth memory is a major architectural advantage for the NVIDIA part, as it does not contend with CPU traffic and provides a fixed bandwidth figure.

The ray tracing and tensor core configurations differ sharply. Intel has 1 ray tracing core and no tensor cores listed. NVIDIA has 20 ray tracing cores and 80 tensor cores. The tensor core count is particularly significant because it enables AI-accelerated workloads such as DLSS-style upscaling and machine learning inference. Intel's lack of tensor cores means it cannot offload those tasks to dedicated hardware. The RT core counts follow the same pattern, with NVIDIA having 20 times the ray tracing resources.

The API support is another distinguishing factor. Intel supports DirectX 12 Ultimate with feature level 12_2, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. NVIDIA lists DirectX as N/A, OpenGL as N/A, and Vulkan as N/A. This suggests the NVIDIA part is not designed for traditional PC gaming APIs, at least not in the configuration recorded in the database. The Intel part, by contrast, carries full modern graphics API support, making it suitable for standard Windows gaming and compute workloads.

The bus interface also differs. Intel uses an IGP connection, meaning it is integrated into the processor package with no external PCIe link. NVIDIA also uses an IGP slot width, but the bus interface is PCIe 5.0 x16. That distinction matters for system integration: the NVIDIA part can connect through a full 16-lane PCIe 5.0 interface, while the Intel part relies on the internal fabric of the host processor.

The power delivery is recorded differently for each. Intel has a TDP of 25 W and no power connectors. NVIDIA has an unknown TDP and no power connectors. Both are IGP-class parts, so neither requires external power. The display outputs also differ: Intel lists portable device dependent, while NVIDIA lists 1x HDMI. This suggests Intel targets mobile or compact systems where the display connection varies by design, while NVIDIA provides a fixed HDMI output.

The production status for both is active. Intel's release date is recorded as 2026-04-15T17:00:00.000Z, and NVIDIA's is 2026-05-31T17:00:00.000Z. NVIDIA's part releases later by roughly six weeks. Intel's predecessor is listed as HD Graphics-M, with no successor recorded. NVIDIA has no predecessor or successor listed.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Arc Graphics 1 Xe Mobile wins in the domain of API compatibility. It supports DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, making it viable for conventional PC gaming and graphics applications. The NVIDIA N1 20SM lists no API support in the database, which limits its applicability to standard gaming workloads unless the host system provides alternative interfaces. For developers or users requiring Vulkan or OpenGL, the Intel part is the only option of the two.

Intel also wins on process technology. The 3 nm node from Intel is smaller than the 5 nm node from TSMC used by NVIDIA. A smaller process node typically allows higher transistor density and better power efficiency, though the unknown transistor counts prevent a direct density comparison. The Intel part also has a lower TDP at 25 W, which suits power-constrained portable devices. NVIDIA's TDP is unknown, so no direct power comparison is possible, but the Intel figure is concrete and low.

The NVIDIA N1 20SM wins on raw compute performance by every measured metric. FP32 is 12.01 TFLOPS versus 588.8 GFLOPS. FP16 is 12.01 TFLOPS versus 1,177.6 GFLOPS. Pixel rate is 56.30 GPixel/s versus 9.200 GPixel/s. Texture rate is 375.4 GTexel/s versus 18.40 GTexel/s. The shading unit count is 2560 versus 128, the TMU count is 160 versus 8, and the ROP count is 24 versus 4. These are not marginal advantages; they are order-of-magnitude differences.

NVIDIA also wins on memory capacity and bandwidth. The 128 GB LPDDR5X pool with 273.2 GB/s of bandwidth dwarfs the system shared memory of the Intel part. For workloads that require large working sets, such as AI inference or large dataset processing, the NVIDIA part provides dedicated storage without system memory contention. The Intel part's bandwidth is system dependent, so it cannot guarantee a fixed throughput.

The ray tracing and tensor core resources give NVIDIA another clear win. With 20 RT cores and 80 tensor cores, the NVIDIA part can accelerate ray-traced rendering and AI-based features. Intel has 1 RT core and no tensor cores, so it cannot match those capabilities. Any workload that leverages tensor cores for matrix multiplication or AI inference will run exclusively on the NVIDIA part.

The clock behavior also favors NVIDIA. The base clock of 741 MHz is more than double Intel's 300 MHz base. The boost clocks are similar at 2346 MHz versus 2300 MHz, so sustained performance under boost is comparable, but the NVIDIA part starts from a much higher baseline. This suggests better performance in sustained workloads that do not trigger boost behavior.

Specification Differences

The two parts differ across nearly every specification field in the database. The process nodes differ: Intel uses 3 nm, NVIDIA uses 5 nm. The foundries differ: Intel uses Intel, NVIDIA uses TSMC. The die size differs: Intel is unknown, NVIDIA is 382 mm². The architectures differ: Intel uses Xe3-LPG, NVIDIA uses Blackwell 2.0. The chips differ: Intel uses Wildcat Lake, NVIDIA uses GB20B.

The clock specifications differ. Intel has a base clock of 300 MHz and a boost of 2300 MHz. NVIDIA has a base clock of 741 MHz and a boost of 2346 MHz. The memory clocks differ: Intel uses system shared memory with no fixed clock, while NVIDIA uses a 1067 MHz clock with 8.5 Gbps effective data rate. The memory size differs: Intel uses system shared, NVIDIA uses 128 GB. The memory type differs: Intel uses system shared, NVIDIA uses LPDDR5X. The bus width differs: Intel uses system shared, NVIDIA uses 256 bit. The bandwidth differs: Intel uses system dependent, NVIDIA uses 273.2 GB/s.

The compute unit counts differ. Shading units: 128 versus 2560. TMUs: 8 versus 160. ROPs: 4 versus 24. RT cores: 1 versus 20. Tensor cores: none for Intel, 80 for NVIDIA. The pixel rates differ: 9.200 GPixel/s versus 56.30 GPixel/s. The texture rates differ: 18.40 GTexel/s versus 375.4 GTexel/s. The FP32 throughput differs: 588.8 GFLOPS versus 12.01 TFLOPS. The FP16 throughput differs: 1,177.6 GFLOPS with 2:1 ratio versus 12.01 TFLOPS with 1:1 ratio.

The TDP differs: Intel records 25 W, NVIDIA records unknown. The bus interface differs: Intel uses IGP, NVIDIA uses PCIe 5.0 x16. The display outputs differ: Intel uses portable device dependent, NVIDIA uses 1x HDMI. The API support differs: Intel supports DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, while NVIDIA lists all as N/A. The release dates differ: Intel on 2026-04-15T17:00:00.000Z, NVIDIA on 2026-05-31T17:00:00.000Z. The predecessors differ: Intel has HD Graphics-M, NVIDIA has none. The launch MSRP for both is not recorded.

FAQ

Q: Which part has higher FP32 performance?

A: The NVIDIA N1 20SM delivers 12.01 TFLOPS of FP32 throughput, while the Intel Arc Graphics 1 Xe Mobile delivers 588.8 GFLOPS. The NVIDIA part is roughly 20 times higher in raw shader compute.

Q: Do both parts support the same graphics APIs?

A: No. The Intel part supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The NVIDIA part lists all three APIs as N/A in the database, so no API compatibility is recorded for it.

Q: What memory configuration does each part use?

A: The Intel part uses system shared memory with a system dependent bandwidth. The NVIDIA part uses 128 GB of LPDDR5X on a 256-bit bus with a 1067 MHz clock and 273.2 GB/s of bandwidth.

Q: How do the ray tracing capabilities compare?

A: The Intel part has 1 ray tracing core. The NVIDIA part has 20 ray tracing cores. NVIDIA also has 80 tensor cores, while Intel has no tensor cores listed.

Q: What is the process node for each chip?

A: The Intel Arc Graphics 1 Xe Mobile uses a 3 nm process at Intel. The NVIDIA N1 20SM uses a 5 nm process at TSMC.

Q: Which part has a higher boost clock?

A: The NVIDIA N1 20SM has a boost clock of 2346 MHz, while the Intel Arc Graphics 1 Xe Mobile has a boost clock of 2300 MHz. The difference is 46 MHz in NVIDIA's favor. The base clocks differ more significantly: 741 MHz for NVIDIA versus 300 MHz for Intel.