Intel Arc Graphics 48EU Mobile vs NVIDIA N1X 40SM Comparison

FAQ

Q: What are the fundamental architectural identities of these two mobile graphics solutions?

A: The Intel Arc Graphics 48EU Mobile uses the Xe-LPG architecture on a 10 nm process, built on the Meteor Lake chip. The NVIDIA N1X 40SM uses the Blackwell 2.0 architecture on a 5 nm process from TSMC, built on the GB20B chip.

Q: How do the shading resources compare between the two?

A: The Intel part carries 384 shading units, 24 texture mapping units, and 8 raster output pipelines. The NVIDIA part carries 5,120 shading units, 320 texture mapping units, and 40 raster output pipelines. The NVIDIA unit additionally has 40 ray tracing cores and 160 tensor cores, while the Intel unit has none listed.

Q: What memory configurations do the two use?

A: The Intel Arc Graphics 48EU Mobile uses system shared memory, with the bus width, type, and bandwidth all 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 with memory clocked at 1067 MHz (8.5 Gbps effective).

Q: What are the clock speed profiles?

A: The Intel GPU has a base clock of 300 MHz and a boost clock of 1800 MHz. The NVIDIA GPU has a base clock of 741 MHz and a much higher boost clock of 2346 MHz.

Q: How do the computed pixel and texture rates differ?

A: The Intel unit produces 14.40 GPixel/s and 43.20 GTexel/s. The NVIDIA unit produces 93.84 GPixel/s and 750.7 GTexel/s. The NVIDIA part shows roughly 6.5 times the pixel throughput and over 17 times the texture throughput.

Q: What are the floating-point performance figures?

A: The Intel GPU delivers 1,382.4 GFLOPS FP32 and 2.765 TFLOPS FP16 (2:1 ratio). The NVIDIA GPU delivers 24.02 TFLOPS FP32 and 24.02 TFLOPS FP16 (1:1 ratio). The NVIDIA part offers over 17 times the FP32 throughput.

The Verdict

The data shows two very different design philosophies. The Intel Arc Graphics 48EU Mobile is a low-power integrated solution: 28 W TDP, system shared memory, and a modest 384 shading units. It targets lightweight portable devices where power draw and simplicity matter more than raw throughput.

The NVIDIA N1X 40SM is a far more capable integrated part. With 5,120 shading units, dedicated ray tracing and tensor cores, a 256-bit memory bus, and 128 GB of LPDDR5X, it operates in a different performance class entirely. The 24.02 TFLOPS FP32 figure is over 17 times the Intel part's 1,382.4 GFLOPS, and the 750.7 GTexel/s texture rate dwarfs the Intel part's 43.20 GTexel/s.

Benchmark data shows both parts sit at the 50th percentile among all GPUs, but that percentile hides the architectural gap. The recorded specifications indicate the NVIDIA N1X 40SM is designed for demanding workloads: ray tracing, tensor acceleration, and high-resolution textures. The Intel part is built for basic graphics output and power efficiency.

The Intel part uses a 10 nm process from Intel's own foundry. The NVIDIA part uses a 5 nm process from TSMC. Die size for the NVIDIA chip is 382 mm², while the Intel die size is not specified. The NVIDIA part also lists a PCIe 5.0 x16 bus interface, while the Intel part uses a Ring Bus.

For users who need integrated graphics with ray tracing, tensor cores, and substantial memory bandwidth, the NVIDIA N1X 40SM is the clear choice from the data. For users who need minimal power draw and system shared memory simplicity, the Intel Arc Graphics 48EU Mobile fits that profile. The NVIDIA part's TDP is unknown, which limits direct power comparison, but the clock and compute differences strongly favor the NVIDIA solution.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database records no direct head-to-head benchmark scores between these two parts. Both have an average benchmark score of 0 and zero wins in the recorded comparison set. However, the specification data provides clear performance indicators.

The most significant gap appears in shading throughput. The NVIDIA N1X 40SM has 5,120 shading units versus 384 on the Intel part, a 13.3 times difference. Combined with the higher boost clock of 2346 MHz versus 1800 MHz, the FP32 compute difference reaches 24.02 TFLOPS versus 1,382.4 GFLOPS, a factor of 17.4.

Texture performance shows an even larger gap. The NVIDIA part's 320 TMUs at 750.7 GTexel/s outperform the Intel part's 24 TMUs at 43.20 GTexel/s by a factor of 17.4 as well, consistent with the clock and unit scaling.

Pixel throughput favors the NVIDIA part by a smaller but still large margin. The 93.84 GPixel/s from 40 ROPs versus 14.40 GPixel/s from 8 ROPs represents a 6.5 times difference. This narrower gap reflects the ROP count ratio of 5 to 1 being partially offset by the Intel part's lower base clock but relatively high boost.

Memory bandwidth is where the two diverge most starkly. The NVIDIA part has a dedicated 273.2 GB/s from 256-bit LPDDR5X. The Intel part has system shared memory with bandwidth listed as system dependent, meaning no fixed figure exists. The NVIDIA part's 128 GB capacity also far exceeds any shared memory allocation the Intel part might access.

FP16 performance shows a notable architectural difference. The Intel part delivers 2.765 TFLOPS with a 2:1 ratio, meaning it halves throughput for FP16. The NVIDIA part delivers 24.02 TFLOPS with a 1:1 ratio, meaning full FP32 throughput is maintained for FP16. This makes the NVIDIA part 8.7 times faster in FP16 while also being more efficient in how it processes that format.

The NVIDIA part also includes 40 ray tracing cores and 160 tensor cores, features the Intel part lacks entirely. These dedicated units enable hardware-accelerated ray tracing and AI workloads, which the Intel part cannot accelerate in the same way.

Specification Differences

The two parts differ across nearly every measurable specification. The Intel Arc Graphics 48EU Mobile has a base clock of 300 MHz, while the NVIDIA N1X 40SM has a base clock of 741 MHz. Boost clocks are 1800 MHz versus 2346 MHz respectively.

Shading unit counts are 384 versus 5,120. Texture mapping units are 24 versus 320. Raster output pipelines are 8 versus 40. The NVIDIA part adds 40 ray tracing cores and 160 tensor cores; the Intel part lists none.

Memory configurations are fundamentally different. The Intel part uses system shared memory with no fixed capacity, type, bus width, or bandwidth. The NVIDIA part uses 128 GB of LPDDR5X on a 256-bit bus with 273.2 GB/s bandwidth. Memory clock for the NVIDIA part is 1067 MHz with 8.5 Gbps effective data rate; the Intel part's memory clock is listed as system shared.

Pixel rate is 14.40 GPixel/s for Intel versus 93.84 GPixel/s for NVIDIA. Texture rate is 43.20 GTexel/s versus 750.7 GTexel/s. FP32 is 1,382.4 GFLOPS versus 24.02 TFLOPS. FP16 is 2.765 TFLOPS (2:1) versus 24.02 TFLOPS (1:1).

TDP is specified as 28 W for the Intel part, while the NVIDIA part's TDP is unknown. The bus interface differs: Ring Bus for Intel, PCIe 5.0 x16 for NVIDIA. Display outputs are portable device dependent for Intel, while the NVIDIA part lists 1x HDMI.

API support differs sharply. The Intel part supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The NVIDIA part lists N/A for DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan. This suggests the NVIDIA part may rely on different driver models or API translation layers, which could affect software compatibility.

Release dates differ by roughly two and a half years. The Intel part launched on December 13, 2023. The NVIDIA part has a release date of May 31, 2026. Both are listed as active production status.

Architecture Differences

The Intel Arc Graphics 48EU Mobile uses the Xe-LPG architecture on a 10 nm process from Intel's foundry. The NVIDIA N1X 40SM uses the Blackwell 2.0 architecture on a 5 nm process from TSMC. The process node difference gives NVIDIA a density and efficiency advantage, though the Intel part's 28 W TDP suggests careful power management.

The NVIDIA chip has a die size of 382 mm², which is large for an integrated GPU. The Intel die size is not recorded, but the Meteor Lake chip integrates multiple tiles, and the GPU portion is only one part of a larger package. The transistor counts are not specified for either part, though the NVIDIA transistor figure is listed as unknown.

Generation names reflect different design lineages. Intel's part belongs to the Arc Graphics-M (Meteor Lake) generation. NVIDIA's part belongs to the Blackwell IGP (N1x) generation. The Intel part's predecessor is HD Graphics-M, while the NVIDIA part has no predecessor listed.

The memory architecture differs at a fundamental level. Intel uses system shared memory, meaning the GPU accesses the CPU's main memory with no dedicated VRAM. NVIDIA uses a dedicated 128 GB LPDDR5X pool with a 256-bit bus. This means the NVIDIA part does not compete with the CPU for memory bandwidth, while the Intel part's performance depends entirely on the host system's memory subsystem.

The FP16 implementation reveals different compute priorities. Intel's 2:1 ratio means the hardware halves FP16 throughput relative to FP32. NVIDIA's 1:1 ratio means full FP32 throughput is maintained for FP16. This makes the NVIDIA part substantially more capable for machine learning inference and compute workloads that use FP16.

The NVIDIA part includes dedicated ray tracing cores (40) and tensor cores (160), which are absent from the Intel part's specification list. These dedicated units allow hardware acceleration for ray-traced graphics and AI-based features like DLSS, neither of which the Intel part can accelerate through equivalent hardware.

The bus interface differs significantly. Intel uses a Ring Bus, which is typical for integrated graphics sharing the CPU's internal interconnect. NVIDIA uses PCIe 5.0 x16, a high-bandwidth external interface even though the part is an IGP. This suggests the NVIDIA part may be designed for a modular or discrete-style integration rather than a traditional CPU die.

The process node and foundry choices highlight different manufacturing strategies. Intel uses its own 10 nm process. NVIDIA uses TSMC's 5 nm process. The 5 nm node offers higher transistor density and better power efficiency per clock, which helps explain the NVIDIA part's higher boost clock of 2346 MHz despite having far more shading units.

Display output specifications differ as well. The Intel part's outputs are portable device dependent, meaning they vary by the laptop or handheld design. The NVIDIA part lists 1x HDMI, a more standardized output configuration. This suggests the NVIDIA part may target devices with a fixed display output design.