Intel Arc Graphics 4 Xe Mobile vs NVIDIA N1 20SM Comparison

FAQ

Q: What are the two integrated GPUs being compared in this analysis?

A: The comparison is between the Intel Arc Graphics 4 Xe Mobile, based on the Panther Lake chip with Xe3-LPG architecture, and the NVIDIA N1 20SM, based on the GB20B chip with Blackwell 2.0 architecture.

Q: How do the manufacturing processes differ between the two chips?

A: The Intel part is built on a 3 nm process at Intel's foundry, while the NVIDIA chip uses a 5 nm process fabricated by TSMC. The NVIDIA die is measured at 382 mm², while Intel's die size is listed as unknown.

Q: What are the peak clock speeds for each GPU?

A: The Intel Arc Graphics 4 Xe Mobile has a base clock of 300 MHz and a boost clock of 2300 MHz. The NVIDIA N1 20SM has a base clock of 741 MHz and a boost clock of 2346 MHz.

Q: How do the shading unit counts compare?

A: The NVIDIA N1 20SM carries 2560 shading units, which is five times the 512 shading units found on the Intel Arc Graphics 4 Xe Mobile.

Q: What memory configuration does each GPU use?

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

Q: What is the FP32 compute throughput of each part?

A: The Intel Arc Graphics 4 Xe Mobile delivers 2.355 TFLOPS of FP32 compute, while the NVIDIA N1 20SM delivers 12.01 TFLOPS of FP32 compute.

Architecture Differences

The two integrated GPUs represent fundamentally different architectural approaches. Intel's Arc Graphics 4 Xe Mobile uses the Xe3-LPG architecture, part of the Arc Graphics-M generation built around the Panther Lake chip. NVIDIA's N1 20SM uses the Blackwell 2.0 architecture, part of the Blackwell IGP generation built around the GB20B chip. Both are active production parts, with Intel releasing on 2026-01-26 and NVIDIA following on 2026-05-31.

The manufacturing processes differ significantly. Intel fabricates its chip on a 3 nm node at its own foundry, while NVIDIA uses TSMC's 5 nm process. The NVIDIA die is listed at 382 mm², a substantial silicon area for an integrated part. Intel's die size and transistor counts are recorded as unknown for both chips, so no direct density comparison is possible from the data.

Compute resource allocation shows a wide gap. The Intel GPU uses 512 shading units, 32 texture mapping units, and 16 ROPs. The NVIDIA GPU uses 2560 shading units, 160 TMUs, and 24 ROPs. That represents a 5x advantage in shading units, a 5x advantage in TMUs, and a 1.5x advantage in ROPs for NVIDIA. Ray tracing hardware follows a similar pattern: Intel includes 4 RT cores, while NVIDIA includes 20 RT cores. Tensor cores are present only on the NVIDIA part, which includes 80 of them; Intel does not list any tensor core count.

Clock behavior also differs. Intel's base clock is much lower at 300 MHz versus NVIDIA's 741 MHz, though the boost clocks are close: 2300 MHz for Intel and 2346 MHz for NVIDIA. The NVIDIA part runs its memory at 1067 MHz with 8.5 Gbps effective transfer rate, while Intel's memory clock is system shared. FP16 throughput reveals a key architectural choice: Intel achieves 4.710 TFLOPS at a 2:1 ratio relative to FP32, while NVIDIA achieves 12.01 TFLOPS at a 1:1 ratio, indicating different FP16 execution strategies.

API support diverges sharply. Intel lists DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4 support. NVIDIA lists N/A for DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan, which suggests the N1 20SM is not positioned as a general-purpose Windows graphics part in the same manner as Intel's offering. The bus interfaces also differ: Intel uses an IGP bus interface, while NVIDIA uses PCIe 5.0 x16. Display outputs are portable device dependent for Intel, while NVIDIA lists a single HDMI output.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded benchmark data contains no direct head-to-head benchmark entries between these two parts, and neither GPU has an average benchmark score in the database. Both sit at the 50th percentile among all GPUs, which places them at the midpoint of the overall distribution despite their very different specifications. The win counts are zero for both sides in the head-to-head comparison table.

With no measured benchmark scores available, the comparison rests on the specification-derived throughput rates recorded in the database. The pixel rate favors NVIDIA at 56.30 GPixel/s versus Intel's 36.80 GPixel/s, a 53% advantage. The texture rate gap is much larger: NVIDIA delivers 375.4 GTexel/s versus Intel's 73.60 GTexel/s, a 5.1x difference. FP32 throughput shows NVIDIA at 12.01 TFLOPS versus Intel's 2.355 TFLOPS, a 5.1x difference as well. FP16 throughput also favors NVIDIA at 12.01 TFLOPS versus Intel's 4.710 TFLOPS, a 2.55x gap.

The memory subsystem reinforces NVIDIA's lead. The N1 20SM has 128 GB of LPDDR5X memory on a 256-bit bus with 273.2 GB/s of bandwidth. Intel's memory is system shared with system-dependent bandwidth, meaning its performance is tied to whatever memory configuration the host platform provides. The NVIDIA part's dedicated memory pool removes that dependency and provides a fixed bandwidth figure.

The shading and ray tracing hardware gaps amplify the compute differences. NVIDIA's 2560 shading units versus Intel's 512 give it a 5x raw ALU count advantage. The 20 RT cores versus 4 RT cores is a 5x difference in ray tracing hardware. The 80 tensor cores on NVIDIA have no counterpart on Intel, which means any tensor-accelerated workload would run only on the NVIDIA part.

Clock speed tells a more nuanced story. Intel's 300 MHz base clock is far lower than NVIDIA's 741 MHz, but the boost clocks nearly match at 2300 MHz and 2346 MHz respectively. The Intel part reaches 2300 MHz boost from a 300 MHz base, a 7.67x boost range, while NVIDIA reaches 2346 MHz from 741 MHz, a 3.17x boost range. This suggests Intel relies heavily on boost behavior to reach its peak throughput, while NVIDIA operates at a higher sustained baseline.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ across nearly every recorded specification field. The manufacturing process differs: 3 nm for Intel versus 5 nm for NVIDIA. Die size is unknown for Intel and 382 mm² for NVIDIA. The base clocks are 300 MHz for Intel and 741 MHz for NVIDIA, while boost clocks are 2300 MHz and 2346 MHz respectively.

Memory configurations are completely different. Intel uses system shared memory with system shared type, bus width, and system dependent bandwidth. NVIDIA uses 128 GB of LPDDR5X memory with a 256-bit bus and 273.2 GB/s bandwidth. The memory clock is system shared for Intel and 1067 MHz with 8.5 Gbps effective for NVIDIA.

Compute unit counts differ substantially. Intel has 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. NVIDIA has 2560 shading units, 160 TMUs, and 24 ROPs. Ray tracing cores are 4 for Intel and 20 for NVIDIA. Tensor cores are not listed for Intel and number 80 for NVIDIA.

Throughput rates favor NVIDIA in every category. Pixel rate is 36.80 GPixel/s for Intel versus 56.30 GPixel/s for NVIDIA. Texture rate is 73.60 GTexel/s versus 375.4 GTexel/s. FP32 is 2.355 TFLOPS versus 12.01 TFLOPS. FP16 is 4.710 TFLOPS at 2:1 ratio versus 12.01 TFLOPS at 1:1 ratio.

Power and interface details also differ. Intel has a TDP of 25 W, while NVIDIA's TDP is unknown. Both use IGP slot width and no power connectors, but the bus interfaces differ: IGP for Intel and PCIe 5.0 x16 for NVIDIA. Display outputs are portable device dependent for Intel and 1x HDMI for NVIDIA. API support shows Intel with DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, while NVIDIA lists N/A for all three APIs.

The Verdict

The data indicates a clear performance hierarchy between these two integrated GPUs. The NVIDIA N1 20SM holds a 5.1x advantage in FP32 throughput, a 5.1x advantage in texture rate, and a 53% advantage in pixel rate over the Intel Arc Graphics 4 Xe Mobile. Its 2560 shading units, 160 TMUs, 20 RT cores, and 80 tensor cores give it a substantially larger compute footprint across every processing category recorded in the database. The 128 GB LPDDR5X memory pool with 273.2 GB/s bandwidth removes the dependency on host system memory that limits the Intel part's system shared configuration.

The Intel Arc Graphics 4 Xe Mobile does hold advantages in specific areas. Its 3 nm process is a smaller node than NVIDIA's 5 nm process, and its 25 W TDP is a recorded power figure while NVIDIA's is unknown. Intel also provides full API support for DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, whereas NVIDIA lists no API support in the database for the N1 20SM. The lower base clock of 300 MHz versus 741 MHz suggests the Intel part is designed for a very different power envelope, with a large boost range to reach 2300 MHz.

The 50th percentile ranking for both GPUs indicates they sit at the midpoint of the overall GPU distribution in the database, but the specification data shows they achieve that rank through different means. NVIDIA does so with raw throughput and dedicated memory, while Intel does so with a compact, low-power design and broad API compatibility. The absence of benchmark scores for both parts means the verdict rests on the recorded specification-derived rates, which consistently favor the NVIDIA part in compute, memory, and rendering throughput.

The choice between them depends on the platform requirements. The NVIDIA N1 20SM delivers the higher throughput in every measured category and includes dedicated memory, tensor cores, and a larger ray tracing core count. The Intel Arc Graphics 4 Xe Mobile offers a lower recorded TDP, a more advanced process node, and support for standard graphics APIs. For workloads that require the recorded throughput rates, the NVIDIA part is the stronger option. For systems that need standard API compatibility and a defined 25 W power envelope, the Intel part has the documented advantages.