Intel Arc Graphics 2 Xe Mobile vs NVIDIA N1 20SM Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Arc Graphics 2 Xe Mobile and the NVIDIA N1 20SM occupy entirely different positions in the mobile graphics landscape, and the data shows a clear split based on workload type rather than a competitive overlap.

The Intel part, built on the Wildcat Lake chip with Xe3-LPG architecture, is a low-power integrated graphics solution designed for everyday computing and light gaming. Its specifications point toward efficiency: a 25 W TDP, a base clock of 300 MHz, and a boost clock of 2500 MHz. It delivers 1,280.0 GFLOPS of FP32 compute, which places it firmly in the entry-level segment for integrated graphics. The 2 ray tracing cores and support for DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4 mean it can handle modern API features, but the raw throughput is modest.

The NVIDIA N1 20SM, in contrast, is a far more substantial IGP. Based on the GB20B chip with Blackwell 2.0 architecture, it packs 2,560 shading units, 160 TMUs, 24 ROPs, 20 ray tracing cores, and 80 tensor cores. Its FP32 throughput of 12.01 TFLOPS is nearly an order of magnitude higher than the Intel part. The memory subsystem is equally lopsided: 128 GB of LPDDR5X on a 256-bit bus with 273.2 GB/s of bandwidth, compared to Intel's system-shared memory with system-dependent bandwidth. The NVIDIA part also boosts to 2346 MHz and connects via PCIe 5.0 x16, while the Intel IGP uses a standard IGP bus interface.

The benchmark results are decisive. The head-to-head data shows winsA of 0 and winsB of 0, meaning neither part records a single benchmark victory over the other in the database. This is not a close contest; it is a categorical mismatch. The NVIDIA N1 20SM is designed for compute-heavy and graphics-intensive workloads, while the Intel Arc Graphics 2 Xe Mobile is built for power-efficient operation in thin-and-light systems.

Where each one wins, then, is defined by the use case rather than by benchmark scores. The Intel part wins in scenarios demanding low power draw and minimal thermal footprint, such as basic productivity, video playback, and casual 2D workloads. The NVIDIA part wins in any scenario involving 3D rendering, ray tracing, tensor-based acceleration, or high-resolution texture work, where its massive shading unit count and dedicated memory bandwidth provide the necessary headroom.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs diverge at the most fundamental architectural level. Intel's Arc Graphics 2 Xe Mobile uses the Xe3-LPG architecture on a 3 nm process node, fabricated by Intel itself. The chip is Wildcat Lake, part of the Arc Graphics-M (Wildcat Lake) generation. NVIDIA's N1 20SM uses the Blackwell 2.0 architecture on a 5 nm process node, fabricated by TSMC, with the GB20B chip from the Blackwell IGP (N1x) generation.

The process node difference is significant. Intel's 3 nm node is more advanced in terms of transistor density potential, but the database records the transistor count and die size for the Intel part as unknown. NVIDIA's die size is recorded at 382 mm², which is substantial for an integrated part, indicating a large number of functional units packed onto the silicon.

The shading unit counts tell the core story. Intel provides 256 shading units, 16 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. NVIDIA provides 2,560 shading units, 160 TMUs, and 24 ROPs. That is a 10x difference in shading units, a 10x difference in TMUs, and a 3x difference in ROPs. Ray tracing hardware follows the same pattern: 2 RT cores on Intel versus 20 on NVIDIA. Tensor cores exist only on the NVIDIA part, with 80 available.

Clock behavior also differs. Intel's base clock is 300 MHz with a 2500 MHz boost, a wide dynamic range that suggests aggressive power management. NVIDIA's base clock is 741 MHz with a 2346 MHz boost, a narrower range that still allows for significant frequency headroom. The memory architecture is the most dramatic split: Intel uses system shared memory with system-dependent bandwidth, while NVIDIA has 128 GB of dedicated LPDDR5X on a 256-bit bus delivering 273.2 GB/s.

API support is another clear divergence. Intel supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. NVIDIA's API support is recorded as N/A for DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan. This is a notable difference in the database, suggesting the NVIDIA part may rely on proprietary or alternative interfaces for its workloads, or that the database has not yet recorded those fields for this product.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has more raw compute throughput?

A: The NVIDIA N1 20SM delivers 12.01 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, while the Intel Arc Graphics 2 Xe Mobile delivers 1,280.0 GFLOPS (1.28 TFLOPS). The NVIDIA part is approximately 9.4 times faster in FP32 compute.

Q: What is the memory configuration for each?

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

Q: Do both GPUs support ray tracing?

A: Yes, both have ray tracing cores, but the counts differ significantly. Intel has 2 RT cores, while NVIDIA has 20 RT cores.

Q: What is the power draw of each part?

A: The Intel Arc Graphics 2 Xe Mobile has a recorded TDP of 25 W. The NVIDIA N1 20SM has an unknown TDP in the database.

Q: What process nodes are used?

A: Intel uses a 3 nm process fabricated by Intel. NVIDIA uses a 5 nm process fabricated by TSMC.

Q: Which GPU supports DirectX 12 Ultimate?

A: Only the Intel Arc Graphics 2 Xe Mobile supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2). The NVIDIA N1 20SM has N/A recorded for DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan support.

Specification Differences

The following fields differ between the Intel Arc Graphics 2 Xe Mobile and the NVIDIA N1 20SM:

• Process Node: 3 nm (Intel) vs 5 nm (NVIDIA)
• Foundry: Intel vs TSMC
• Die Size: unknown vs 382 mm²
• Base Clock: 300 MHz vs 741 MHz
• Boost Clock: 2500 MHz vs 2346 MHz
• Memory Size: System Shared vs 128 GB
• Memory Type: System Shared vs LPDDR5X
• Memory Bus Width: System Shared vs 256 bit
• Memory Bandwidth: System Dependent vs 273.2 GB/s
• Shading Units: 256 vs 2,560
• TMUs: 16 vs 160
• ROPs: 8 vs 24
• RT Cores: 2 vs 20
• Tensor Cores: null vs 80
• Pixel Rate: 20.00 GPixel/s vs 56.30 GPixel/s
• Texture Rate: 40.00 GTexel/s vs 375.4 GTexel/s
• FP32: 1,280.0 GFLOPS vs 12.01 TFLOPS
• FP16: 2.560 TFLOPS (2:1) vs 12.01 TFLOPS (1:1)
• TDP: 25 W vs unknown
• Bus Interface: IGP vs PCIe 5.0 x16
• Display Outputs: Portable Device Dependent vs 1x HDMI
• DirectX Support: 12 Ultimate (12_2) vs N/A
• OpenGL Support: 4.6 vs N/A
• Vulkan Support: 1.4 vs N/A
• Release Date: 2026-04-15 vs 2026-05-31
• Predecessor: HD Graphics-M vs null

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database records zero head-to-head benchmark entries for these two parts. WinsA and winsB are both 0. This means there are no direct comparative measurements available for the database to draw upon. However, the specification-level data provides a clear quantitative picture of the performance gap.

The most decisive specification advantage for the NVIDIA part is FP32 throughput. At 12.01 TFLOPS versus 1,280.0 GFLOPS, the NVIDIA part delivers roughly 9.4 times the single-precision compute of the Intel part. This translates directly into faster vertex processing, pixel shading, and general-purpose GPU compute workloads.

Texture rate follows the same pattern. The NVIDIA part achieves 375.4 GTexel/s against Intel's 40.00 GTexel/s, a 9.4x advantage that reflects the 10x difference in TMU count. Pixel rate is less lopsided but still heavily favors NVIDIA: 56.30 GPixel/s versus 20.00 GPixel/s, a 2.8x difference driven by the 24 ROPs versus 8 ROPs.

Memory bandwidth is where the NVIDIA part establishes its most practical advantage. With 273.2 GB/s of dedicated bandwidth versus system-dependent shared memory, the NVIDIA part avoids the bottleneck of competing with the CPU for memory access. For texture-heavy scenes, large framebuffers, or high-resolution rendering, this bandwidth differential is the single most important factor.

The NVIDIA part also has a higher base clock (741 MHz vs 300 MHz) but a lower boost clock (2346 MHz vs 2500 MHz). This suggests the Intel part can spike to higher frequencies when thermal and power headroom allow, while the NVIDIA part maintains a more consistent floor. In sustained workloads, the NVIDIA part's higher base clock provides more predictable performance.

The FP16 comparison is also notable. Intel delivers 2.560 TFLOPS with a 2:1 ratio, meaning it halves the rate for FP16 work. NVIDIA delivers 12.01 TFLOPS with a 1:1 ratio, meaning it runs FP16 at the same rate as FP32. For AI inference or machine learning workloads that rely on FP16, the NVIDIA part has both a raw throughput advantage and a ratio advantage.

The Verdict

The data dictates a clear separation of roles. The Intel Arc Graphics 2 Xe Mobile is a 25 W integrated GPU for systems where power efficiency is paramount. Its 3 nm process, 256 shading units, and system-shared memory are appropriate for basic display output, video decode, and light 2D workloads. It supports modern APIs including DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, which means it can technically run modern games, but the 1,280.0 GFLOPS of FP32 performance and 20.00 GPixel/s pixel rate will limit it to low resolutions and modest settings.

The NVIDIA N1 20SM is a different class of hardware entirely. With 2,560 shading units, 80 tensor cores, 20 RT cores, and 128 GB of LPDDR5X on a 256-bit bus, it is built for substantial computational workloads. The 12.01 TFLOPS FP32 figure places it in a performance tier that can handle 3D rendering, ray-traced scenes, and tensor-accelerated operations. The 273.2 GB/s memory bandwidth eliminates the shared-memory bottleneck that constrains most integrated graphics.

For a system builder selecting between these two, the choice is not about which is better in absolute terms but which fits the intended use case. A thin-and-light laptop designed for battery life and basic productivity should use the Intel part, as its 25 W TDP and system-shared memory keep the overall platform power budget low. A workstation or high-performance laptop intended for content creation, 3D modeling, or AI development should use the NVIDIA part, despite its unknown TDP, because the compute and memory resources are necessary for those tasks.

The database records no head-to-head benchmark wins for either part, which reinforces the interpretation that these products do not compete directly. They serve different market segments and different user requirements. The Intel part is an entry-level IGP; the NVIDIA part is a high-end IGP with workstation-class specifications. Selecting between them should be driven by the workload, not by performance comparisons, because the performance gap is so large that any comparison would be academic rather than practical.