Intel Arc Graphics 112EU Mobile vs NVIDIA N1X 40SM Comparison

The Verdict

The Intel Arc Graphics 112EU Mobile and NVIDIA N1X 40SM are both integrated graphics processors, but they serve entirely different performance tiers. The data shows a massive compute advantage for the NVIDIA part: 24.02 TFLOPS FP32 versus 3.942 TFLOPS for Intel, a roughly 6.1x gap. The NVIDIA N1X 40SM also delivers 93.84 GPixel/s pixel rate and 750.7 GTexel/s texture rate, dwarfing Intel's 52.80 GPixel/s and 123.2 GTexel/s. For any workload that stresses raw shader throughput, texture filtering, or pixel fill, the NVIDIA part is the clear choice.

The Intel Arc Graphics 112EU Mobile, however, holds advantages in software compatibility and API support. It exposes DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, while the NVIDIA N1X 40SM lists DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan as N/A. That means the Intel part is the safer pick for existing PC games and applications that rely on those APIs. The NVIDIA part appears aimed at a different ecosystem, possibly console-style or proprietary environments, given its Blackwell 2.0 architecture and lack of standard PC graphics API support.

In short: choose the NVIDIA N1X 40SM if the workload is built around its architecture and can exploit its 5120 shading units and 40 RT cores. Choose the Intel Arc Graphics 112EU Mobile if you need standard DirectX, OpenGL, or Vulkan compatibility in a mobile integrated solution.

Architecture Differences

The Intel Arc Graphics 112EU Mobile uses the Meteor Lake chip with Xe-LPG architecture, built on Intel's 10 nm process. It belongs to the Arc Graphics-M (Meteor Lake) generation. The GPU has 896 shading units, 56 texture mapping units, and 24 ROPs. It operates at a base clock of 300 MHz and a boost clock of 2200 MHz. The architecture supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. Memory is system shared, with bandwidth described as system dependent. The bus interface is a Ring Bus, and the slot width is IGP. The production status is Active, with a release date of December 13, 2023. Its predecessor is HD Graphics-M.

The NVIDIA N1X 40SM uses the GB20B chip with Blackwell 2.0 architecture, built on TSMC's 5 nm process. It belongs to the Blackwell IGP (N1x) generation. The die size is 382 mm², and transistor count is listed as unknown. The GPU has 5120 shading units, 320 texture mapping units, and 40 ROPs. It also includes 40 RT cores and 160 tensor cores. The base clock is 741 MHz, with a boost clock of 2346 MHz. Memory is 128 GB of LPDDR5X on a 256-bit bus, delivering 273.2 GB/s bandwidth. The memory clock is 1067 MHz (8.5 Gbps effective). The bus interface is PCIe 5.0 x16, and the display output is 1x HDMI. The power connector is listed as None. Notably, the standard PC graphics APIs (DirectX, OpenGL, Vulkan) are marked N/A. The release date is May 31, 2026, and it has no predecessor listed.

The architectural split is stark: Intel uses a compact, low-power integrated design with conventional API support, while NVIDIA deploys a large die (382 mm²) with dedicated ray tracing and tensor hardware, but skips standard PC graphics APIs. The NVIDIA part also features 160 tensor cores, which the Intel part lacks entirely, suggesting a focus on AI or compute tasks rather than traditional gaming.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

No direct benchmark scores are recorded in the database for either GPU. The head-to-head benchmark list is empty, and the wins count is 0 for both. However, the raw specifications allow a comparative analysis of theoretical performance ceilings.

The NVIDIA N1X 40SM delivers 24.02 TFLOPS FP32, which is 6.09 times the Intel part's 3.942 TFLOPS. In FP16, the NVIDIA part maintains 24.02 TFLOPS at a 1:1 ratio, while Intel reaches 7.885 TFLOPS at a 2:1 ratio. The NVIDIA advantage in FP16 is roughly 3.05x.

Texture rate shows a similar story: 750.7 GTexel/s for NVIDIA versus 123.2 GTexel/s for Intel, a 6.09x difference. Pixel rate is 93.84 GPixel/s versus 52.80 GPixel/s, a 1.78x lead for NVIDIA. The NVIDIA part also has 5120 shading units versus 896, and 320 TMUs versus 56. These numbers indicate that in any shader-heavy or texture-heavy workload, the NVIDIA part will complete tasks roughly six times faster, assuming similar efficiency per unit.

The Intel part's boost clock of 2200 MHz is slightly lower than NVIDIA's 2346 MHz, but the Intel base clock of 300 MHz is far lower than NVIDIA's 741 MHz. This suggests the Intel part may have a wider dynamic range for power saving, while the NVIDIA part maintains a higher floor.

Memory is another major differentiator. The NVIDIA part has 128 GB of LPDDR5X with 273.2 GB/s bandwidth, while Intel uses system shared memory with bandwidth that is system dependent. In memory-bound workloads, the NVIDIA part has a guaranteed high-bandwidth path, while Intel's performance will vary with the host system's memory configuration.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ in nearly every measurable specification. The process node is 10 nm for Intel versus 5 nm for NVIDIA. The foundry is Intel for the Arc part, TSMC for the NVIDIA part. Die size is not listed for Intel, but NVIDIA is 382 mm². Transistor count is unknown for both.

Clocks: Intel base 300 MHz, boost 2200 MHz. NVIDIA base 741 MHz, boost 2346 MHz. Memory clock is system shared for Intel, 1067 MHz (8.5 Gbps effective) for NVIDIA.

Memory: Intel has system shared size, type, bus width, and bandwidth. NVIDIA has 128 GB LPDDR5X, 256-bit bus, 273.2 GB/s bandwidth.

Compute units: Intel has 896 shading units, 56 TMUs, 24 ROPs, no RT cores, no tensor cores. NVIDIA has 5120 shading units, 320 TMUs, 40 ROPs, 40 RT cores, 160 tensor cores.

Rates: Intel pixel rate 52.80 GPixel/s, texture rate 123.2 GTexel/s, FP32 3.942 TFLOPS, FP16 7.885 TFLOPS (2:1). NVIDIA pixel rate 93.84 GPixel/s, texture rate 750.7 GTexel/s, FP32 24.02 TFLOPS, FP16 24.02 TFLOPS (1:1).

Power and interface: Intel TDP 65 W, bus interface Ring Bus, power connectors not listed. NVIDIA TDP unknown, power connectors None, bus interface PCIe 5.0 x16.

Display outputs: Intel is portable device dependent, NVIDIA is 1x HDMI.

APIs: Intel supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, Vulkan 1.4. NVIDIA lists all as N/A.

Release dates: Intel December 13, 2023; NVIDIA May 31, 2026. Production status is Active for both. None has a launch MSRP.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has more shading units?

A: The NVIDIA N1X 40SM has 5120 shading units, while the Intel Arc Graphics 112EU Mobile has 896.

Q: Does the Intel part support DirectX?

A: Yes, the Intel Arc Graphics 112EU Mobile supports DirectX 12 (12_1), along with OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4. The NVIDIA N1X 40SM lists DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan as N/A.

Q: What is the memory configuration of the NVIDIA N1X 40SM?

A: The NVIDIA N1X 40SM uses 128 GB of LPDDR5X on a 256-bit bus with 273.2 GB/s bandwidth. The Intel part uses system shared memory with system dependent bandwidth.

Q: Which GPU has a higher boost clock?

A: The NVIDIA N1X 40SM has a boost clock of 2346 MHz, compared to 2200 MHz for the Intel Arc Graphics 112EU Mobile.

Q: Does the NVIDIA part have ray tracing cores?

A: Yes, the NVIDIA N1X 40SM includes 40 RT cores and 160 tensor cores. The Intel Arc Graphics 112EU Mobile has neither.

Q: What is the FP32 performance difference?

A: The NVIDIA N1X 40SM delivers 24.02 TFLOPS FP32, versus 3.942 TFLOPS for the Intel part, a 6.09x advantage.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA N1X 40SM wins decisively in raw compute throughput. Its 24.02 TFLOPS FP32 and 24.02 TFLOPS FP16 (1:1) make it suitable for heavy parallel compute, AI inference, and ray-traced workloads, thanks to 160 tensor cores and 40 RT cores. The 750.7 GTexel/s texture rate and 93.84 GPixel/s pixel rate indicate strong performance in texture-bound and fill-rate-bound rendering. The 128 GB LPDDR5X memory with 273.2 GB/s bandwidth provides a large, fast memory pool, which is critical for large datasets or high-resolution textures. The PCIe 5.0 x16 interface allows high-speed data transfer with a host CPU. The base clock of 741 MHz is also significantly higher than Intel's 300 MHz, suggesting more consistent performance under sustained load.

The Intel Arc Graphics 112EU Mobile wins in software compatibility and low-power integration. It supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, which are the standard APIs for PC gaming and many productivity applications. The NVIDIA part's N/A status for these APIs means it cannot run typical PC games or desktop graphics software without a compatibility layer. The Intel part's TDP of 65 W is specified, while NVIDIA's TDP is unknown, but the Intel part's system shared memory and Ring Bus interface indicate a design tightly integrated into a mobile platform. The Intel part also has a release date about two and a half years earlier, meaning it is an established product in the field.

For a user with a standard PC workload, the Intel part is the only viable option due to API support. For a user in a proprietary or compute-focused environment where the NVIDIA architecture is natively supported, the NVIDIA part offers overwhelming performance advantages. The data shows no scenario where both parts compete on equal footing; they target different ecosystems entirely.