Intel Arc Graphics 2 Xe Mobile vs NVIDIA N1X 48SM Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data contains no benchmark scores for either the Intel Arc Graphics 2 Xe Mobile or the NVIDIA N1X 48SM. The benchmark arrays for both parts are empty, and the head-to-head benchmark table has no entries. Consequently, the win counts are zero for each side. This absence of measured results means that direct performance comparisons cannot be derived from the database at this time. The only quantitative basis for differentiation is the specification data, which shows a substantial gulf in raw compute resources. The NVIDIA part delivers 28.83 TFLOPS of FP32 throughput, while the Intel part delivers 1,280.0 GFLOPS. That is a 22.5x difference in favor of NVIDIA on paper. Similarly, pixel throughput stands at 112.6 GPixel/s for NVIDIA versus 20.00 GPixel/s for Intel, a 5.6x gap. Texture rate shows 900.9 GTexel/s against 40.00 GTexel/s, a 22.5x difference. These figures are theoretical maxima from clock and unit counts, not measured application performance, but they establish the relative ceiling for each design.

Architecture Differences

The two integrated graphics processors come from different manufacturers, fabs, and architectural lineages. Intel uses the Wildcat Lake chip with the Xe3-LPG architecture, built on a 3 nm process at Intel's own foundry. NVIDIA uses the GB20B chip with the Blackwell 2.0 architecture, built on a 5 nm process at TSMC. The die size for the NVIDIA part is recorded as 382 mm², while the Intel die size is unknown. Transistor counts are unknown for both.

The execution resources differ sharply. Intel has 256 shading units, 16 texture mapping units, and 8 raster output units. NVIDIA has 6,144 shading units, 384 texture mapping units, and 48 raster output units. Ray tracing hardware is present on both, but in very different quantities: Intel has 2 RT cores, NVIDIA has 48. Tensor cores are absent from the Intel record, while NVIDIA lists 192. Clock behavior also diverges. Intel runs at a base of 300 MHz and a boost of 2500 MHz. NVIDIA runs at a base of 741 MHz and a boost of 2346 MHz. The higher boost clock on Intel does not compensate for the much larger unit count on NVIDIA.

Memory architecture separates the two fundamentally. The Intel part uses system shared memory, with size, type, bus width, and bandwidth all dependent on the host platform. The NVIDIA part has dedicated memory: 128 GB of LPDDR5X on a 256-bit bus, delivering 273.2 GB/s of bandwidth. The memory clock is recorded as 1067 MHz with 8.5 Gbps effective transfer. The Intel part's memory clock is listed as system shared, meaning no fixed memory clock exists.

API support also differs. Intel exposes DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. NVIDIA lists N/A for DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan in the database. The bus interface is IGP for Intel, while NVIDIA uses PCIe 5.0 x16. Display outputs are portable device dependent for Intel, while NVIDIA lists a single HDMI output. Power connectors are absent for both, consistent with integrated designs, but the Intel TDP is recorded at 25 W, while NVIDIA's TDP is unknown.

Release timing places the Intel part at 2026-04-15 and the NVIDIA part at 2026-05-31, roughly six weeks apart. The production status is Active for both. Intel lists its predecessor as HD Graphics-M, while NVIDIA has no predecessor recorded.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher FP32 compute?

A: The NVIDIA N1X 48SM has 28.83 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, which is 22.5 times the 1,280.0 GFLOPS delivered by the Intel Arc Graphics 2 Xe Mobile.

Q: Do both GPUs support ray tracing?

A: Yes. Intel has 2 RT cores, while NVIDIA has 48 RT cores.

Q: What memory does each GPU use?

A: Intel uses system shared memory with no fixed size, type, bus width, or bandwidth, all dependent on the host system. NVIDIA uses 128 GB of LPDDR5X on a 256-bit bus with 273.2 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Are these discrete graphics cards or integrated processors?

A: Both are integrated graphics processors. Intel is listed as IGP with a 25 W TDP and no power connectors. NVIDIA is also listed as IGP with no power connectors, but its bus interface is PCIe 5.0 x16.

Q: What is the process node for each chip?

A: Intel uses a 3 nm process at Intel foundry. NVIDIA uses a 5 nm process at TSMC.

Q: Which GPU has tensor cores?

A: Only the NVIDIA N1X 48SM has tensor cores, with 192 of them. The Intel Arc Graphics 2 Xe Mobile record shows no tensor cores.

The Verdict

The data points to the NVIDIA N1X 48SM as the decisively more powerful part on every recorded compute metric. Its FP32 throughput, texture rate, pixel rate, ray tracing core count, and tensor core count all exceed the Intel part by large margins. The NVIDIA part also brings a dedicated 128 GB LPDDR5X memory pool with 273.2 GB/s of bandwidth, whereas the Intel part relies entirely on system shared memory. For any workload that stresses raw shader throughput, ray tracing, or memory bandwidth, the database clearly favors NVIDIA.

The Intel Arc Graphics 2 Xe Mobile does hold advantages in specific areas. It uses a smaller 3 nm process, which typically correlates with lower power draw per unit of work, and its TDP is recorded at 25 W. It supports DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, while the NVIDIA part lists N/A for all three APIs in the database. Its boost clock of 2500 MHz is higher than NVIDIA's 2346 MHz boost. These factors make Intel the more appropriate choice for scenarios where API compatibility with current graphics standards matters and where a low, fixed power envelope is critical.

The NVIDIA part, however, is the choice for performance-oriented integrated graphics. The 48 SM configuration, 48 RT cores, and 192 tensor cores place it in a different class. The recorded 382 mm² die size reflects a much larger physical implementation, and the PCIe 5.0 x16 interface suggests integration into a higher-end platform. For users who need maximum compute, the choice is clear from the recorded data.

Specification Differences

The following fields differ between the two parts:

• Manufacturer: Intel versus NVIDIA
• Chip: Wildcat Lake versus GB20B
• Architecture: Xe3-LPG versus Blackwell 2.0
• Generation: Arc Graphics-M (Wildcat Lake) versus Blackwell IGP (N1x)
• Process node: 3 nm versus 5 nm
• Foundry: Intel versus TSMC
• Die size: unknown versus 382 mm²
• Base clock: 300 MHz versus 741 MHz
• Boost clock: 2500 MHz versus 2346 MHz
• Memory clock: system shared versus 1067 MHz 8.5 Gbps effective
• Memory size: system shared versus 128 GB
• Memory type: system shared versus LPDDR5X
• Memory bus width: system shared versus 256 bit
• Memory bandwidth: system dependent versus 273.2 GB/s
• Shading units: 256 versus 6,144
• TMUs: 16 versus 384
• ROPs: 8 versus 48
• RT cores: 2 versus 48
• Tensor cores: none versus 192
• Pixel rate: 20.00 GPixel/s versus 112.6 GPixel/s
• Texture rate: 40.00 GTexel/s versus 900.9 GTexel/s
• FP32: 1,280.0 GFLOPS versus 28.83 TFLOPS
• FP16: 2.560 TFLOPS (2:1) versus 28.83 TFLOPS (1:1)
• TDP: 25 W versus unknown
• Bus interface: IGP versus PCIe 5.0 x16
• Display outputs: portable device dependent versus 1x HDMI
• DirectX: 12 Ultimate (12_2) versus N/A
• OpenGL: 4.6 versus N/A
• Vulkan: 1.4 versus N/A
• Release date: 2026-04-15 versus 2026-05-31
• Predecessor: HD Graphics-M versus none

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA N1X 48SM wins in every raw compute category recorded in the database. FP32 throughput is 28.83 TFLOPS versus 1,280.0 GFLOPS. FP16 throughput is 28.83 TFLOPS at a 1:1 ratio versus 2.560 TFLOPS at a 2:1 ratio. Pixel rate is 112.6 GPixel/s versus 20.00 GPixel/s. Texture rate is 900.9 GTexel/s versus 40.00 GTexel/s. The NVIDIA part also has 48 RT cores versus 2, and 192 tensor cores versus none. Its dedicated 128 GB LPDDR5X memory with 273.2 GB/s bandwidth gives it a fixed memory subsystem, while the Intel part's bandwidth is system dependent. Any workload that stresses shader compute, ray tracing, tensor operations, or memory bandwidth falls decisively in NVIDIA's favor.

The Intel Arc Graphics 2 Xe Mobile wins in efficiency-oriented and compatibility-oriented categories. Its 3 nm process is smaller than NVIDIA's 5 nm process. Its TDP is recorded at 25 W, while NVIDIA's TDP is unknown, so the Intel part has a defined power ceiling. Its boost clock of 2500 MHz is higher than NVIDIA's 2346 MHz. It supports DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, whereas NVIDIA's API support is listed as N/A. Its system shared memory model means it requires no dedicated video memory allocation, which can simplify system design on the host platform. For applications that depend on standard graphics APIs, low power draw, or a compact integrated design, the Intel part holds the advantage. For everything else, the recorded data favors NVIDIA.