Intel Arc Graphics 128EU Mobile vs NVIDIA N1 20SM Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database records no direct head-to-head benchmark entries for the Intel Arc Graphics 128EU Mobile against the NVIDIA N1 20SM. Both entries show an average benchmark score of 0, and the wins counters for each side remain at zero. This absence of comparative data means the analysis must rely entirely on the recorded specification fields and the theoretical performance metrics each product carries.

The raw compute figures reveal a substantial gap in raw throughput. The NVIDIA N1 20SM delivers 12.01 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, while the Intel Arc Graphics 128EU Mobile offers 4.608 TFLOPS. That places the NVIDIA part at approximately 2.6 times the FP32 throughput of the Intel solution. In FP16 workloads, the NVIDIA chip again outputs 12.01 TFLOPS with a 1:1 ratio, whereas the Intel part reaches 9.216 TFLOPS but only through a 2:1 rate, meaning its native FP16 throughput is effectively half of what the FP32 figure suggests.

Texture fill rates follow a similar pattern. The NVIDIA N1 20SM reaches 375.4 GTexel/s compared to the Intel Arc's 144.0 GTexel/s. Pixel rate, however, tells a different story. The Intel part achieves 72.00 GPixel/s, which is higher than the NVIDIA's 56.30 GPixel/s. That is a notable divergence, indicating that the Intel architecture allocates its render output units more aggressively relative to its shader count, or that the NVIDIA design prioritizes compute and texture work over raw pixel throughput.

The shading unit counts reinforce the compute disparity. NVIDIA packs 2560 shading units into the N1 20SM, while Intel provides 1024. Texture mapping units stand at 160 for NVIDIA versus 64 for Intel. The NVIDIA part also carries 20 ray tracing cores and 80 tensor cores, features that the Intel Arc Graphics 128EU Mobile does not list at all in the database.

Clock speeds show a different kind of contrast. The Intel base clock is 300 MHz with a boost of 2250 MHz, while the NVIDIA base is 741 MHz with a boost of 2346 MHz. The boost clocks are relatively close, but the NVIDIA base clock is substantially higher, suggesting that the NVIDIA part maintains more of its performance at idle or lower-load states.

Architecture Differences

The two products come from entirely different architectural lineages. The Intel Arc Graphics 128EU Mobile uses the Xe-LPG architecture on a Meteor Lake chip, fabricated on Intel's 10 nm process. The NVIDIA N1 20SM uses the Blackwell 2.0 architecture on a GB20B chip, fabricated by TSMC on a 5 nm process. The process node difference is significant: the smaller 5 nm node generally allows for higher transistor density and better power efficiency, though the database does not record a transistor count for either product.

The NVIDIA die size is recorded as 382 mm², which is substantial for an integrated graphics processor. The Intel part does not list a die size, so a direct comparison is impossible, but the NVIDIA chip's large die area suggests a considerable number of functional blocks for its 2560 shading units, 160 TMUs, 20 RT cores, and 80 tensor cores.

Memory architecture presents another fundamental difference. The Intel Arc Graphics 128EU Mobile uses system-shared memory with no dedicated VRAM, and its bandwidth is listed as system dependent. The NVIDIA N1 20SM carries 128 GB of LPDDR5X memory on a 256-bit bus, yielding 273.2 GB/s of bandwidth. That dedicated memory pool is a major advantage for the NVIDIA part, as it does not compete with the CPU for memory access and has a fixed bandwidth figure rather than a variable one.

The bus interface also differs. Intel uses a Ring Bus, while NVIDIA uses PCIe 5.0 x16. Display outputs are portable-device dependent for the Intel part, whereas the NVIDIA part lists 1x HDMI. API support shows a stark contrast: the Intel part supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, while the NVIDIA part lists all three APIs as N/A. That is a critical functional difference, as the Intel part is fully capable of running standard graphics APIs while the NVIDIA part, at least as recorded, does not expose them.

The NVIDIA chip's FP16 performance at 12.01 TFLOPS with a 1:1 ratio indicates that it treats FP16 and FP32 with equal throughput, which is unusual. Most architectures either halve FP16 throughput or double it depending on design priorities. The Intel part's 2:1 ratio means FP16 runs at half the rate of FP32, so its actual FP16 throughput is 4.608 TFLOPS, not the 9.216 figure that the label suggests.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher FP32 compute performance?

A: The NVIDIA N1 20SM delivers 12.01 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, which is more than double the 4.608 TFLOPS recorded for the Intel Arc Graphics 128EU Mobile.

Q: Does the Intel part support DirectX 12?

A: Yes, the Intel Arc Graphics 128EU Mobile lists DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4 support. The NVIDIA N1 20SM lists all three APIs as N/A.

Q: What memory configuration does each GPU use?

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

Q: Which GPU has more shading units?

A: The NVIDIA N1 20SM has 2560 shading units, while the Intel Arc Graphics 128EU Mobile has 1024.

Q: Are there ray tracing or tensor cores in either GPU?

A: The NVIDIA N1 20SM records 20 ray tracing cores and 80 tensor cores. The Intel Arc Graphics 128EU Mobile does not list any ray tracing or tensor core counts.

Q: What are the boost clock speeds?

A: The Intel part boosts to 2250 MHz, while the NVIDIA part boosts to 2346 MHz.

Specification Differences

The database records the following fields where the two products differ:

• Process Node: Intel uses 10 nm, NVIDIA uses 5 nm
• Foundry: Intel (self) versus TSMC for NVIDIA
• Die Size: Not listed for Intel, 382 mm² for NVIDIA
• Base Clock: 300 MHz for Intel, 741 MHz for NVIDIA
• Boost Clock: 2250 MHz for Intel, 2346 MHz for NVIDIA
• Memory Size: System Shared for Intel, 128 GB for NVIDIA
• Memory Type: System Shared for Intel, LPDDR5X for NVIDIA
• Memory Bus Width: System Shared for Intel, 256 bit for NVIDIA
• Memory Bandwidth: System Dependent for Intel, 273.2 GB/s for NVIDIA
• Memory Clock: System Shared for Intel, 1067 MHz (8.5 Gbps effective) for NVIDIA
• Shading Units: 1024 for Intel, 2560 for NVIDIA
• TMUs: 64 for Intel, 160 for NVIDIA
• ROPs: 32 for Intel, 24 for NVIDIA
• RT Cores: Not listed for Intel, 20 for NVIDIA
• Tensor Cores: Not listed for Intel, 80 for NVIDIA
• Pixel Rate: 72.00 GPixel/s for Intel, 56.30 GPixel/s for NVIDIA
• Texture Rate: 144.0 GTexel/s for Intel, 375.4 GTexel/s for NVIDIA
• FP32: 4.608 TFLOPS for Intel, 12.01 TFLOPS for NVIDIA
• FP16: 9.216 TFLOPS (2:1) for Intel, 12.01 TFLOPS (1:1) for NVIDIA
• TDP: 28 W for Intel, unknown for NVIDIA
• Bus Interface: Ring Bus for Intel, PCIe 5.0 x16 for NVIDIA
• Display Outputs: Portable Device Dependent for Intel, 1x HDMI for NVIDIA
• DirectX: 12 (12_1) for Intel, N/A for NVIDIA
• OpenGL: 4.6 for Intel, N/A for NVIDIA
• Vulkan: 1.4 for Intel, N/A for NVIDIA
• Power Connectors: Not listed for Intel, None for NVIDIA
• Release Date: 2023-12-13 for Intel, 2026-05-31 for NVIDIA
• Predecessor: HD Graphics-M for Intel, not listed for NVIDIA

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Arc Graphics 128EU Mobile wins in pixel fill rate, delivering 72.00 GPixel/s versus the NVIDIA's 56.30 GPixel/s. That advantage suggests the Intel part is better suited for workloads that are heavily rasterization-bound, where the output stage of the pipeline is the limiting factor. The higher ROP count of 32 against 24 supports this interpretation.

The Intel part also wins on API compatibility, with full support for DirectX 12, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The NVIDIA part lists N/A for all three, which means any software relying on those standard graphics interfaces cannot run on the NVIDIA chip as recorded. The Intel part is also listed with a 28 W TDP, which is a concrete power envelope, while the NVIDIA part's TDP is unknown.

The NVIDIA N1 20SM wins decisively in compute throughput. Its FP32 performance of 12.01 TFLOPS is 2.6 times the Intel figure. Its FP16 throughput at 12.01 TFLOPS with a 1:1 ratio is also higher, and the Intel part's 2:1 ratio means its real FP16 output is only 4.608 TFLOPS. Texture rate is also a clear NVIDIA win at 375.4 GTexel/s versus 144.0 GTexel/s. The NVIDIA part has more shading units, more TMUs, dedicated memory with 273.2 GB/s of bandwidth, and ray tracing and tensor cores that the Intel part lacks entirely.

The NVIDIA part's die size of 382 mm² suggests a physically large chip, which combined with its 2560 shading units and 80 tensor cores, indicates a design aimed at high compute density rather than power efficiency. The Intel part's 10 nm process and 28 W TDP position it as a lower-power integrated solution.

The Verdict

The data points to two very different products with different intended roles. The Intel Arc Graphics 128EU Mobile is a fully featured integrated GPU with standard API support, a defined 28 W TDP, and a higher pixel rate. It fits the profile of a conventional mobile graphics solution that can run standard graphics applications and games that rely on DirectX, OpenGL, or Vulkan.

The NVIDIA N1 20SM, despite its IGP slot width designation, behaves more like a compute-oriented processor. Its lack of DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan support means it cannot serve as a general-purpose graphics adapter in the traditional sense. Its strengths lie in raw FP32 and FP16 throughput, texture processing, and its dedicated 128 GB memory pool with 273.2 GB/s of bandwidth. The presence of 20 ray tracing cores and 80 tensor cores further emphasizes compute and specialized workloads over conventional rendering.

For anyone needing a standard graphics solution with broad software compatibility, the Intel part is the only viable option between these two, as the NVIDIA chip's API support is recorded as absent. For workloads that demand high FP32 or FP16 throughput, texture-heavy processing, or the use of tensor or ray tracing hardware, the NVIDIA N1 20SM is the clear choice based on its recorded capabilities.

The pixel rate advantage of the Intel part should not be overlooked. In scenarios where the output stage is the bottleneck, the Intel part's 72.00 GPixel/s outperforms the NVIDIA's 56.30 GPixel/s. That could matter for certain display or compositing tasks. However, the overall compute and memory bandwidth advantages of the NVIDIA part are so large that any workload leveraging those features would favor it overwhelmingly.

The release dates also matter. The Intel part was released in December 2023, while the NVIDIA part is dated May 2026. That later release means the NVIDIA part likely benefits from more recent design practices, though the database does not record any benchmark scores to confirm real-world performance differences.