Intel Arc Graphics 4 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 4 Xe Mobile versus the NVIDIA N1X 40SM. Both entries list zero benchmark scores, zero average benchmark scores, and no nearest rival data. The wins counter shows zero for each part, meaning neither product has a measured victory in shared workloads.

The absence of measured data does not mean the two are equivalent. The raw specification sheet reveals a massive compute gap. The NVIDIA N1X 40SM delivers 24.02 TFLOPS of FP32 throughput, while the Intel Arc Graphics 4 Xe Mobile delivers 2.355 TFLOPS. That puts the NVIDIA part at roughly 10.2 times the raw FP32 output of the Intel part. In FP16, the gap widens further: the N1X 40SM sustains 24.02 TFLOPS at a 1:1 ratio, while the Intel part reaches 4.710 TFLOPS using a 2:1 ratio, meaning it halves rate for full precision. The NVIDIA part has a 5.1x advantage in FP16 peak throughput.

Texture and pixel throughput follow the same pattern. The N1X 40SM reaches 750.7 GTexel/s, compared to 73.60 GTexel/s on the Intel part, a 10.2x advantage. Pixel rate sits at 93.84 GPixel/s for NVIDIA versus 36.80 GPixel/s for Intel, a 2.5x advantage. These numbers indicate that in any fill-rate limited scenario, the NVIDIA part will dominate, though the magnitude of the lead varies by workload type.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has more shading units?

A: The NVIDIA N1X 40SM has 5120 shading units, while the Intel Arc Graphics 4 Xe Mobile has 512. That is a 10x difference in raw shader count.

Q: Do both GPUs support ray tracing?

A: Yes. The Intel part includes 4 RT cores, and the NVIDIA part includes 40 RT cores. The NVIDIA part also includes 160 tensor cores, while the Intel part lists no tensor core count in the database.

Q: Which GPU has the higher boost clock?

A: The NVIDIA N1X 40SM boosts to 2346 MHz, while the Intel Arc Graphics 4 Xe Mobile boosts to 2300 MHz. The difference is 46 MHz, which is minor in relative terms.

Q: What memory does each GPU use?

A: The Intel Arc Graphics 4 Xe Mobile uses system shared memory, with bandwidth listed as system dependent. The NVIDIA N1X 40SM uses 128 GB of LPDDR5X on a 256-bit bus, delivering 273.2 GB/s of bandwidth.

Q: Which GPU has a higher pixel fill rate?

A: The NVIDIA N1X 40SM has a pixel rate of 93.84 GPixel/s, compared to 36.80 GPixel/s for the Intel part. NVIDIA leads by roughly 2.5x.

Q: Are both GPUs integrated parts?

A: Yes. Both are listed as IGP slot width, and both have no power connectors. The Intel part uses an IGP bus interface, while the NVIDIA part uses PCIe 5.0 x16.

Architecture Differences

The Intel Arc Graphics 4 Xe Mobile is built on the Xe3-LPG architecture, part of the Panther Lake chip, fabricated on Intel's 3 nm process. The NVIDIA N1X 40SM uses the Blackwell 2.0 architecture on the GB20B chip, fabricated by TSMC on a 5 nm process. The node difference is notable: 3 nm versus 5 nm gives Intel a density and efficiency advantage on paper, though the NVIDIA part compensates with a far larger implementation.

The NVIDIA die measures 382 mm², while the Intel die size is listed as unknown. The transistor counts for both are unknown, so density comparisons cannot be made directly from the database. The architectural feature sets diverge sharply. Intel 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 suggests the database does not yet have API conformance data recorded, not that the hardware lacks support.

The NVIDIA part includes 160 tensor cores, indicating a strong AI compute focus. The Intel part lists no tensor cores. Both include dedicated RT cores, with NVIDIA at 40 and Intel at 4. The NVIDIA part also has a 10x advantage in texture mapping units (320 versus 32) and a 2.5x advantage in ROPs (40 versus 16).

Memory architecture is fundamentally different. Intel uses system shared memory with bandwidth dependent on the host platform. NVIDIA uses dedicated 128 GB of LPDDR5X on a 256-bit bus with a fixed 273.2 GB/s bandwidth. That dedicated memory arrangement gives NVIDIA predictable performance regardless of host memory configuration.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ across nearly every measurable specification in the database. Shading units: NVIDIA has 5120, Intel has 512. TMUs: NVIDIA has 320, Intel has 32. ROPs: NVIDIA has 40, Intel has 16. RT cores: NVIDIA has 40, Intel has 4. Tensor cores: NVIDIA has 160, Intel lists none.

Clock speeds are close at the top end. Intel runs a 300 MHz base and 2300 MHz boost. NVIDIA runs a 741 MHz base and 2346 MHz boost. The NVIDIA part has a higher base clock by 441 MHz and a slightly higher boost by 46 MHz.

Compute throughput is where the separation becomes extreme. FP32 performance is 24.02 TFLOPS for NVIDIA versus 2.355 TFLOPS for Intel. FP16 is 24.02 TFLOPS at 1:1 for NVIDIA versus 4.710 TFLOPS at 2:1 for Intel. Texture rate is 750.7 GTexel/s versus 73.60 GTexel/s. Pixel rate is 93.84 GPixel/s versus 36.80 GPixel/s.

Memory: NVIDIA uses 128 GB LPDDR5X at 1067 MHz (8.5 Gbps effective) on a 256-bit bus for 273.2 GB/s. Intel uses system shared memory with system dependent bandwidth. Power: Intel is rated at 25 W TDP, NVIDIA TDP is unknown. Both use IGP slot width and no power connectors. Display outputs: Intel is portable device dependent, NVIDIA lists 1x HDMI. Bus interface: Intel is IGP, NVIDIA is PCIe 5.0 x16.

Process node: Intel is 3 nm from Intel foundry, NVIDIA is 5 nm from TSMC. Release dates: Intel released on 2026-01-26, NVIDIA on 2026-05-31. Both are marked active in production.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear hierarchy. The NVIDIA N1X 40SM outperforms the Intel Arc Graphics 4 Xe Mobile in every recorded compute metric. The FP32 gap alone, 24.02 TFLOPS versus 2.355 TFLOPS, is roughly an order of magnitude. Texture rate shows a similar 10.2x gap, and pixel rate shows a 2.5x gap. The NVIDIA part has 10x the shading units, 10x the TMUs, 2.5x the ROPs, and 10x the RT cores.

The Intel part has one clear advantage: power consumption. It carries a 25 W TDP rating, while the NVIDIA TDP is unknown. For systems with strict power envelopes, the Intel part is the safer documented choice. It also uses system shared memory, which can simplify system design by avoiding dedicated VRAM allocation, though that comes at the cost of performance predictability.

The NVIDIA part uses a larger die (382 mm² versus unknown for Intel) and a dedicated 128 GB LPDDR5X pool. That memory configuration, combined with the compute advantage, positions it as the higher performance part in the database. The Intel part, built on a smaller process node with far fewer resources, targets efficiency and integration.

Neither part has recorded benchmark scores, so real-world application performance cannot be ranked beyond specification analysis. Based on the recorded data, the NVIDIA N1X 40SM is the stronger GPU in raw capability, while the Intel Arc Graphics 4 Xe Mobile is the lower-power integrated option with documented API support.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA N1X 40SM wins in every compute-heavy category recorded. FP32 workloads favor it by 10.2x. FP16 workloads favor it by 5.1x at full rate. Texture-heavy rendering favors it by 10.2x in texel throughput. Pixel-bound work favors it by 2.5x. Ray tracing workloads favor it by a 10x core count advantage. AI and tensor workloads are exclusive to NVIDIA, since the Intel part records no tensor cores.

The Intel Arc Graphics 4 Xe Mobile wins in power efficiency based on documented TDP. At 25 W, it is the only part with a known power ceiling. The NVIDIA part has no recorded TDP, so its power draw cannot be compared directly. The Intel part also supports DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4 in the database, while the NVIDIA part lists N/A for all three APIs. That makes Intel the only part with confirmed API conformance data.

For integrated system design, the Intel part uses system shared memory, which removes the need for dedicated memory chips and allows the GPU to scale with host memory capacity. The NVIDIA part requires a dedicated 128 GB LPDDR5X pool, which adds cost and complexity but provides fixed 273.2 GB/s bandwidth.

The NVIDIA part carries a PCIe 5.0 x16 bus interface, while the Intel part is limited to IGP. That suggests the NVIDIA part can be paired with discrete-style system integration despite its IGP slot width. Display output also differs: Intel is portable device dependent, NVIDIA lists 1x HDMI.

The release timeline puts Intel first at January 2026, with NVIDIA following in May 2026. Both are active production parts. The absence of benchmark data means neither part has a recorded percentile advantage over the other; both sit at the 50th percentile in the database with no rivals listed.