Intel Arc Graphics 24EU vs NVIDIA N1 16SM Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Arc Graphics 24EU and NVIDIA N1 16SM occupy different tiers of the integrated graphics landscape, and the recorded data indicates a clear split in their respective strengths. The Intel part, built on the Xe-LPG architecture, is the only one of the two with a recorded 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score, posting 733 points. That places it at the 3rd percentile of all GPUs in the database, a figure that aligns it with other entry-level Arc variants. The NVIDIA N1 16SM, by contrast, has no recorded benchmark scores in the database, which means its wins cannot be quantified through direct measurement. Instead, its advantages appear in the specification sheet, where it shows substantially higher compute resources and memory bandwidth.

The Intel Arc Graphics 24EU wins in the only measurable benchmark category available, the 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 test, because it has a score and the NVIDIA part does not. The database shows the Intel GPU at 733 points, while the NVIDIA N1 16SM holds an average benchmark score of 0 due to missing test data. The NVIDIA part, however, wins on raw specification counts. It carries 2048 shading units against the Intel part's 192, a 10.67x difference. Its 128 texture mapping units dwarf the Intel part's 12, and its 24 raster output units compare with just 6 on the Intel side. The NVIDIA part also packs 16 ray tracing cores and 64 tensor cores, while the Intel part lists neither.

The use-case split is therefore straightforward. The Intel Arc Graphics 24EU is the part with proven DirectX 12 Ultimate performance data in the database, and it supports OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4. The NVIDIA N1 16SM presents no API support data at all, listing DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan all as N/A. For workloads that rely on the recorded benchmark, the Intel part is the one with a measurable result. For workloads that depend on sheer compute throughput, the NVIDIA part's FP32 output of 9.609 TFLOPS versus 768.0 GFLOPS indicates a large margin in raw arithmetic capability.

Memory configuration further separates the two. The Intel Arc Graphics 24EU uses system-shared memory with system-dependent bandwidth, while the NVIDIA N1 16SM comes with 128 GB of LPDDR5X on a 256-bit bus, delivering 273.2 GB/s. The NVIDIA part also has a higher boost clock at 2346 MHz versus 2000 MHz, though its base clock of 741 MHz is well below the Intel part's 300 MHz base. The NVIDIA part's process node is listed as 5 nm, while the Intel part uses a 3 nm node, both from TSMC.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has a recorded benchmark score in the database?

A: The Intel Arc Graphics 24EU has a 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 733 points. The NVIDIA N1 16SM has no benchmark entries, leaving its average benchmark score at 0.

Q: How do the shading unit counts compare between the two?

A: The NVIDIA N1 16SM has 2048 shading units, while the Intel Arc Graphics 24EU has 192, a 10.67x difference in favor of the NVIDIA part.

Q: What memory configurations do the two GPUs use?

A: The Intel Arc Graphics 24EU uses system-shared memory with system-dependent bandwidth. The NVIDIA N1 16SM uses 128 GB of LPDDR5X memory on a 256-bit bus with 273.2 GB/s of bandwidth.

Q: Does the NVIDIA N1 16SM support DirectX 12 Ultimate?

A: The database lists DirectX as N/A for the NVIDIA N1 16SM. The Intel Arc Graphics 24EU supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4.

Q: Which GPU has a higher boost clock?

A: The NVIDIA N1 16SM has a boost clock of 2346 MHz, compared to the Intel Arc Graphics 24EU's boost clock of 2000 MHz.

Q: What is the process node difference between the two chips?

A: The Intel Arc Graphics 24EU uses a 3 nm process node from TSMC, while the NVIDIA N1 16SM uses a 5 nm process node, also from TSMC.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains no direct head-to-head benchmark entries for these two GPUs, so the comparison relies on the single recorded score for the Intel part and the specification-level deltas for the NVIDIA part. The Intel Arc Graphics 24EU scores 733 in 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12. That score ties with the Intel Arc Graphics 32EU and Intel Arc Graphics 64EU, both at 733 points with a 0% delta. It sits 1.4% above the AMD Radeon HD 6470M's 723 points and 2.4% below the NVIDIA GeForce GT 415M's 751 points. This places the Intel part in a narrow performance band among low-end GPUs, consistent with its 3rd percentile ranking across all GPUs in the database.

The NVIDIA N1 16SM has no measured scores, so its wins come from theoretical throughput figures. Its FP32 output of 9.609 TFLOPS is 12.51x the Intel part's 768.0 GFLOPS. Its texture rate of 300.3 GTexel/s is 12.51x the Intel part's 24.00 GTexel/s. Its pixel rate of 56.30 GPixel/s is 4.69x the Intel part's 12.00 GPixel/s. These ratios are not benchmark results, but they indicate the scale of the NVIDIA part's compute advantage on paper.

The Intel part's FP16 output is listed as 1.536 TFLOPS with a 2:1 ratio, while the NVIDIA part delivers 9.609 TFLOPS with a 1:1 ratio. The NVIDIA part therefore offers 6.26x the FP16 throughput. The NVIDIA part also has a larger die at 382 mm² compared to the Intel part's 243 mm², though the Intel part carries 17,800 million transistors while the NVIDIA part's transistor count is listed as unknown. The Intel part's transistor density works out to 73.3M per mm², while the NVIDIA part's density is not recorded.

The memory bandwidth gap is equally pronounced. The NVIDIA part's 273.2 GB/s is a fixed figure, while the Intel part's bandwidth is system dependent. The NVIDIA part's memory clock is listed at 1067 MHz with 8.5 Gbps effective, and its bus width is 256 bit. The Intel part shares system memory with no dedicated bus width or bandwidth figure.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ across nearly every measurable field in the database. The Intel Arc Graphics 24EU uses the Arrow Lake-S chip with the Xe-LPG architecture, while the NVIDIA N1 16SM uses the GB20B chip with the Blackwell 2.0 architecture. The Intel part comes from the Arc Graphics (Arrow Lake) generation, while the NVIDIA part belongs to the Blackwell IGP (N1x) generation. Manufacturing differs as well: the Intel part is built on a 3 nm TSMC process, the NVIDIA part on a 5 nm TSMC process.

Clock speeds show different profiles. The Intel part has a 300 MHz base and a 2000 MHz boost. The NVIDIA part has a 741 MHz base and a 2346 MHz boost. The NVIDIA part's boost clock is 17.3% higher, but its base clock is 147% higher. Memory differs completely: the Intel part uses system-shared memory, while the NVIDIA part uses 128 GB of LPDDR5X on a 256-bit bus with 273.2 GB/s bandwidth. The NVIDIA part's memory clock is 1067 MHz with 8.5 Gbps effective.

Compute resources are heavily skewed toward the NVIDIA part. The Intel part has 192 shading units, 12 TMUs, and 6 ROPs. The NVIDIA part has 2048 shading units, 128 TMUs, and 24 ROPs. The NVIDIA part also lists 16 ray tracing cores and 64 tensor cores, while the Intel part lists none. The interface differs as well: the Intel part uses a Ring Bus, while the NVIDIA part uses PCIe 5.0 x16. Display outputs are motherboard dependent for the Intel part, while the NVIDIA part lists a single HDMI output.

Power and physical specs also diverge. The Intel part has a TDP of 65 W, while the NVIDIA part's TDP is unknown. The Intel part uses no power connectors, and the NVIDIA part also lists none. Both are integrated graphics (IGP) in slot width. The Intel part's die size is 243 mm², while the NVIDIA part's is 382 mm². The Intel part's transistor count is 17,800 million, while the NVIDIA part's is unknown. The Intel part's production status is Active, as is the NVIDIA part's.

Architecture Differences

The architectural split between these two GPUs is defined by their respective design philosophies. The Intel Arc Graphics 24EU uses the Xe-LPG architecture, a graphics-focused design that omits dedicated ray tracing and tensor cores in this 24EU configuration. The NVIDIA N1 16SM uses the Blackwell 2.0 architecture, which includes 16 ray tracing cores and 64 tensor cores as part of its feature set. The Intel part's API support includes DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, while the NVIDIA part lists all three as N/A in the database.

The compute pipelines reflect the architectural differences. The Intel part's FP32 throughput is 768.0 GFLOPS, and its FP16 throughput is 1.536 TFLOPS with a 2:1 ratio, indicating a shared datapath for the two precisions. The NVIDIA part's FP32 and FP16 outputs are both 9.609 TFLOPS with a 1:1 ratio, indicating separate or equal-rate FP16 processing. The Intel part's texture rate is 24.00 GTexel/s, and its pixel rate is 12.00 GPixel/s. The NVIDIA part's texture rate is 300.3 GTexel/s, and its pixel rate is 56.30 GPixel/s.

The memory architecture also distinguishes the two. The Intel part relies on system-shared memory, with bandwidth dependent on the host platform. The NVIDIA part integrates 128 GB of LPDDR5X on a 256-bit bus, delivering 273.2 GB/s of dedicated bandwidth. The NVIDIA part's memory clock of 1067 MHz with 8.5 Gbps effective is a fixed specification, while the Intel part's memory clock is listed as system shared.

The process technology differs despite both using TSMC as the foundry. The Intel part is on a 3 nm node, which is smaller than the NVIDIA part's 5 nm node. The Intel part's die is 243 mm² with 17,800 million transistors, yielding a density of 73.3M per mm². The NVIDIA part's die is 382 mm², but its transistor count and density are not recorded. The Intel part's release date is October 23, 2024, while the NVIDIA part's release date is May 31, 2026. The Intel part's predecessor is listed as HD Graphics, while the NVIDIA part has no predecessor recorded. Neither part has a successor listed, and neither has a launch MSRP in the database.