Intel Arc Graphics 128EU Mobile vs NVIDIA N1X 48SM Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded database contains no direct head-to-head benchmark results between the Intel Arc Graphics 128EU Mobile and the NVIDIA N1X 48SM. Both entries list zero benchmark scores, zero average scores, and zero wins for either side. This absence of measured data means no comparative performance verdict can be derived from actual workload testing. What can be established from the specification sheets alone is the theoretical compute ceiling each part brings to the table, and those ceilings differ substantially.

The Intel part delivers a FP32 throughput of 4.608 TFLOPS, while the NVIDIA part reaches 28.83 TFLOPS. That puts the NVIDIA GPU at roughly 6.26 times the raw single-precision compute of the Intel GPU based solely on the listed figures. FP16 performance tells a different story in terms of ratio: Intel achieves 9.216 TFLOPS using a 2:1 rate, while NVIDIA achieves 28.83 TFLOPS at a 1:1 rate. NVIDIA still leads, but the Intel part gains relative ground in half-precision because it doubles its rate, whereas NVIDIA does not. Texture fill rate also favors NVIDIA heavily: 900.9 GTexel/s versus 144.0 GTexel/s, a factor of 6.26. Pixel rate favors NVIDIA at 112.6 GPixel/s versus 72.00 GPixel/s, a more modest 1.56 times advantage.

Neither part has a percentile advantage in the database: both sit at the 50th percentile against all GPUs. With no nearest rivals listed for either item, no comparative deltas can be cited. The data confirms that these two products occupy different performance strata on paper, but the absence of actual benchmark runs leaves the head-to-head section without empirical confirmation.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two mobile GPUs is wide. Intel uses the Xe-LPG architecture on the Meteor Lake chip, manufactured on Intel's 10 nm process. NVIDIA uses the Blackwell 2.0 architecture on the GB20B chip, built on TSMC's 5 nm process. The process nodes alone indicate a generational difference in density and efficiency expectations, though the database does not provide transistor counts for Intel and lists NVIDIA's as "unknown". NVIDIA does report a die size of 382 mm², while Intel's die size is not recorded.

The compute resources differ by a large margin. Intel fields 1024 shading units, 64 texture mapping units, and 32 render output units. NVIDIA counters with 6144 shading units, 384 TMUs, and 48 ROPs. NVIDIA also includes dedicated hardware that Intel does not list: 48 ray tracing cores and 192 tensor cores. Intel lists no RT cores and no tensor cores in its specification fields, which means the Xe-LPG implementation relies on general-purpose shader execution for any ray tracing or AI workloads, whereas Blackwell 2.0 has dedicated paths for both.

Clock behavior also differs. Intel runs at a 300 MHz base and 2250 MHz boost. NVIDIA runs at a 741 MHz base and 2346 MHz boost. Despite the higher base clock on NVIDIA, the boost clocks are close, which makes the shading unit count the dominant factor in throughput differences.

Memory architecture is another major split. Intel uses system shared memory with a system dependent bandwidth figure and no dedicated bus width. NVIDIA uses 128 GB of LPDDR5X on a 256 bit bus with 273.2 GB/s of bandwidth and a memory clock of 1067 MHz (8.5 Gbps effective). Intel's memory clock is listed as "System Shared", meaning the database records no fixed frequency. The bus interface also differs: Intel uses a Ring Bus, NVIDIA uses PCIe 5.0 x16. Display outputs are portable device dependent on Intel, while NVIDIA lists a single HDMI output.

API support diverges sharply. Intel supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. NVIDIA lists "N/A" for DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan in the database. This suggests the NVIDIA part may rely on alternative driver stacks or the database has not recorded its API capabilities, but the recorded data shows no standard API support for the NVIDIA side. Power delivery also differs: Intel lists a 28 W TDP, NVIDIA lists "unknown" TDP with no power connectors. Both are IGP form factors, meaning they are integrated into a host processor package.

Where Each One Wins

Based on specification data alone, the NVIDIA N1X 48SM wins in every compute-heavy category. It has 6 times the shading units, 6 times the TMUs, 1.5 times the ROPs, and 6.26 times the FP32 throughput. It also has dedicated ray tracing cores and tensor cores, which the Intel part lacks entirely. For workloads that rely on rasterization throughput, texture filtering, or dense FP32 math, the NVIDIA part is the clear choice on paper.

The Intel Arc Graphics 128EU Mobile wins in power efficiency expectations. Its 28 W TDP is explicitly recorded, while NVIDIA's is unknown, but the Intel part draws a documented fixed power envelope. For integrated graphics in thin-and-light portable devices, a known 28 W TDP allows system designers to plan thermal and battery budgets. The Intel part also supports standard graphics APIs (DirectX 12, OpenGL 4.6, Vulkan 1.4), which the database does not record for NVIDIA. For software compatibility with common graphics stacks, Intel has the documented advantage.

Intel also wins on memory flexibility. System shared memory means the GPU draws from the host's main memory pool with no fixed capacity, which can be advantageous in systems where unified memory is a design goal. NVIDIA's fixed 128 GB LPDDR5X allocation is large but not configurable. The Intel part also has a higher boost clock relative to its base clock, suggesting aggressive dynamic frequency scaling, though the NVIDIA boost clock is still higher in absolute terms.

The NVIDIA part wins on memory bandwidth with 273.2 GB/s against Intel's system dependent figure. The 256 bit bus width is a structural advantage that the Intel part cannot match with shared memory. For bandwidth-bound workloads such as large texture loads or high-resolution framebuffer operations, NVIDIA has the recorded edge.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher FP32 compute performance?

A: The NVIDIA N1X 48SM delivers 28.83 TFLOPS of FP32 throughput, while the Intel Arc Graphics 128EU Mobile delivers 4.608 TFLOPS. NVIDIA is roughly 6.26 times higher in single-precision compute.

Q: Does the Intel GPU support standard graphics APIs?

A: Yes, the database records DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4 support for the Intel Arc Graphics 128EU Mobile. The NVIDIA N1X 48SM lists "N/A" for all three APIs in the recorded data.

Q: What memory configuration does each GPU use?

A: The Intel GPU uses system shared memory with a system dependent bandwidth and no fixed bus width. The NVIDIA GPU uses 128 GB of LPDDR5X on a 256 bit bus with 273.2 GB/s bandwidth and an 8.5 Gbps effective memory clock.

Q: Does the NVIDIA GPU have dedicated ray tracing or tensor cores?

A: Yes, the NVIDIA N1X 48SM includes 48 ray tracing cores and 192 tensor cores. The Intel Arc Graphics 128EU Mobile lists no RT cores and no tensor cores in its specification fields.

Q: What are the boost clocks for each GPU?

A: The Intel GPU boosts to 2250 MHz from a 300 MHz base. The NVIDIA GPU boosts to 2346 MHz from a 741 MHz base.

Q: Which GPU has more shading units?

A: The NVIDIA N1X 48SM has 6144 shading units. The Intel Arc Graphics 128EU Mobile has 1024 shading units, a 6:1 ratio in NVIDIA's favor.

Specification Differences

Process Node: Intel uses 10 nm from its own foundry. NVIDIA uses 5 nm from TSMC.

Die Size: NVIDIA records a 382 mm² die. Intel has no die size listed.

Base Clock: Intel runs at 300 MHz. NVIDIA runs at 741 MHz.

Boost Clock: Intel boosts to 2250 MHz. NVIDIA boosts to 2346 MHz.

Memory Size: Intel uses system shared memory. NVIDIA has 128 GB of dedicated LPDDR5X.

Memory Type: Intel uses system shared memory. NVIDIA uses LPDDR5X.

Memory Bus Width: Intel uses system shared memory. NVIDIA uses a 256 bit bus.

Memory Bandwidth: Intel lists "System Dependent". NVIDIA lists 273.2 GB/s.

Memory Clock: Intel lists "System Shared". NVIDIA lists 1067 MHz with 8.5 Gbps effective.

Shading Units: Intel has 1024. NVIDIA has 6144.

TMUs: Intel has 64. NVIDIA has 384.

ROPs: Intel has 32. NVIDIA has 48.

RT Cores: Intel lists none. NVIDIA has 48.

Tensor Cores: Intel lists none. NVIDIA has 192.

Pixel Rate: Intel achieves 72.00 GPixel/s. NVIDIA achieves 112.6 GPixel/s.

Texture Rate: Intel achieves 144.0 GTexel/s. NVIDIA achieves 900.9 GTexel/s.

FP32 Throughput: Intel delivers 4.608 TFLOPS. NVIDIA delivers 28.83 TFLOPS.

FP16 Throughput: Intel delivers 9.216 TFLOPS at a 2:1 rate. NVIDIA delivers 28.83 TFLOPS at a 1:1 rate.

TDP: Intel lists 28 W. NVIDIA lists "unknown".

Power Connectors: Intel lists none. NVIDIA lists "None".

Bus Interface: Intel uses Ring Bus. NVIDIA uses PCIe 5.0 x16.

Display Outputs: Intel lists "Portable Device Dependent". NVIDIA lists 1x HDMI.

API Support: Intel supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. NVIDIA lists "N/A" for all three.

Release Date: Intel released on 2023-12-13. NVIDIA releases on 2026-05-31.

Predecessor: Intel lists HD Graphics-M as its predecessor. NVIDIA lists no predecessor.

Foundry: Intel uses Intel foundry. NVIDIA uses TSMC.

Architecture: Intel uses Xe-LPG. NVIDIA uses Blackwell 2.0.

Chip: Intel uses Meteor Lake. NVIDIA uses GB20B.

Generation: Intel is in the Arc Graphics-M (Meteor Lake) generation. NVIDIA is in the Blackwell IGP (N1x) generation.

Slot Width: Both are IGP form factors.

Production Status: Both are listed as Active.