Intel Arc Graphics 4 Xe Mobile vs NVIDIA N1X 48SM Comparison

FAQ

Q: What are the core architectural identities of these two mobile graphics processors?

A: The Intel Arc Graphics 4 Xe Mobile uses the Xe3-LPG architecture on Panther Lake, built on a 3 nm process at Intel. The NVIDIA N1X 48SM uses the Blackwell 2.0 architecture on the GB20B chip, built on a 5 nm process at TSMC.

Q: How do the memory configurations differ?

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

Q: Which processor has higher raw shader throughput?

A: The NVIDIA N1X 48SM delivers 28.83 TFLOPS FP32, while the Intel Arc Graphics 4 Xe Mobile delivers 2.355 TFLOPS FP32.

Q: What are the boost clock differences?

A: The Intel part boosts to 2300 MHz from a 300 MHz base. The NVIDIA part boosts to 2346 MHz from a 741 MHz base.

Q: What is the thermal design power of each?

A: The Intel Arc Graphics 4 Xe Mobile is rated at 25 W. The NVIDIA N1X 48SM has an unknown TDP in the database.

Q: Which API levels does each support?

A: The Intel part supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The NVIDIA part has N/A listed for DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan in the database.

Architecture Differences

The two processors represent fundamentally different design philosophies. Intel uses the Xe3-LPG architecture on a 3 nm process manufactured at Intel, targeting Panther Lake as an integrated solution. The chip has 512 shading units, 32 texture mapping units, 16 ROPs, and 4 RT cores. It has no dedicated tensor cores listed, and its FP16 throughput is 4.710 TFLOPS at a 2:1 ratio relative to FP32. The base clock sits at 300 MHz with a boost of 2300 MHz. The memory subsystem relies entirely on system shared memory, meaning bandwidth is system dependent. The power envelope is a modest 25 W.

NVIDIA's N1X 48SM uses the Blackwell 2.0 architecture on the GB20B chip, fabricated on a 5 nm process at TSMC. The die size is 382 mm². The compute configuration is dramatically larger: 6144 shading units, 384 TMUs, 48 ROPs, 48 RT cores, and 192 tensor cores. FP32 throughput reaches 28.83 TFLOPS, and FP16 runs at the same 28.83 TFLOPS at a 1:1 ratio, indicating no FP16 throughput penalty. The base clock is 741 MHz with a boost of 2346 MHz. Memory is 128 GB of LPDDR5X on a 256-bit bus with 273.2 GB/s of bandwidth. The power draw is not recorded in the database, though the slot width is IGP and power connectors are listed as none. The bus interface is PCIe 5.0 x16.

The API support differs sharply. Intel lists DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. NVIDIA lists N/A for all three APIs, which reflects either incomplete driver support in the database or a different software stack. Display outputs also differ: Intel uses portable device dependent outputs, while NVIDIA lists a single HDMI output.

The transistor counts are unknown for both parts. The Intel part has no die size listed, while NVIDIA reports 382 mm². Both are categorized as IGP slot width with no power connectors. The release dates differ, with Intel dated 2026-01-26 and NVIDIA dated 2026-05-31. Both are marked as active production.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains no direct head-to-head benchmark scores for these two processors, and neither has recorded average benchmark scores. Both carry a percentile rank of 50 against all GPUs. The absence of measured scores means the comparison must be built from the recorded specification data.

The largest single advantage for NVIDIA appears in raw compute throughput. The FP32 figure of 28.83 TFLOPS is roughly 12.2 times the Intel part's 2.355 TFLOPS. This is a decisive gap for any workload that scales with shader count. The NVIDIA part also holds a massive lead in texture rate: 900.9 GTexel/s versus 73.60 GTexel/s. Pixel rate favors NVIDIA at 112.6 GPixel/s versus 36.80 GPixel/s. These figures indicate that NVIDIA delivers substantially higher fill rates across the board.

The memory subsystem reinforces the NVIDIA advantage. The 273.2 GB/s of dedicated LPDDR5X bandwidth on a 256-bit bus contrasts with Intel's system dependent shared memory. The 128 GB capacity also dwarfs the shared memory arrangement, though the effective usable bandwidth for Intel depends entirely on the host platform.

Clock speeds are closer than compute throughput. The NVIDIA boost of 2346 MHz is only 2% higher than Intel's 2300 MHz. The base clocks differ more significantly, with NVIDIA at 741 MHz versus Intel at 300 MHz. This suggests Intel's power management may scale more aggressively from idle, but NVIDIA maintains a higher floor.

The RT core count favors NVIDIA at 48 versus Intel's 4. Tensor cores exist only on NVIDIA with 192 units. The shading unit count favors NVIDIA at 6144 versus 512. The TMU count favors NVIDIA at 384 versus 32. The ROP count favors NVIDIA at 48 versus 16.

The Intel part has a clear advantage in process node at 3 nm versus 5 nm. It also carries a known 25 W TDP, which is likely lower than the NVIDIA part given the NVIDIA TDP is unknown. The Intel part supports the modern DirectX 12 Ultimate feature set, while NVIDIA lists N/A for all APIs in the database.

The Verdict

The recorded data points to NVIDIA as the dominant performer in raw compute, fill rate, and memory bandwidth. The FP32 throughput advantage of 28.83 TFLOPS versus 2.355 TFLOPS is overwhelming. The texture rate of 900.9 GTexel/s versus 73.60 GTexel/s and pixel rate of 112.6 GPixel/s versus 36.80 GPixel/s reinforce this. The NVIDIA part also has 48 RT cores and 192 tensor cores, features that Intel either lacks entirely or provides in minimal count.

Intel's case rests on efficiency and integration. The 3 nm process node and 25 W TDP indicate a power-conscious design. The system shared memory approach simplifies the platform. The DirectX 12 Ultimate and Vulkan 1.4 support provide modern API coverage.

The database shows no recorded benchmark scores for either part, so the percentile rank of 50 for both is a placeholder rather than a measured result. The absence of head-to-head benchmarks means the verdict relies on specification analysis. On that basis, NVIDIA delivers roughly an order of magnitude more compute. Intel delivers a lower power envelope and a newer process node.

A user prioritizing maximum graphics throughput should select the NVIDIA N1X 48SM. A user prioritizing power efficiency and modern API support in a compact IGP form factor should select the Intel Arc Graphics 4 Xe Mobile.

Specification Differences

The two parts differ in nearly every recorded specification field.

Process node: Intel at 3 nm, NVIDIA at 5 nm. Foundry: Intel for the Intel part, TSMC for the NVIDIA part. Die size: unknown for Intel, 382 mm² for NVIDIA.

Base clock: 300 MHz for Intel, 741 MHz for NVIDIA. Boost clock: 2300 MHz for Intel, 2346 MHz for NVIDIA.

Memory: Intel uses system shared with system dependent bandwidth, NVIDIA uses 128 GB LPDDR5X with 273.2 GB/s bandwidth on a 256-bit bus.

Shading units: 512 for Intel, 6144 for NVIDIA. TMUs: 32 for Intel, 384 for NVIDIA. ROPs: 16 for Intel, 48 for NVIDIA. RT cores: 4 for Intel, 48 for NVIDIA. Tensor cores: null for Intel, 192 for NVIDIA.

Pixel rate: 36.80 GPixel/s for Intel, 112.6 GPixel/s for NVIDIA. Texture rate: 73.60 GTexel/s for Intel, 900.9 GTexel/s for NVIDIA. FP32: 2.355 TFLOPS for Intel, 28.83 TFLOPS for NVIDIA. FP16: 4.710 TFLOPS at 2:1 for Intel, 28.83 TFLOPS at 1:1 for NVIDIA.

TDP: 25 W for Intel, unknown for NVIDIA. Bus interface: IGP for Intel, PCIe 5.0 x16 for NVIDIA. Display outputs: portable device dependent for Intel, 1x HDMI for NVIDIA.

APIs: Intel lists DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, Vulkan 1.4. NVIDIA lists N/A for all three.

Release date: 2026-01-26 for Intel, 2026-05-31 for NVIDIA.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA N1X 48SM wins on every raw performance metric recorded in the database. FP32 compute is 28.83 TFLOPS versus 2.355 TFLOPS. FP16 compute is 28.83 TFLOPS versus 4.710 TFLOPS. Texture rate is 900.9 GTexel/s versus 73.60 GTexel/s. Pixel rate is 112.6 GPixel/s versus 36.80 GPixel/s. The 48 RT cores and 192 tensor cores provide dedicated hardware for ray tracing and AI workloads that the Intel part lacks. The 273.2 GB/s memory bandwidth with 128 GB capacity removes any dependency on host memory performance.

The Intel Arc Graphics 4 Xe Mobile wins on power efficiency. The 25 W TDP is recorded, while the NVIDIA TDP is unknown. The 3 nm process node suggests lower power density. The 300 MHz base clock indicates the ability to idle at very low frequencies. The system shared memory approach eliminates the need for dedicated VRAM power. The DirectX 12 Ultimate and Vulkan 1.4 support gives it a complete modern API stack, which the NVIDIA part does not list in the database.

The release timing also favors Intel, with a 2026-01-26 date versus NVIDIA's 2026-05-31 date. Both are active production parts. The Intel part is best suited for constrained power envelopes where 25 W is the ceiling and where system shared memory is acceptable. The NVIDIA part is best suited for maximum graphics throughput in a platform that can support PCIe 5.0 x16 and a large memory footprint. The choice depends entirely on whether the priority is absolute performance or power-constrained integration.