Intel Arc Graphics 112EU Mobile vs NVIDIA N1 16SM Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded database contains no direct head-to-head benchmark results between the Intel Arc Graphics 112EU Mobile and the NVIDIA N1 16SM. Both entries list empty benchmark arrays, zero win counts for either side, and identical percentile scores of 50 against all GPUs. The absence of measured data means no comparative performance deltas can be derived from direct testing. Instead, the analysis must rely on the architectural specifications and computed throughput figures recorded for each part.

The compute throughput figures show a substantial gap. The NVIDIA N1 16SM delivers 9.609 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, while the Intel Arc Graphics 112EU Mobile delivers 3.942 TFLOPS. That puts the NVIDIA part at approximately 2.44 times the raw FP32 throughput of the Intel part. In FP16 workloads, the gap narrows slightly in relative terms but widens in absolute terms. The Intel part reaches 7.885 TFLOPS using a 2:1 ratio, while the NVIDIA part sustains 9.609 TFLOPS at a 1:1 ratio. The NVIDIA part does not gain an advantage from reduced precision, but it still holds a lead of roughly 1.72 TFLOPS in FP16.

Texture throughput follows a similar pattern. The NVIDIA N1 16SM records 300.3 GTexel/s against 123.2 GTexel/s for the Intel part, a margin of about 2.44 times. Pixel throughput is closer. The NVIDIA part records 56.30 GPixel/s, and the Intel part records 52.80 GPixel/s, a difference of only about 6.6 percent. Both parts share the same ROP count of 24, which explains the relatively small pixel rate gap despite the large difference in shading resources.

Clock behavior differs notably. The Intel part has a base clock of 300 MHz and a boost clock of 2200 MHz. The NVIDIA part has a base clock of 741 MHz and a boost clock of 2346 MHz. The NVIDIA part runs higher at both idle and peak states. The boost delta between the two parts is only 146 MHz, but the base clock delta is 441 MHz. That base clock difference contributes to the NVIDIA part's ability to sustain higher throughput in steady-state workloads.

Memory configuration separates the two parts more sharply than any other specification. The Intel Arc Graphics 112EU Mobile uses system shared memory, with capacity, type, bus width, and bandwidth all listed as system dependent. The NVIDIA N1 16SM uses 128 GB of LPDDR5X memory on a 256-bit bus, delivering 273.2 GB/s of bandwidth. The memory clock is recorded at 1067 MHz with 8.5 Gbps effective transfer rate. This dedicated memory arrangement gives the NVIDIA part a fixed, measurable bandwidth figure, whereas the Intel part's bandwidth cannot be quantified from the database because it depends entirely on the host system.

The shading resource counts reinforce the throughput numbers. The NVIDIA part has 2048 shading units, 128 texture mapping units, 16 ray tracing cores, and 64 tensor cores. The Intel part has 896 shading units, 56 texture mapping units, and 24 ROPs, with no ray tracing core count or tensor core count recorded. The NVIDIA part has roughly 2.29 times the shading units and 2.29 times the texture mapping units of the Intel part. ROP counts are equal at 24, which aligns with the near parity in pixel rate.

Process technology also differs. The Intel part is fabricated on a 10 nm process at Intel's foundry. The NVIDIA part is fabricated on a 5 nm process at TSMC. The NVIDIA part also records a die size of 382 mm², while the Intel part has no die size recorded. The NVIDIA part's transistor count is listed as unknown, and the Intel part has no transistor count recorded.

The bus interface differs as well. The Intel part uses a Ring Bus interface, while the NVIDIA part uses PCIe 5.0 x16. Display outputs are portable device dependent for the Intel part, while the NVIDIA part lists a single HDMI output.

The Verdict

The data indicates that the NVIDIA N1 16SM is the stronger part on raw compute metrics. It leads in FP32 throughput, FP16 throughput, texture rate, shading unit count, texture mapping unit count, memory capacity, memory bandwidth, and boost clock. The Intel Arc Graphics 112EU Mobile leads in no computed throughput category. The only near tie is pixel rate, where the Intel part trails by about 3.5 GPixel/s, roughly 6.6 percent behind.

The Intel part does have advantages in API support and release timing. It supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The NVIDIA part records N/A for DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan, which means the database does not confirm any conventional graphics API compatibility for the NVIDIA part. The Intel part also has a recorded TDP of 65 W, while the NVIDIA part has no TDP recorded. The Intel part was released on 2023-12-13, while the NVIDIA part has a release date of 2026-05-31, making the NVIDIA part a later product by roughly two and a half years.

The percentile scores do not differentiate the two parts. Both sit at the 50th percentile against all GPUs in the database. The average benchmark score for both is 0, which reflects the absence of benchmark entries rather than measured performance.

Given the recorded specifications, the NVIDIA N1 16SM is the appropriate choice for workloads that demand high FP32 or FP16 throughput, high texture fill, or large dedicated memory capacity. The Intel Arc Graphics 112EU Mobile is the only one of the two with confirmed conventional graphics API support, which makes it the appropriate choice for applications that require DirectX, OpenGL, or Vulkan compatibility. The Intel part also carries a defined power envelope of 65 W, while the NVIDIA part's power draw is unrecorded.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA N1 16SM wins in raw compute throughput. Its FP32 figure of 9.609 TFLOPS is more than double the Intel part's 3.942 TFLOPS. Its texture rate of 300.3 GTexel/s is more than double the Intel part's 123.2 GTexel/s. Its shading unit count of 2048 and texture mapping unit count of 128 both roughly double the Intel part's 896 and 56, respectively. The NVIDIA part also wins in memory by a wide margin. It has 128 GB of dedicated LPDDR5X memory with 273.2 GB/s of bandwidth, whereas the Intel part has no dedicated memory and a system dependent bandwidth figure. The NVIDIA part's 16 ray tracing cores and 64 tensor cores give it hardware acceleration paths that the Intel part does not record.

The Intel Arc Graphics 112EU Mobile wins in software compatibility. The database records DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4 support for the Intel part. The NVIDIA part records N/A for all three APIs. For any workload that relies on those APIs, the Intel part is the only one with confirmed support. The Intel part also wins on power definition. Its TDP is recorded at 65 W, which provides a known power envelope. The NVIDIA part has no TDP recorded, so its power requirements are unspecified in the database.

The pixel rate category is effectively a draw. The NVIDIA part records 56.30 GPixel/s and the Intel part records 52.80 GPixel/s. Both parts have 24 ROPs. The difference of 3.5 GPixel/s is small enough that neither part holds a decisive advantage in pixel fill.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher FP32 performance?

A: The NVIDIA N1 16SM delivers 9.609 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, which is more than double the Intel Arc Graphics 112EU Mobile's 3.942 TFLOPS.

Q: How much memory does each GPU use?

A: The Intel Arc Graphics 112EU Mobile uses system shared memory, so capacity, type, bus width, and bandwidth are system dependent. The NVIDIA N1 16SM has 128 GB of LPDDR5X memory on a 256-bit bus with 273.2 GB/s of bandwidth.

Q: Does the NVIDIA N1 16SM support DirectX, OpenGL, or Vulkan?

A: The database records N/A for DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan on the NVIDIA N1 16SM. The Intel Arc Graphics 112EU Mobile records DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4 support.

Q: What are the boost clocks of the two GPUs?

A: The Intel Arc Graphics 112EU Mobile has a boost clock of 2200 MHz. The NVIDIA N1 16SM has a boost clock of 2346 MHz.

Q: What is the process node for each GPU?

A: The Intel Arc Graphics 112EU Mobile is fabricated on a 10 nm process at Intel. The NVIDIA N1 16SM is fabricated on a 5 nm process at TSMC.

Q: How do the texture rates compare?

A: The NVIDIA N1 16SM records 300.3 GTexel/s, while the Intel Arc Graphics 112EU Mobile records 123.2 GTexel/s. The NVIDIA part is roughly 2.44 times faster in texture fill.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different manufacturers, use different architectures, and target different integration points. The Intel Arc Graphics 112EU Mobile is built on the Meteor Lake chip with the Xe-LPG architecture, part of the Arc Graphics-M generation. The NVIDIA N1 16SM is built on the GB20B chip with the Blackwell 2.0 architecture, part of the Blackwell IGP generation. The Intel part's process node is 10 nm at Intel's foundry. The NVIDIA part's process node is 5 nm at TSMC. The NVIDIA die is recorded at 382 mm², while no die size is recorded for the Intel part.

Compute resource allocation differs significantly. The NVIDIA part has 2048 shading units, 128 TMUs, 24 ROPs, 16 ray tracing cores, and 64 tensor cores. The Intel part has 896 shading units, 56 TMUs, and 24 ROPs, with no ray tracing core or tensor core counts recorded. The NVIDIA part therefore carries dedicated hardware for ray tracing and tensor operations, while the Intel part's database entry does not list either feature.

Memory architecture is a fundamental split. The Intel part uses system shared memory throughout, with no dedicated VRAM, no fixed bus width, and bandwidth that depends on the host system. The NVIDIA part uses 128 GB of LPDDR5X on a 256-bit bus with 273.2 GB/s of bandwidth and a memory clock of 1067 MHz with 8.5 Gbps effective transfer rate. This makes the NVIDIA part's memory performance deterministic, while the Intel part's memory performance varies by platform.

Clock behavior differs in both base and boost states. The Intel part runs at 300 MHz base and 2200 MHz boost. The NVIDIA part runs at 741 MHz base and 2346 MHz boost. The NVIDIA part has a higher base clock by 441 MHz and a higher boost clock by 146 MHz. The Intel part's large boost delta of 1900 MHz suggests a wider dynamic range between idle and peak states.

The bus interface and display outputs also differ. The Intel part uses a Ring Bus interface and lists display outputs as portable device dependent. The NVIDIA part uses PCIe 5.0 x16 and lists one HDMI output. The power connector situation differs as well. The NVIDIA part records no power connectors, while the Intel part records none in its entry. The Intel part has a TDP of 65 W, while the NVIDIA part's TDP is unknown.

API support is the most consequential architectural difference for software compatibility. The Intel part records DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The NVIDIA part records N/A for all three. The NVIDIA part's release date of 2026-05-31 places it later than the Intel part's release date of 2023-12-13, but the database does not record any conventional graphics API support for the NVIDIA part, which may indicate a specialized or non-graphics role for that chip.

Production status is listed as active for both parts. The Intel part has a predecessor listed as HD Graphics-M and no successor. The NVIDIA part has no predecessor and no successor recorded. Neither part has a recorded launch MSRP. Neither part has recorded benchmark scores, average benchmark scores of 0, and identical 50th percentile rankings against all GPUs in the database.