Intel Arc Graphics 112EU Mobile vs NVIDIA N1X 48SM Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database does not contain any recorded benchmark scores for either the Intel Arc Graphics 112EU Mobile or the NVIDIA N1X 48SM. The head-to-head benchmark list is empty, and both entries show zero wins in direct comparison tests. Without measured frame rates or synthetic scores, the analysis must rely entirely on the architectural and specification data recorded for each part.

The raw compute figures tell a stark story. The Intel Arc Graphics 112EU Mobile delivers 3.942 TFLOPS of FP32 throughput, while the NVIDIA N1X 48SM reaches 28.83 TFLOPS. That is a factor of roughly 7.3 in favor of the NVIDIA part. The gap in texture throughput is similarly wide: the Intel GPU manages 123.2 GTexel/s against 900.9 GTexel/s for the NVIDIA chip. Pixel fill rates also favor NVIDIA, with 112.6 GPixel/s versus 52.80 GPixel/s for the Intel solution.

The clock speeds partially explain the difference. Intel runs at a 300 MHz base and 2200 MHz boost. NVIDIA runs at 741 MHz base and 2346 MHz boost. The boost clocks are close, but the NVIDIA part packs far more execution hardware under that boost. The Intel GPU has 896 shading units, 56 TMUs, and 24 ROPs. The NVIDIA GPU has 6144 shading units, 384 TMUs, and 48 ROPs. That is 6.9 times the shading units, 6.9 times the TMUs, and exactly double the ROPs.

The NVIDIA part also includes dedicated hardware that the Intel GPU lacks entirely. It has 48 ray tracing cores and 192 tensor cores. The Intel Arc Graphics 112EU Mobile lists no RT cores and no tensor cores in the database. Any workload that relies on ray tracing acceleration or tensor operations will run exclusively on NVIDIA hardware capabilities.

FP16 compute follows a different pattern. The Intel GPU lists 7.885 TFLOPS FP16 with a 2:1 ratio relative to FP32. The NVIDIA GPU lists 28.83 TFLOPS FP16 with a 1:1 ratio. The NVIDIA part maintains its full FP32 throughput when switching to FP16, while the Intel part doubles its rate. Even with that doubling, the NVIDIA part still holds a 3.7 times advantage in FP16 throughput.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher boost clock?

A: The NVIDIA N1X 48SM boosts to 2346 MHz, which is 146 MHz higher than the 2200 MHz boost clock of the Intel Arc Graphics 112EU Mobile.

Q: Does the Intel GPU support DirectX?

A: Yes. The Intel Arc Graphics 112EU Mobile supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The NVIDIA N1X 48SM lists N/A for DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan in the database.

Q: What memory configuration does each GPU use?

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

Q: How do the manufacturing processes compare?

A: The Intel GPU is built on Intel's 10 nm process. The NVIDIA GPU is built on TSMC's 5 nm process.

Q: Which GPU has more shading units?

A: The NVIDIA N1X 48SM has 6144 shading units. The Intel Arc Graphics 112EU Mobile has 896 shading units.

Q: What is the pixel fill rate for each GPU?

A: The Intel GPU delivers 52.80 GPixel/s. The NVIDIA GPU delivers 112.6 GPixel/s, more than double the Intel rate.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Arc Graphics 112EU Mobile wins in integration simplicity. It uses system shared memory, which means no dedicated VRAM allocation is required. The bus interface is listed as Ring Bus, typical for an integrated part within the Meteor Lake chip. The Intel GPU consumes 65 W according to the database, and it has no power connectors. It also supports a full set of modern graphics APIs. DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4 are all listed. This makes it a functional choice for any software stack that expects standard graphics API support.

The NVIDIA N1X 48SM wins decisively in raw performance potential. Every compute metric in the database favors it. FP32 throughput is 28.83 TFLOPS versus 3.942 TFLOPS. Texture rate is 900.9 GTexel/s versus 123.2 GTexel/s. Pixel rate is 112.6 GPixel/s versus 52.80 GPixel/s. The NVIDIA part has 48 RT cores and 192 tensor cores, hardware features absent from the Intel listing. Memory bandwidth is a fixed 273.2 GB/s from dedicated LPDDR5X, rather than a system dependent figure. The bus interface is PCIe 5.0 x16, a high bandwidth external connection.

The NVIDIA part also wins on process technology. The 5 nm TSMC node is smaller than Intel's 10 nm node, which typically allows higher density and better efficiency per transistor. The die size is recorded as 382 mm², indicating a large physical implementation despite the smaller node.

The release timing differs substantially. The Intel GPU launched on 2023-12-13. The NVIDIA GPU has a release date of 2026-05-31. The NVIDIA part comes from a later generation and benefits from newer architecture design.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ across nearly every recorded specification. Shading units: 896 for Intel, 6144 for NVIDIA. TMUs: 56 for Intel, 384 for NVIDIA. ROPs: 24 for Intel, 48 for NVIDIA. The NVIDIA part has 48 RT cores and 192 tensor cores; the Intel part has none listed for either.

Clock speeds differ in both base and boost. Intel runs 300 MHz base and 2200 MHz boost. NVIDIA runs 741 MHz base and 2346 MHz boost. The NVIDIA base clock is 2.5 times higher, while the boost clock is only 6.6 percent higher.

Memory configurations are entirely different. The Intel GPU uses system shared memory of no fixed size, with system dependent bandwidth. The NVIDIA GPU uses 128 GB of LPDDR5X on a 256 bit bus with 273.2 GB/s of bandwidth. The memory clock is recorded as 1067 MHz with 8.5 Gbps effective for NVIDIA, while the Intel memory clock is listed as "System Shared."

Rates differ accordingly. Pixel rate: 52.80 GPixel/s for Intel, 112.6 GPixel/s for NVIDIA. Texture rate: 123.2 GTexel/s for Intel, 900.9 GTexel/s for NVIDIA. FP32: 3.942 TFLOPS for Intel, 28.83 TFLOPS for NVIDIA. FP16: 7.885 TFLOPS (2:1) for Intel, 28.83 TFLOPS (1:1) for NVIDIA.

Power and connectivity differ. The Intel GPU has a TDP of 65 W and no power connectors. The NVIDIA TDP is listed as unknown, but it also has no power connectors. The Intel bus interface is Ring Bus. The NVIDIA interface is PCIe 5.0 x16. Display outputs: Intel is "Portable Device Dependent," NVIDIA is listed as 1x HDMI.

Process nodes and foundries differ. Intel uses a 10 nm process at Intel. NVIDIA uses a 5 nm process at TSMC. Die size is unknown for Intel, 382 mm² for NVIDIA. Transistor count is unknown for Intel, listed as "unknown" for NVIDIA as well.

API support differs sharply. Intel lists DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. NVIDIA lists N/A for all three. This is a notable divergence for any application that requires standard graphics API calls.

Production status is Active for both. The Intel predecessor is listed as HD Graphics-M, while the NVIDIA part has no predecessor recorded. Neither part has a successor listed.

Architecture Differences

The Intel Arc Graphics 112EU Mobile uses the Xe-LPG architecture, which is part of the Meteor Lake chip. The generation is recorded as "Arc Graphics-M (Meteor Lake)." This is an integrated GPU design on Intel's 10 nm process, built at Intel's own foundry.

The NVIDIA N1X 48SM uses the Blackwell 2.0 architecture, built on the GB20B chip. The generation is listed as "Blackwell IGP (N1x)." It is manufactured on TSMC's 5 nm process. Despite being labeled as an IGP, the die size of 382 mm² is substantial, and the bus interface is PCIe 5.0 x16 rather than an internal ring connection.

The compute architecture differs fundamentally in FP16 handling. Intel uses a 2:1 ratio, meaning FP16 throughput is double FP32. NVIDIA uses a 1:1 ratio, meaning FP16 throughput equals FP32. This indicates different execution unit designs. The Intel approach likely uses packed FP16 operations, while NVIDIA appears to have native FP16 throughput matching its FP32 capability.

The presence of dedicated accelerators separates the two architectures. NVIDIA includes 48 RT cores and 192 tensor cores, enabling hardware ray tracing and tensor operations. The Intel part has no such units listed. Any AI inference, machine learning training, or ray traced rendering workload will rely entirely on NVIDIA hardware acceleration.

Memory architecture also differs. The Intel GPU shares system memory with no dedicated bandwidth allocation. The NVIDIA GPU has a fixed 128 GB LPDDR5X pool on a 256 bit bus, delivering 273.2 GB/s. The NVIDIA approach provides predictable memory performance independent of the host system.

The API support difference likely reflects the integration context. The Intel part is a conventional mobile GPU supporting standard APIs. The NVIDIA part lists N/A for DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan, which suggests it is not designed for conventional graphics API workloads, or the database has not recorded those specifications for this part.

The Verdict

The data indicates two GPUs built for different purposes. The Intel Arc Graphics 112EU Mobile is a conventional integrated GPU with standard API support, a 65 W TDP, and system shared memory. It launched in December 2023 as part of the Meteor Lake generation. Its compute capabilities are modest: 3.942 TFLOPS FP32 and 7.885 TFLOPS FP16.

The NVIDIA N1X 48SM is a much larger and newer part, with a 2026 release date, a 382 mm² die on TSMC 5 nm, and 28.83 TFLOPS FP32. It carries 6144 shading units, 48 RT cores, 192 tensor cores, and 128 GB of dedicated LPDDR5X memory at 273.2 GB/s. Every recorded performance metric favors the NVIDIA part by a wide margin.

A user constrained to standard graphics APIs should consider the Intel part, which lists DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4 support. The NVIDIA part lists N/A for all three, which would prevent its use in conventional gaming or graphics applications that depend on those APIs.

A user prioritizing raw compute throughput, memory bandwidth, or dedicated ray tracing and tensor hardware should consider the NVIDIA part. The 48 RT cores and 192 tensor cores provide capabilities the Intel GPU cannot match. The fixed 273.2 GB/s memory bandwidth removes reliance on system memory performance.

The choice depends on the workload and software environment. The Intel GPU fits systems that need standard API compatibility with modest performance. The NVIDIA GPU fits compute-heavy tasks that can use its specialized hardware and do not require the conventional graphics APIs the Intel part supports. The database shows no benchmark results for either part, so the performance gap is inferred from specification data rather than measured scores.