Intel Arc Graphics 1 Xe Mobile vs NVIDIA N1X 48SM Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data contains no direct head-to-head benchmark comparisons between the Intel Arc Graphics 1 Xe Mobile and the NVIDIA N1X 48SM. Neither part has an average benchmark score in the database, and the wins counter for each side is zero. The absence of measured results means the performance relationship between these two integrated graphics processors must be derived from their architectural and specification sheets, not from empirical testing.

The NVIDIA N1X 48SM delivers 28.83 TFLOPS of FP32 compute, which is 49 times the 588.8 GFLOPS recorded for the Intel Arc Graphics 1 Xe Mobile. In FP16 throughput, the NVIDIA part sustains 28.83 TFLOPS with a 1:1 ratio, while the Intel part reaches 1,177.6 GFLOPS with a 2:1 ratio. The NVIDIA GPU also leads in texture rate at 900.9 GTexel/s versus 18.40 GTexel/s, and in pixel rate at 112.6 GPixel/s versus 9.200 GPixel/s.

The Intel part counters with a higher boost clock of 2300 MHz compared to 2346 MHz for NVIDIA, though the NVIDIA part's base clock of 741 MHz is substantially higher than Intel's 300 MHz. Memory access differs fundamentally: the Intel GPU uses system shared memory with system dependent bandwidth, while the NVIDIA part uses 128 GB of LPDDR5X on a 256 bit bus delivering 273.2 GB/s. Both parts sit at the 50th percentile against all GPUs in the database, and neither has nearest rival entries to anchor relative positioning.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher raw compute throughput?

A: The NVIDIA N1X 48SM reaches 28.83 TFLOPS in FP32, versus 588.8 GFLOPS for the Intel Arc Graphics 1 Xe Mobile. The NVIDIA part's FP16 output matches its FP32 at 28.83 TFLOPS, while the Intel part's FP16 of 1,177.6 GFLOPS is achieved at a 2:1 ratio.

Q: How do the memory subsystems compare?

A: The NVIDIA N1X 48SM uses 128 GB of LPDDR5X with a 256 bit bus and 273.2 GB/s bandwidth. The Intel Arc Graphics 1 Xe Mobile relies entirely on system shared memory, with system dependent bandwidth and no dedicated video memory.

Q: What are the architectural differences between the two?

A: Intel uses the Xe3-LPG architecture on a 3 nm process from its own foundry with the Wildcat Lake chip. NVIDIA uses Blackwell 2.0 on a 5 nm process from TSMC with the GB20B chip. The NVIDIA die measures 382 mm², while Intel's die size is unknown.

Q: Do both support the same graphics APIs?

A: No. The Intel Arc Graphics 1 Xe Mobile lists DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The NVIDIA N1X 48SM lists N/A for DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan in the database.

Q: How do the core counts differ?

A: The NVIDIA N1X 48SM has 6144 shading units, 384 TMUs, 48 ROPs, 48 ray tracing cores, and 192 tensor cores. The Intel Arc Graphics 1 Xe Mobile has 128 shading units, 8 TMUs, 4 ROPs, and 1 ray tracing core, with no tensor core entry.

Q: What is the bus interface for each?

A: The NVIDIA N1X 48SM uses PCIe 5.0 x16. The Intel Arc Graphics 1 Xe Mobile uses an integrated graphics processor connection labeled IGP, with no PCIe bus interface listed.

Architecture Differences

The Intel Arc Graphics 1 Xe Mobile is built on the Xe3-LPG architecture and uses the Wildcat Lake chip. It belongs to the Arc Graphics-M (Wildcat Lake) generation. The NVIDIA N1X 48SM uses the Blackwell 2.0 architecture with the GB20B chip and belongs to the Blackwell IGP (N1x) generation. These are fundamentally different design families from different manufacturers, Intel for the Arc part and NVIDIA for the N1X part.

Process technology separates the two clearly. Intel fabricates its chip on a 3 nm node at its own foundry. NVIDIA fabricates the GB20B on a 5 nm node at TSMC. The NVIDIA die area is recorded at 382 mm², while Intel's die size is unknown. Transistor counts for both parts are listed as unknown, so no density comparison is possible from the database.

The execution resources diverge sharply. NVIDIA's 48 SM configuration provides 6144 shading units, 384 texture mapping units, 48 ROPs, 48 ray tracing cores, and 192 tensor cores. Intel's single Xe core configuration provides 128 shading units, 8 TMUs, 4 ROPs, 1 ray tracing core, and no tensor core entry. The NVIDIA part has 48 times the shading units and 48 times the ray tracing cores of the Intel part.

Clock behavior also differs. Intel's base clock is 300 MHz with a 2346 MHz boost for NVIDIA, but the NVIDIA base is 741 MHz. The Intel boost clock of 2300 MHz trails NVIDIA's 2346 MHz by a slim margin. Memory architecture is another split: Intel uses system shared memory with system dependent bandwidth, while NVIDIA has a dedicated 128 GB LPDDR5X pool on a 256 bit bus.

API support is asymmetric. The Intel part exposes DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The NVIDIA part lists N/A for all three APIs in the database, which suggests the recorded feature set does not include those compatibility layers. Display output also differs: Intel depends on the portable device for outputs, while NVIDIA lists a single HDMI output.

Specification Differences

The two parts diverge on nearly every recorded specification. Process node: Intel uses 3 nm, NVIDIA uses 5 nm. Foundry: Intel uses Intel, NVIDIA uses TSMC. Die size: Intel is unknown, NVIDIA is 382 mm². Base clock: Intel is 300 MHz, NVIDIA is 741 MHz. Boost clock: Intel is 2300 MHz, NVIDIA is 2346 MHz. Memory clock: Intel is system shared, NVIDIA is 1067 MHz with 8.5 Gbps effective.

Memory size: Intel is system shared, NVIDIA is 128 GB. Memory type: Intel is system shared, NVIDIA is LPDDR5X. Bus width: Intel is system shared, NVIDIA is 256 bit. Bandwidth: Intel is system dependent, NVIDIA is 273.2 GB/s. Shading units: Intel has 128, NVIDIA has 6144. TMUs: Intel has 8, NVIDIA has 384. ROPs: Intel has 4, NVIDIA has 48. Ray tracing cores: Intel has 1, NVIDIA has 48. Tensor cores: Intel has none listed, NVIDIA has 192.

Pixel rate: Intel is 9.200 GPixel/s, NVIDIA is 112.6 GPixel/s. Texture rate: Intel is 18.40 GTexel/s, NVIDIA is 900.9 GTexel/s. FP32: Intel is 588.8 GFLOPS, NVIDIA is 28.83 TFLOPS. FP16: Intel is 1,177.6 GFLOPS at 2:1, NVIDIA is 28.83 TFLOPS at 1:1. TDP: Intel is 25 W, NVIDIA is unknown. Bus interface: Intel is IGP, NVIDIA is PCIe 5.0 x16. Display outputs: Intel is portable device dependent, NVIDIA is 1x HDMI.

APIs: Intel lists DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4; NVIDIA lists N/A for all three. Release dates: Intel is 2026-04-15, NVIDIA is 2026-05-31. Predecessor: Intel lists HD Graphics-M, NVIDIA lists none. Production status for both is Active. Neither part has a launch MSRP recorded, and neither has a successor listed.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA N1X 48SM wins decisively in every compute metric recorded. FP32 throughput of 28.83 TFLOPS dwarfs the Intel part's 588.8 GFLOPS. Texture rate of 900.9 GTexel/s is 49 times Intel's 18.40 GTexel/s. Pixel rate of 112.6 GPixel/s is roughly 12 times Intel's 9.200 GPixel/s. The NVIDIA part also wins on memory bandwidth at 273.2 GB/s with a dedicated 128 GB LPDDR5X pool, versus Intel's system dependent shared memory.

The NVIDIA part's 6144 shading units, 384 TMUs, 48 ROPs, 48 ray tracing cores, and 192 tensor cores give it a structural advantage for workloads that scale with parallel execution resources. Its PCIe 5.0 x16 interface provides a wider connection to the host than Intel's IGP bus. The higher base clock of 741 MHz and boost clock of 2346 MHz also favor NVIDIA in sustained throughput scenarios.

The Intel Arc Graphics 1 Xe Mobile wins on power efficiency, with a recorded TDP of 25 W versus an unknown figure for NVIDIA. The Intel part also uses a more advanced 3 nm process node from Intel's own foundry, compared to NVIDIA's 5 nm process at TSMC. Intel's API support is complete across DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, while NVIDIA lists N/A for all three, which gives Intel a compatibility advantage in the database record.

Intel's boost clock of 2300 MHz is close to NVIDIA's 2346 MHz, indicating the Intel part can reach comparable peak frequency despite its far smaller execution footprint. The Intel part's integrated nature with system shared memory may suit configurations where dedicated memory allocation is not required. Its production status is Active, and its predecessor is HD Graphics-M, showing a continuity path from older Intel graphics.

Neither part has benchmark scores, nearest rival data, or an average score in the database, so the wins described here are entirely based on specification sheet comparisons. The NVIDIA part's dominance in raw compute and memory resources makes it the choice for workloads that demand maximum throughput, while the Intel part's lower TDP, smaller process node, and broader API support make it suitable for power constrained integrated scenarios.