Intel Arc Graphics 64EU Mobile vs NVIDIA N1 20SM Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded database contains no direct benchmark scores for either the Intel Arc Graphics 64EU Mobile or the NVIDIA N1 20SM. Both entries show an average benchmark score of 0, and the head-to-head comparison table is empty. This means there are no measured frame rates, synthetic test results, or compute workloads to compare directly between these two mobile graphics solutions.

What the data does provide is a percentile ranking. Both parts sit at the 50th percentile against all GPUs in the database, which places them at the exact midpoint of the recorded performance distribution. That parity in percentile ranking is notable, but it does not translate to equal performance. The 50th percentile for a 1.792 TFLOPS part is not the same absolute score as the 50th percentile for a 12.01 TFLOPS part. The percentile field is relative to the entire GPU population, not a direct comparison between these two.

Without benchmark values, the only quantitative performance indicators are the raw throughput specifications. The NVIDIA N1 20SM delivers 12.01 TFLOPS of FP32 compute, which is 6.7 times the 1.792 TFLOPS of the Intel Arc Graphics 64EU Mobile. That ratio is derived entirely from the listed figures. In FP16, the gap narrows slightly on paper: the NVIDIA part sustains 12.01 TFLOPS at a 1:1 ratio, while the Intel part reaches 3.584 TFLOPS at a 2:1 ratio. Even in the Intel part's preferred precision, the NVIDIA solution still holds a 3.35 times advantage.

Texture throughput tells a similar story. The NVIDIA N1 20SM records 375.4 GTexel/s compared to 56.00 GTexel/s for the Intel Arc Graphics 64EU Mobile, a 6.7 times difference that mirrors the FP32 ratio. Pixel rate is much closer: 56.30 GPixel/s versus 28.00 GPixel/s, meaning the NVIDIA part is just over 2 times faster in rasterization throughput. The Intel part has fewer ROPs (16 versus 24), but the NVIDIA part's higher boost clock of 2346 MHz versus 1750 MHz helps push its pixel rate further ahead.

Architecture Differences

The two parts come from fundamentally different design philosophies. The Intel Arc Graphics 64EU Mobile is built on the Xe-LPG architecture, part of the Meteor Lake chip, manufactured on Intel's 10 nm process. The NVIDIA N1 20SM uses the Blackwell 2.0 architecture on the GB20B chip, built by TSMC on a 5 nm process. The process node difference is significant: 10 nm versus 5 nm, which affects transistor density and power efficiency, though the database does not list transistor counts for either part.

The compute layout diverges sharply. Intel's part uses 512 shading units, 32 texture mapping units, and 16 ROPs. NVIDIA's part fields 2560 shading units, 160 TMUs, and 24 ROPs. That is 5 times more shading units and 5 times more TMUs on the NVIDIA side. The NVIDIA part also includes dedicated hardware that Intel's entry does not list: 20 ray tracing cores and 80 tensor cores. The Intel Arc Graphics 64EU Mobile has no RT core or tensor core entries in the database.

Clock behavior differs as well. Intel runs at a 300 MHz base clock and boosts to 1750 MHz. NVIDIA runs at 741 MHz base and boosts to 2346 MHz. The NVIDIA part has a higher base clock by 441 MHz and a higher boost clock by 596 MHz. Despite the lower base clock on Intel's side, the boost clock is still well below NVIDIA's sustained boost ceiling.

Memory architecture is a major separation point. The Intel part uses system shared memory, with the bus width, type, and capacity all listed as system dependent. Its bandwidth is marked as system dependent. The NVIDIA N1 20SM integrates 128 GB of LPDDR5X memory on a 256 bit bus, delivering 273.2 GB/s of bandwidth. The memory clock is listed as 1067 MHz with 8.5 Gbps effective transfer rate. This is a dedicated memory subsystem versus a shared one, which has direct implications for bandwidth-sensitive workloads.

The bus interface also differs. Intel connects via a Ring Bus, while NVIDIA uses PCIe 5.0 x16. Display outputs are portable device dependent on the Intel side, whereas the NVIDIA part lists 1x HDMI. API support is another clear split: Intel supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. NVIDIA lists N/A for DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan, which suggests the N1 20SM is not targeting traditional Windows graphics API workloads in the same way.

The NVIDIA part has a die size of 382 mm², while the Intel part does not list a die size. The NVIDIA TDP is listed as unknown, and the Intel TDP is 65 W. Both are classified as IGP (integrated graphics processor) with a slot width of IGP. NVIDIA uses no power connectors, and Intel does not list power connectors. Release dates differ by roughly two and a half years: Intel launched on December 13, 2023, while NVIDIA's release date is May 31, 2026.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear performance hierarchy. The NVIDIA N1 20SM holds substantial advantages in every computed throughput metric recorded: FP32 compute is 6.7 times higher, texture rate is 6.7 times higher, pixel rate is 2.01 times higher, and FP16 compute is 3.35 times higher in the Intel part's preferred ratio. The NVIDIA part also brings dedicated ray tracing and tensor hardware, which the Intel part does not list at all.

The Intel Arc Graphics 64EU Mobile does have one unambiguous advantage: API compatibility. It supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, while the NVIDIA part lists N/A across all three. For any workload that depends on those APIs, the Intel part is the only one of the two that can run it. The NVIDIA N1 20SM appears to be built for a different software ecosystem, one that does not rely on conventional graphics APIs.

Memory capacity is also decisive in the opposite direction. The NVIDIA part ships with 128 GB of LPDDR5X, which is a fixed, dedicated pool. The Intel part relies on system shared memory, meaning its available capacity is whatever the host system provides. For large datasets that fit in local memory, the NVIDIA part has a hard advantage. The 273.2 GB/s bandwidth versus system dependent bandwidth further reinforces that.

The choice depends entirely on the target workload. If the software stack requires DirectX, OpenGL, or Vulkan, the Intel Arc Graphics 64EU Mobile is the only viable option from this pair. If the workload can use the NVIDIA part's native compute and memory architecture, the N1 20SM delivers dramatically higher raw throughput across every measured metric. The 50th percentile ranking for both parts does not indicate parity; it only reflects that each sits at the middle of the full GPU distribution, which is a relative measure against a broad population that includes both far weaker and far stronger parts.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher FP32 compute performance?

A: The NVIDIA N1 20SM delivers 12.01 TFLOPS of FP32 compute, compared to 1.792 TFLOPS for the Intel Arc Graphics 64EU Mobile. That is a 6.7 times difference in favor of the NVIDIA part.

Q: Does the Intel Arc Graphics 64EU Mobile support DirectX?

A: Yes. The Intel part lists DirectX 12 (12_1) support, along with OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4. The NVIDIA N1 20SM lists N/A for DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan.

Q: What memory configuration does the NVIDIA N1 20SM use?

A: The NVIDIA part uses 128 GB of LPDDR5X memory on a 256 bit bus, with 273.2 GB/s bandwidth. The memory clock is 1067 MHz with 8.5 Gbps effective transfer rate.

Q: How much memory does the Intel Arc Graphics 64EU Mobile have?

A: The Intel part uses system shared memory. Its capacity, type, bus width, and bandwidth are all listed as system dependent, meaning they vary based on the host system's configuration.

Q: Does either GPU have ray tracing cores?

A: The NVIDIA N1 20SM lists 20 ray tracing cores and 80 tensor cores. The Intel Arc Graphics 64EU Mobile does not list any ray tracing or tensor core counts in the database.

Q: What are the boost clocks for both parts?

A: The Intel Arc Graphics 64EU Mobile has a boost clock of 1750 MHz, while the NVIDIA N1 20SM boosts to 2346 MHz. The NVIDIA part also has a higher base clock at 741 MHz versus 300 MHz.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA N1 20SM wins in every raw performance metric recorded in the database. FP32 throughput, FP16 throughput, texture fill rate, and pixel fill rate all favor the NVIDIA part by wide margins. The 2560 shading units versus 512, and 160 TMUs versus 32, provide the structural basis for those wins. The dedicated 128 GB memory pool with 273.2 GB/s bandwidth gives it a clear edge in memory-bound workloads that require large working sets and high transfer rates. The 20 ray tracing cores and 80 tensor cores extend its capability into ray-traced rendering and AI-accelerated compute, areas where the Intel part has no listed hardware.

The Intel Arc Graphics 64EU Mobile wins in software compatibility. Its DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4 support make it the only one of the two that can run conventional graphics applications built on those standard APIs. The NVIDIA N1 20SM lists N/A for all three, which means any DirectX, OpenGL, or Vulkan workload is simply out of reach for that part. The Intel part also has a lower TDP at 65 W, while the NVIDIA TDP is unknown, so power consumption cannot be directly compared. The Intel part's system shared memory model may be an advantage in systems where dedicated memory is not needed and where unified memory access simplifies programming.

The production status for both is listed as Active. The Intel part has a listed predecessor, HD Graphics-M, while the NVIDIA part has no predecessor listed. The NVIDIA part uses PCIe 5.0 x16 as its bus interface, which suggests it can be integrated into systems with high-bandwidth host connectivity. The Intel part uses a Ring Bus. The NVIDIA part has a larger die at 382 mm², while the Intel die size is not listed. Neither part has a launch MSRP in the database, so no pricing information can be stated.

For workloads that fit within the NVIDIA part's software ecosystem, the N1 20SM is the clear choice based on the recorded data. For any workload that requires DirectX, OpenGL, or Vulkan, the Intel Arc Graphics 64EU Mobile is the only option between the two. The performance gap in compute and memory bandwidth is substantial, but it is irrelevant if the target application cannot run on the NVIDIA part's API-less configuration. The data does not show any benchmark results that would narrow this gap, so the functional separation remains stark.