Intel Arc Graphics 1 Xe Mobile vs NVIDIA N1X 40SM Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains no recorded head-to-head benchmark results for the Intel Arc Graphics 1 Xe Mobile versus the NVIDIA N1X 40SM. Neither part has any entries in the benchmark score field, and the wins counter for each side is zero. This absence of direct measurements means any performance comparison must be derived from the architectural and specification data recorded in the database, rather than from empirical test runs.

The Intel part posts a peak FP32 throughput of 588.8 GFLOPS, while the NVIDIA part posts 24.02 TFLOPS. Converting the NVIDIA figure to the same unit, that is 24,020 GFLOPS, which places the NVIDIA part approximately 40.8 times higher in raw shader throughput. The pixel rate differential is similarly lopsided: Intel reaches 9.200 GPixel/s, while NVIDIA reaches 93.84 GPixel/s, a factor of roughly 10.2. Texture rate tells the same story, with Intel at 18.40 GTexel/s versus NVIDIA at 750.7 GTexel/s, a gap of approximately 40.8 times.

The closest comparable figures are the boost clocks. Intel boosts to 2300 MHz, while NVIDIA boosts to 2346 MHz, a difference of just 46 MHz, or about 2%. The base clocks diverge more sharply: Intel sits at 300 MHz, while NVIDIA sits at 741 MHz, meaning NVIDIA's base clock is 2.47 times higher. These clock figures, however, are dwarfed by the massive differences in execution resources.

The shading unit count is 128 for Intel versus 5120 for NVIDIA, exactly 40 times more. The texture mapping units number 8 versus 320, again 40 times more. The raster output units total 4 versus 40, 10 times more. The ray tracing cores count 1 versus 40, and the tensor cores, which Intel does not list at all, number 160 on the NVIDIA side. Every execution resource category that the database records shows NVIDIA with a substantial multiple over Intel.

Memory bandwidth shows the widest practical gap. Intel uses system shared memory with bandwidth described as system dependent, so no fixed number exists. NVIDIA has 273.2 GB/s of dedicated bandwidth from 128 GB of LPDDR5X across a 256 bit bus. The Intel memory clock is also system shared, while NVIDIA runs at 1067 MHz with 8.5 Gbps effective. Since Intel's bandwidth cannot be quantified from the recorded data, the comparison is qualitative: NVIDIA has a fixed, high-bandwidth pool, while Intel depends entirely on the host system.

FP16 throughput shows a notable architectural difference. Intel delivers 1,177.6 GFLOPS at a 2:1 ratio relative to FP32, meaning it halves its throughput for FP16. NVIDIA delivers 24.02 TFLOPS at a 1:1 ratio, meaning it sustains full rate. This indicates NVIDIA's shader units handle FP16 without a throughput penalty, whereas Intel's do not.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher boost clock?

A: The NVIDIA N1X 40SM boosts to 2346 MHz, while the Intel Arc Graphics 1 Xe Mobile boosts to 2300 MHz. The difference is 46 MHz, or approximately 2%.

Q: Does the Intel part support DirectX 12 Ultimate?

A: Yes. The Intel Arc Graphics 1 Xe Mobile lists DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4 in its API support. The NVIDIA N1X 40SM lists N/A for DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan in the recorded data.

Q: What is the memory configuration of the NVIDIA part?

A: The NVIDIA N1X 40SM uses 128 GB of LPDDR5X memory on a 256 bit bus, with 273.2 GB/s of bandwidth. The memory clock is 1067 MHz, which is 8.5 Gbps effective. The Intel part uses system shared memory with system dependent bandwidth.

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

A: The Intel Arc Graphics 1 Xe Mobile has 1 ray tracing core. The NVIDIA N1X 40SM has 40 ray tracing cores, exactly 40 times more.

Q: What is the process node for each chip?

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

Q: Which part has tensor cores?

A: Only the NVIDIA N1X 40SM lists tensor cores, with a count of 160. The Intel Arc Graphics 1 Xe Mobile does not list any tensor cores in the database.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from entirely different architectural lineages. Intel's part is built on the Xe3-LPG architecture, belonging to the Arc Graphics-M (Wildcat Lake) generation, and uses the Wildcat Lake chip. NVIDIA's part uses the Blackwell 2.0 architecture, belonging to the Blackwell IGP (N1x) generation, and uses the GB20B chip. These are different design generations from different manufacturers with no shared heritage.

The process nodes differ: Intel fabricates on 3 nm at Intel foundry, while NVIDIA fabricates on 5 nm at TSMC. The die size is recorded as unknown for Intel, while NVIDIA measures 382 mm². Transistor counts are unknown for both parts, so no density comparison can be made from the recorded data.

The execution pipelines differ fundamentally in scale. Intel has 128 shading units, 8 TMUs, and 4 ROPs. NVIDIA has 5120 shading units, 320 TMUs, and 40 ROPs. Every unit count is a clean multiple of 40 for NVIDIA relative to Intel, except the ROPs, which are a multiple of 10. The NVIDIA part also lists 40 ray tracing cores and 160 tensor cores. Intel lists 1 ray tracing core and no tensor cores at all.

FP16 handling reveals an architectural distinction. Intel's FP16 throughput is 1,177.6 GFLOPS at a 2:1 ratio, meaning its FP16 rate is double its FP32 rate, a common arrangement where FP16 operations are processed at half rate per shader. NVIDIA's FP16 throughput is 24.02 TFLOPS at a 1:1 ratio, meaning its FP16 rate equals its FP32 rate, indicating full-rate FP16 execution without any pipeline penalty.

The bus interface and memory architecture differ completely. Intel uses an IGP bus interface with system shared memory. NVIDIA also uses an IGP slot width but connects via PCIe 5.0 x16 and has dedicated 128 GB of LPDDR5X. Intel's display outputs are portable device dependent, while NVIDIA lists 1x HDMI. The power connectors are none for both, and the slot width is IGP for both, so neither uses a discrete expansion card form factor.

API support diverges sharply. Intel supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. NVIDIA lists N/A for all three APIs in the recorded data. This means the Intel part has a full modern graphics API stack, while the NVIDIA part's API compatibility is not specified as functional in the database.

Specification Differences

The NVIDIA N1X 40SM has a 5 nm process node at TSMC, while the Intel Arc Graphics 1 Xe Mobile has a 3 nm process node at Intel. The die size is 382 mm² for NVIDIA, while Intel's is unknown. The base clock differs: 300 MHz for Intel versus 741 MHz for NVIDIA. The boost clock differs by 46 MHz: 2300 MHz for Intel versus 2346 MHz for NVIDIA. The memory clock is system shared for Intel versus 1067 MHz with 8.5 Gbps effective for NVIDIA.

Memory capacity is system shared for Intel versus 128 GB for NVIDIA. Memory type is system shared versus LPDDR5X. Bus width is system shared versus 256 bit. Bandwidth is system dependent for Intel versus 273.2 GB/s for NVIDIA. The shading unit count is 128 versus 5120. The TMU count is 8 versus 320. The ROP count is 4 versus 40. The ray tracing core count is 1 versus 40. The tensor core count is null for Intel versus 160 for NVIDIA.

Pixel rate is 9.200 GPixel/s for Intel versus 93.84 GPixel/s for NVIDIA. Texture rate is 18.40 GTexel/s versus 750.7 GTexel/s. FP32 throughput is 588.8 GFLOPS versus 24.02 TFLOPS. FP16 throughput is 1,177.6 GFLOPS at a 2:1 ratio versus 24.02 TFLOPS at a 1:1 ratio. The TDP is 25 W for Intel, while NVIDIA's TDP is unknown. The bus interface is IGP for Intel versus PCIe 5.0 x16 for NVIDIA. Display outputs are portable device dependent versus 1x HDMI.

API support differs: DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4 for Intel, versus N/A for all three for NVIDIA. The release dates differ: 2026-04-15 for Intel versus 2026-05-31 for NVIDIA. The predecessor is HD Graphics-M for Intel, while NVIDIA has no recorded predecessor. The chip names differ: Wildcat Lake for Intel versus GB20B for NVIDIA. The architecture names differ: Xe3-LPG versus Blackwell 2.0. The generation names differ: Arc Graphics-M (Wildcat Lake) versus Blackwell IGP (N1x). Neither part has a recorded launch MSRP.

The Verdict

The data shows two GPUs with vastly different resource allocations. The NVIDIA N1X 40SM carries 40 times the shading units, 40 times the TMUs, 10 times the ROPs, 40 times the ray tracing cores, and 160 tensor cores that Intel does not list at all. Its FP32 throughput is approximately 40.8 times higher, its pixel rate is approximately 10.2 times higher, and its texture rate is approximately 40.8 times higher. It has a fixed memory pool of 128 GB with 273.2 GB/s of bandwidth, while Intel relies on system shared memory with system dependent bandwidth.

The Intel Arc Graphics 1 Xe Mobile counters with a lower power envelope at 25 W, a smaller process node at 3 nm versus 5 nm, and a full modern API stack including DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. NVIDIA's API support is listed as N/A for all three, which means the recorded data does not confirm functional graphics API compatibility for the NVIDIA part. Intel also has a boost clock that is only 2% lower than NVIDIA's, despite having a base clock less than half of NVIDIA's.

For workloads that depend on raw shader throughput, texture processing, pixel filling, ray tracing, or tensor operations, the NVIDIA part dominates by multiples ranging from 10 to 40. For workloads that require a modern graphics API stack, the Intel part is the only one with confirmed support. For power-constrained systems, the Intel part has a recorded 25 W TDP, while NVIDIA's TDP is unknown.

The percentile versus all GPUs is 50 for both parts, and the average benchmark score is 0 for both, so the database records no aggregate performance ranking for either. The absence of head-to-head benchmarks means no direct empirical comparison exists. Based purely on the specification data, the NVIDIA N1X 40SM is the higher-throughput part in every measured compute and memory category, while the Intel Arc Graphics 1 Xe Mobile is the only part with confirmed API support and a known power draw. The choice between them depends entirely on whether the target system needs NVIDIA's massive execution resource pool or Intel's confirmed software compatibility and lower power profile.