Intel Arc Graphics 32EU vs NVIDIA N1 16SM Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The recorded database entries for these two parts reveal a fundamental split in their performance profiles. The Intel Arc Graphics 32EU, based on the Xe-LPG architecture, delivers a measurable 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 733. This positions it at the 3rd percentile among all GPUs, a placement that confirms its role as a baseline integrated graphics solution. The NVIDIA N1 16SM, built on the Blackwell 2.0 architecture, has no recorded benchmark scores in the database and sits at the 50th percentile with an average score of zero. That absence of recorded data is itself a meaningful distinction: the N1 16SM has no verified performance entries, while the Intel part has a concrete, if modest, result.

Where the Intel part wins is in having documented, tested performance. The 733 score in 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 provides a reference point for comparison against other low-tier parts. Its nearest rivals in the database include the Intel Arc Graphics 24EU and 64EU, both at 733 with a 0% delta, the AMD Radeon HD 6470M at 723 (1.4% ahead), and the NVIDIA GeForce GT 415M at 751 (2.4% behind). These figures show that the 32EU sits in a narrow performance band, statistically indistinguishable from several other entry-level parts. The data confirms that in the one benchmark where it has results, the Intel part is competitive with its immediate peers, but not ahead of them in any significant way.

The NVIDIA N1 16SM, by contrast, has no wins in the recorded data because it has no recorded scores. Its architectural specifications, however, point to a much higher theoretical ceiling. The 2048 shading units, 128 TMUs, 24 ROPs, 16 RT cores, and 64 tensor cores represent a configuration that is an order of magnitude larger than the Intel part's 256 shading units, 16 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. The database shows no head-to-head benchmarks and zero wins for either part, which means any performance comparison must rely on the specification differences and the single Intel benchmark result. The NVIDIA part wins on paper in every compute resource category, while the Intel part wins on having any actual measured performance at all.

FAQ

Q: What is the 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score for the Intel Arc Graphics 32EU?

A: The Intel Arc Graphics 32EU records a score of 733 in the 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 benchmark. This places it at the 3rd percentile among all GPUs in the database.

Q: Does the NVIDIA N1 16SM have any benchmark scores in the database?

A: No. The database lists no benchmark entries for the NVIDIA N1 16SM, with an average benchmark score of 0 and no nearest rivals recorded. Its percentile placement of 50 is based on its position in the overall GPU distribution, not on measured results.

Q: How does the Intel Arc Graphics 32EU compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The Intel part's score of 733 matches the Intel Arc Graphics 24EU and 64EU exactly, with a 0% delta for both. It sits 1.4% behind the AMD Radeon HD 6470M (score 723) and 2.4% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce GT 415M (score 751). These deltas indicate a tight cluster of similar-performing parts.

Q: What is the difference in shading units between the two parts?

A: The Intel Arc Graphics 32EU has 256 shading units, while the NVIDIA N1 16SM has 2048 shading units. This is an eightfold difference in the number of shading units, which is a primary driver of compute throughput.

Q: What are the process nodes for each part?

A: The Intel Arc Graphics 32EU is fabricated on a 3 nm process at TSMC, while the NVIDIA N1 16SM uses a 5 nm process, also at TSMC. Both parts are produced by the same foundry but on different node generations.

Q: What memory configurations do these two parts use?

A: The Intel part uses system shared memory with system-dependent bandwidth, meaning it draws from the host system's main memory. The NVIDIA part has a dedicated 128 GB LPDDR5X memory pool on a 256-bit bus, delivering 273.2 GB/s of bandwidth.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains no head-to-head benchmark entries between the Intel Arc Graphics 32EU and the NVIDIA N1 16SM. This absence of direct comparative testing means that the only quantitative performance data available is the Intel part's single 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 733. The NVIDIA part has no recorded scores in any test, so a direct score-to-score comparison is impossible from the current data.

What the recorded data does show is how the Intel part fares against other GPUs in its own performance class. The 733 score places it in a narrow band where the Intel Arc Graphics 24EU and 64EU both score exactly 733, indicating that within the Arc Graphics-M family, the 32EU configuration does not deviate from its siblings in this particular test. The AMD Radeon HD 6470M scores 723, which is 1.4% lower than the Intel part, while the NVIDIA GeForce GT 415M scores 751, which is 2.4% higher. These deltas are small, and the data suggests that any of these parts would deliver similar results in this benchmark.

For the NVIDIA N1 16SM, the lack of benchmark data is the key finding. Without a recorded score, the database cannot place it relative to the Intel part in any workload. The specification sheet, however, suggests that the NVIDIA part's compute resources are substantially larger. The pixel rate of 56.30 GPixel/s and texture rate of 300.3 GTexel/s for the NVIDIA part dwarf the Intel part's 15.60 GPixel/s and 31.20 GTexel/s. The FP32 throughput of 9.609 TFLOPS for the NVIDIA part is roughly 9.6 times the Intel part's 998.4 GFLOPS. These are raw throughput figures, not benchmark results, but they indicate the NVIDIA part would likely be significantly faster in compute-bound tasks if its architectural resources translate to performance as they typically do.

The wins in this comparison are therefore asymmetric. The Intel part wins in having a verified benchmark result, which allows for percentile placement and rival comparisons. The NVIDIA part wins in raw specification counts across every major compute category, though these remain unvalidated by any recorded test. The database records zero wins for each part in head-to-head testing, which is consistent with the absence of any such tests.

Specification Differences

The two parts differ across nearly every specification field in the database. The Intel Arc Graphics 32EU has a base clock of 300 MHz and a boost clock of 1950 MHz, while the NVIDIA N1 16SM has a base clock of 741 MHz and a boost clock of 2346 MHz. The NVIDIA part's memory operates at 1067 MHz with 8.5 Gbps effective speed, while the Intel part has no dedicated memory clock, using system shared memory instead.

Memory configuration is a major divergence. The Intel part uses system shared memory with a system-dependent bandwidth, meaning its performance is tied to the host platform's memory subsystem. The NVIDIA part has 128 GB of LPDDR5X memory on a 256-bit bus, providing a fixed bandwidth of 273.2 GB/s. The bus interface also differs: the Intel part uses a Ring Bus, while the NVIDIA part uses PCIe 5.0 x16.

Compute resources show a similar scale of difference. The Intel part has 256 shading units, 16 TMUs, and 8 ROPs, with no RT or tensor cores. The NVIDIA part has 2048 shading units, 128 TMUs, and 24 ROPs, plus 16 RT cores and 64 tensor cores. The resulting pixel rate is 15.60 GPixel/s for the Intel part versus 56.30 GPixel/s for the NVIDIA part. Texture rates are 31.20 GTexel/s versus 300.3 GTexel/s. FP32 throughput is 998.4 GFLOPS versus 9.609 TFLOPS. FP16 performance is 1.997 TFLOPS (2:1) for the Intel part versus 9.609 TFLOPS (1:1) for the NVIDIA part.

The process node and die size also differ. The Intel part is on a 3 nm process with a 243 mm² die and 17,800 million transistors, yielding a density of 73.3M per mm². The NVIDIA part is on a 5 nm process with a 382 mm² die, though its transistor count is listed as unknown. Power specifications are incomplete for both: 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. Display outputs differ, with the Intel part being motherboard dependent and the NVIDIA part having a single HDMI output.

API support is another clear difference. The Intel part supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The NVIDIA part lists N/A for DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan, which indicates that its API support profile is either not yet recorded or not applicable in the database's current schema. Release dates also differ, with the Intel part launched on 2024-10-23 and the NVIDIA part on 2026-05-31, making the NVIDIA part a later product.

Architecture Differences

The architectural foundations of these two parts are distinct. The Intel Arc Graphics 32EU is built on the Xe-LPG architecture, which is part of the Arc Graphics-M generation for Arrow Lake chips. The NVIDIA N1 16SM uses the Blackwell 2.0 architecture, part of the Blackwell IGP generation for the N1x chip family. Both are integrated graphics processors, as indicated by the IGP slot width for both parts, but they approach the design differently.

The Intel part's Xe-LPG architecture is configured with 256 shading units, 16 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. It has no dedicated RT cores and no tensor cores, meaning its feature set is limited to traditional rasterization workloads. The architecture supports DirectX 12 Ultimate with the 12_2 feature level, along with OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4, which gives it a modern API surface for gaming and general compute. The 3 nm process node from TSMC is a key attribute, as it represents a dense manufacturing process that allows for 17,800 million transistors on a 243 mm² die.

The NVIDIA part's Blackwell 2.0 architecture is a substantially larger design. It includes 2048 shading units, 128 TMUs, and 24 ROPs, along with 16 RT cores and 64 tensor cores. The presence of RT and tensor cores indicates hardware support for ray tracing and tensor operations, which are absent from the Intel part. The 5 nm process node is a step behind the Intel part's 3 nm node in terms of density, but the NVIDIA die is larger at 382 mm², which accommodates the greater number of compute units. The transistor count for the NVIDIA part is unknown in the database, so a direct density comparison cannot be made.

Memory architecture is another key difference. The Intel part relies on system shared memory, with bandwidth that is system dependent. This means its memory performance is not fixed and depends on the host platform, which is typical for an integrated GPU that shares system resources. The NVIDIA part, by contrast, has a dedicated 128 GB LPDDR5X memory pool on a 256-bit bus with a fixed 273.2 GB/s bandwidth. This dedicated memory arrangement is unusual for an IGP and provides a much larger and faster memory subsystem than the Intel part can access.

The FP16 implementation also differs. The Intel part delivers 1.997 TFLOPS in FP16 with a 2:1 ratio, meaning its FP16 throughput is half its FP32 throughput. The NVIDIA part delivers 9.609 TFLOPS in FP16 with a 1:1 ratio, meaning its FP16 and FP32 throughput are equal. This suggests the NVIDIA architecture is optimized for workloads that benefit from FP16 computation, potentially including AI and machine learning tasks, where the tensor cores also play a role.

The bus interface differs as well. The Intel part uses a Ring Bus, which is a common interconnect for integrated graphics within a processor package. The NVIDIA part uses PCIe 5.0 x16, which is a high-bandwidth external interface that allows for direct connection to the system. The display outputs also differ, with the Intel part being motherboard dependent and the NVIDIA part offering a single HDMI output. These differences reflect distinct design priorities: the Intel part is tightly integrated into the Arrow Lake-S platform, while the NVIDIA part appears designed for a more standalone or add-in configuration despite its IGP classification.