Intel Arc Graphics 2 Xe Mobile vs NVIDIA N1X 40SM Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded database contains no direct head-to-head benchmark results for the Intel Arc Graphics 2 Xe Mobile against the NVIDIA N1X 40SM. Both entries list zero benchmark scores, zero wins for either side, and no rival comparison data. The absence of measured performance data means any numerical comparison must rely entirely on the specified hardware characteristics rather than observed application results.

The Intel part posts a theoretical FP32 throughput of 1,280.0 GFLOPS, while the NVIDIA solution reaches 24.02 TFLOPS. That places the NVIDIA adapter roughly 18.8 times higher in raw single-precision compute, a gap that reflects the massive difference in shading unit count. The Intel GPU carries 256 shading units; the NVIDIA GPU carries 5,120. Pixel throughput tells a similar story: 20.00 GPixel/s for Intel versus 93.84 GPixel/s for NVIDIA, a 4.7x advantage. Texture fill rates differ by an even wider margin, 40.00 GTexel/s versus 750.7 GTexel/s, which is roughly 18.8x.

Neither part has a recorded average benchmark score, and both sit at the 50th percentile across all GPUs in the database. With no measured results, the percentile values carry no comparative weight. The only meaningful verdict from the data is that the NVIDIA N1X 40SM specification sheet dominates the Intel Arc Graphics 2 Xe Mobile on every raw throughput metric listed. The Intel part counters with a higher boost clock, 2500 MHz versus 2346 MHz, but clock speed alone cannot compensate for the 20x disparity in execution resources.

Architecture Differences

The two integrated graphics processors come from different foundries and process nodes. Intel builds the Arc Graphics 2 Xe Mobile on a 3 nm node at Intel, while NVIDIA fabricates the N1X 40SM on a 5 nm node at TSMC. The Intel chip, Wildcat Lake, uses the Xe3-LPG architecture and belongs to the Arc Graphics-M (Wildcat Lake) generation. The NVIDIA chip, GB20B, uses the Blackwell 2.0 architecture and belongs to the Blackwell IGP (N1x) generation.

Transistor counts are unknown for both parts. Die size is listed as unknown for the Intel GPU, while the NVIDIA die measures 382 mm². That die size is notable for an integrated part, but without transistor data, density comparisons are impossible.

Memory architecture differs fundamentally. The Intel GPU uses system shared memory with a system dependent bandwidth figure. The NVIDIA GPU pairs with 128 GB of LPDDR5X across a 256 bit bus, delivering 273.2 GB/s. The NVIDIA memory clock runs at 1067 MHz with 8.5 Gbps effective transfer. The Intel memory clock is listed as "System Shared," meaning no dedicated memory clock exists.

Ray tracing resources show a 20x gap: 2 RT cores for Intel versus 40 RT cores for NVIDIA. Tensor core availability also diverges, with the Intel part listing no tensor cores while the NVIDIA part carries 160. The NVIDIA GPU includes 320 texture mapping units and 40 render output units, versus 16 TMUs and 8 ROPs for Intel.

API support separates the two clearly. The Intel GPU supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The NVIDIA GPU lists N/A for DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan. That absence of API support in the database suggests the NVIDIA part may target a different software stack or has not yet had its API compatibility recorded.

The Intel GPU draws a rated 25 W TDP, while the NVIDIA TDP is unknown. Both use an integrated form factor with no power connectors. The bus interface differs: Intel uses an internal IGP connection, while NVIDIA uses PCIe 5.0 x16. Display outputs also differ, with Intel listed as "Portable Device Dependent" and NVIDIA listing a single HDMI output.

The Verdict

The data indicates a decisive specification advantage for the NVIDIA N1X 40SM. Every compute, memory, and rendering resource listed for the NVIDIA part exceeds the Intel equivalent, often by an order of magnitude or more. The NVIDIA GPU delivers 24.02 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, 273.2 GB/s of memory bandwidth, and 40 ray tracing cores. The Intel GPU delivers 1,280.0 GFLOPS, system dependent bandwidth, and 2 ray tracing cores.

The Intel Arc Graphics 2 Xe Mobile does hold advantages in process technology, using a 3 nm node against NVIDIA's 5 nm, and in boost clock, 2500 MHz versus 2346 MHz. It also offers broader API compatibility in the recorded data, including DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, whereas the NVIDIA entry lists no APIs. For software ecosystems that rely on those graphics APIs, the Intel part has the recorded compatibility edge.

The NVIDIA part appears designed for compute-heavy workloads. Its 5,120 shading units, 160 tensor cores, and 750.7 GTexel/s texture rate point toward high-throughput parallel processing. The 128 GB memory capacity and 256 bit bus suggest large dataset handling. The Intel part, with its 25 W TDP and system shared memory, fits a low-power integrated scenario.

Neither GPU has benchmark scores in the database, so the verdict rests entirely on recorded specifications. For users prioritizing raw performance, memory capacity, and ray tracing resources, the NVIDIA N1X 40SM is the clear choice. For users requiring standard graphics API support, a lower power envelope, and a more advanced process node, the Intel Arc Graphics 2 Xe Mobile presents the recorded alternative.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has more shading units?

A: The NVIDIA N1X 40SM has 5,120 shading units, while the Intel Arc Graphics 2 Xe Mobile has 256 shading units.

Q: What is the FP32 performance difference?

A: The NVIDIA N1X 40SM delivers 24.02 TFLOPS of FP32 compute, compared to 1,280.0 GFLOPS for the Intel Arc Graphics 2 Xe Mobile.

Q: Which GPU supports DirectX 12 Ultimate?

A: Only the Intel Arc Graphics 2 Xe Mobile lists DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) support. The NVIDIA N1X 40SM lists N/A for DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan.

Q: How much memory does each GPU use?

A: The NVIDIA N1X 40SM has 128 GB of LPDDR5X memory on a 256 bit bus with 273.2 GB/s bandwidth. The Intel Arc Graphics 2 Xe Mobile uses system shared memory with system dependent bandwidth.

Q: What process nodes are used?

A: The Intel Arc Graphics 2 Xe Mobile is built on a 3 nm node at Intel. The NVIDIA N1X 40SM is built on a 5 nm node at TSMC.

Q: How many ray tracing cores does each GPU have?

A: The Intel Arc Graphics 2 Xe Mobile has 2 ray tracing cores. The NVIDIA N1X 40SM has 40 ray tracing cores.

Q: What is the boost clock for each GPU?

A: The Intel Arc Graphics 2 Xe Mobile boosts to 2500 MHz. The NVIDIA N1X 40SM boosts to 2346 MHz.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA N1X 40SM wins on raw computational throughput. Its FP32 output of 24.02 TFLOPS dwarfs the Intel part's 1,280.0 GFLOPS. The shading unit count, 5,120 versus 256, drives that gap. Texture processing also favors NVIDIA heavily, with 750.7 GTexel/s against 40.00 GTexel/s. Pixel fill rate follows the same pattern, 93.84 GPixel/s versus 20.00 GPixel/s. Memory bandwidth is a one-sided contest as well, with 273.2 GB/s of dedicated LPDDR5X bandwidth against a system dependent figure for Intel.

Ray tracing and tensor workloads belong to the NVIDIA part. The 40 RT cores and 160 tensor cores provide dedicated hardware that the Intel GPU lacks entirely on the tensor side and nearly entirely on the ray tracing side, where it has only 2 RT cores. The 128 GB memory capacity also gives NVIDIA a clear edge for large working sets.

The Intel Arc Graphics 2 Xe Mobile wins on process technology and clock speed. The 3 nm node at Intel represents a more advanced manufacturing process than the 5 nm TSMC node used for the NVIDIA chip. The Intel boost clock of 2500 MHz exceeds the NVIDIA boost of 2346 MHz. The Intel part also draws a known 25 W TDP, while the NVIDIA TDP is listed as unknown.

API support is an Intel advantage in the recorded data. The Intel GPU lists DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The NVIDIA GPU lists N/A for all three. Any workload that explicitly requires those APIs would need the Intel part. The Intel GPU also lists a predecessor, HD Graphics-M, while the NVIDIA entry has no predecessor recorded.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ across nearly every recorded specification field.

Process and Architecture: Intel uses a 3 nm node at Intel with the Xe3-LPG architecture on the Wildcat Lake chip. NVIDIA uses a 5 nm node at TSMC with the Blackwell 2.0 architecture on the GB20B chip.

Die Size: Intel lists unknown. NVIDIA measures 382 mm².

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

Boost Clock: Intel reaches 2500 MHz. NVIDIA reaches 2346 MHz.

Memory: Intel uses system shared memory with system dependent bandwidth. NVIDIA uses 128 GB of LPDDR5X on a 256 bit bus with 273.2 GB/s bandwidth and a 1067 MHz memory clock at 8.5 Gbps effective.

Compute Units: Intel has 256 shading units, 16 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. NVIDIA has 5,120 shading units, 320 TMUs, and 40 ROPs.

Ray Tracing and Tensor Cores: Intel has 2 RT cores and no tensor cores. NVIDIA has 40 RT cores and 160 tensor cores.

Throughput Rates: Intel posts 20.00 GPixel/s pixel rate, 40.00 GTexel/s texture rate, 1,280.0 GFLOPS FP32, and 2.560 TFLOPS FP16 (2:1). NVIDIA posts 93.84 GPixel/s pixel rate, 750.7 GTexel/s texture rate, 24.02 TFLOPS FP32, and 24.02 TFLOPS FP16 (1:1).

Power and Interface: Intel draws 25 W TDP. NVIDIA TDP is unknown. Both use IGP slot width and have no power connectors. Intel uses an IGP bus interface; NVIDIA uses PCIe 5.0 x16.

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

API Support: Intel supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. NVIDIA lists N/A for DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan.

Release Dates: Intel released on 2026-04-15. NVIDIA released on 2026-05-31. Both are marked as Active in production status. Neither has a launch MSRP recorded.

Predecessors: Intel lists HD Graphics-M as its predecessor. NVIDIA lists no predecessor. Neither part has a successor recorded.