Intel Arc Graphics 64EU Mobile vs NVIDIA N1X 40SM Comparison

Intel Arc Graphics 64EU Mobile and NVIDIA N1X 40SM occupy opposite ends of the integrated graphics spectrum. The Intel part is a compact Meteor Lake IGP built on Intel’s 10 nm process, while the NVIDIA part is a Blackwell 2.0 IGP on TSMC’s 5 nm node with a 382 mm² die. The recorded specifications show a massive disparity in compute resources, memory configuration, and interface design, which translates directly into the benchmark deltas below.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most decisive separation appears in raw shading throughput. The Intel Arc Graphics 64EU Mobile delivers 1.792 TFLOPS of FP32 compute. The NVIDIA N1X 40SM reaches 24.02 TFLOPS FP32. That is a 13.4x advantage for the NVIDIA part, a gap so large that no driver optimization or power tuning could close it. The texture rate tells a similar story: Intel manages 56.00 GTexel/s, while NVIDIA posts 750.7 GTexel/s, roughly 13.4x higher. Pixel fill rate also favors NVIDIA heavily, with 93.84 GPixel/s versus Intel’s 28.00 GPixel/s, a 3.35x lead.

Memory bandwidth is another area of complete separation. The Intel IGP uses system shared memory with bandwidth labeled as system dependent, meaning its effective throughput varies with the host platform. The NVIDIA N1X 40SM uses 128 GB of LPDDR5X on a 256 bit bus, delivering 273.2 GB/s of fixed bandwidth. That fixed figure gives NVIDIA a predictable advantage in memory-heavy workloads, while Intel’s shared memory approach ties performance directly to the CPU’s memory subsystem.

Clock behavior also differs sharply. Intel runs at a 300 MHz base and 1750 MHz boost. NVIDIA runs at a 741 MHz base and 2346 MHz boost. Despite the lower base clock, NVIDIA’s higher boost and vastly larger execution resource pool produce the large compute deltas. The Intel part’s 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs are dwarfed by NVIDIA’s 5120 shading units, 320 TMUs, and 40 ROPs. NVIDIA also brings 40 ray tracing cores and 160 tensor cores, features entirely absent from the Intel specification sheet.

The NVIDIA part uses a PCIe 5.0 x16 bus interface, while Intel uses a Ring Bus. That interface difference matters for data movement between the GPU and host. The recorded data shows NVIDIA’s dedicated 273.2 GB/s memory path, whereas Intel’s bandwidth remains system dependent. For applications that stream large textures or datasets, NVIDIA’s fixed memory pipeline removes a major variable.

In terms of API support, Intel lists DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. NVIDIA lists DirectX as N/A, OpenGL as N/A, and Vulkan as N/A. The database records no API compatibility for the NVIDIA part, which is notable for any software stack that relies on those standard interfaces. The Intel IGP explicitly supports all three major graphics APIs, giving it a compatibility edge in conventional rendering workloads.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA N1X 40SM wins in every raw throughput category recorded. FP32 compute is 24.02 TFLOPS versus 1.792 TFLOPS. FP16 compute is 24.02 TFLOPS (1:1) versus Intel’s 3.584 TFLOPS (2:1). The 1:1 ratio on NVIDIA means it does not halve throughput for FP16 work, whereas Intel’s 2:1 ratio indicates a rate that is half of its FP32 peak for certain operations. Texture rate, pixel rate, and memory bandwidth all favor NVIDIA by wide margins.

NVIDIA also wins on memory capacity and bandwidth. The 128 GB LPDDR5X pool with 273.2 GB/s is a fixed, dedicated resource. The Intel part relies on system shared memory with no dedicated size, type, or bus width listed beyond the shared designation. For workloads that require large resident datasets, such as high-resolution texture sets or large neural network activations, NVIDIA’s memory configuration is the clear choice.

The NVIDIA part is manufactured on a 5 nm process by TSMC, while Intel uses a 10 nm process at Intel. The smaller process node typically allows higher transistor density and better energy efficiency per operation, though the database does not record transistor counts for either part. NVIDIA’s die size is listed at 382 mm², while Intel’s die size is not recorded. The larger die combined with the smaller process node suggests a much larger execution engine, consistent with the 5120 shading units versus 512.

The Intel Arc Graphics 64EU Mobile wins on API compatibility. It lists DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4 support. The NVIDIA part lists N/A for all three. Any application that requires DirectX 12, OpenGL, or Vulkan will find a documented path on Intel, while NVIDIA’s recorded support is absent. This is not a performance win, but it is a functional win for software compatibility.

Intel also wins on launch timing. The Intel part has a release date of December 13, 2023. The NVIDIA part has a release date of May 31, 2026. The Intel IGP has been available for a longer period, which may imply more mature driver support in the field, though the database does not record driver maturity or bug fix history.

The Verdict

The data points to a single clear conclusion for compute-heavy tasks: the NVIDIA N1X 40SM is the dominant part. Its FP32 throughput of 24.02 TFLOPS is 13.4x the Intel Arc Graphics 64EU Mobile’s 1.792 TFLOPS. Its texture rate of 750.7 GTexel/s is 13.4x Intel’s 56.00 GTexel/s. Its pixel rate of 93.84 GPixel/s is 3.35x Intel’s 28.00 GPixel/s. Its fixed 273.2 GB/s memory bandwidth is not directly comparable to Intel’s system dependent bandwidth, but the fixed nature alone removes a major performance variable.

For software compatibility, the Intel part is the only one with recorded API support. DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4 are all listed for Intel. The NVIDIA part lists N/A for all three. If the application stack requires any of those APIs, the Intel IGP is the only part with documented support in the database.

For FP16 workloads, NVIDIA’s 1:1 ratio means it delivers 24.02 TFLOPS without the 2:1 penalty that Intel’s part applies to its 3.584 TFLOPS FP16 figure. That makes NVIDIA the choice for FP16-heavy machine learning inference or graphics pipelines that use half precision.

For memory-bound tasks, NVIDIA’s 273.2 GB/s and 128 GB capacity are the only fixed figures available. Intel’s system dependent bandwidth means its performance cannot be stated as a constant. Users who need predictable memory performance should favor the NVIDIA part.

For ray tracing and tensor operations, NVIDIA is the only part with dedicated hardware: 40 RT cores and 160 tensor cores. Intel lists no RT cores and no tensor cores. Any workload that uses ray tracing or tensor core acceleration will find support only on NVIDIA.

The Intel part does have the advantage of a longer production history, with an Active production status and a December 2023 release date. The NVIDIA part is also marked Active production with a May 2026 release date. Both are current products, but Intel has been in the field for roughly two and a half years longer.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher FP32 compute performance?

A: The NVIDIA N1X 40SM delivers 24.02 TFLOPS FP32, while the Intel Arc Graphics 64EU Mobile delivers 1.792 TFLOPS. That is a 13.4x advantage for NVIDIA.

Q: Do both GPUs support DirectX 12?

A: No. The Intel Arc Graphics 64EU Mobile lists DirectX 12 (12_1) support. The NVIDIA N1X 40SM lists DirectX as N/A in the database.

Q: What is the memory configuration of each GPU?

A: The NVIDIA N1X 40SM uses 128 GB of LPDDR5X on a 256 bit bus with 273.2 GB/s bandwidth. The Intel Arc Graphics 64EU Mobile uses system shared memory with system dependent bandwidth.

Q: Which GPU has dedicated ray tracing hardware?

A: The NVIDIA N1X 40SM has 40 ray tracing cores. The Intel Arc Graphics 64EU Mobile lists no ray tracing cores.

Q: What are the process nodes for these GPUs?

A: The Intel Arc Graphics 64EU Mobile is built on Intel’s 10 nm process. The NVIDIA N1X 40SM is built on TSMC’s 5 nm process.

Q: What is the release date difference between the two?

A: The Intel Arc Graphics 64EU Mobile was released on December 13, 2023. The NVIDIA N1X 40SM has a release date of May 31, 2026.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different architectural lineages. The Intel Arc Graphics 64EU Mobile uses the Xe-LPG architecture, part of the Meteor Lake generation. The NVIDIA N1X 40SM uses the Blackwell 2.0 architecture, part of the Blackwell IGP (N1x) generation. The Intel part belongs to the Arc Graphics-M (Meteor Lake) product family, while the NVIDIA part belongs to the Blackwell IGP family.

The process node differs: Intel uses a 10 nm process at its own foundry, while NVIDIA uses TSMC’s 5 nm process. The die size is recorded for NVIDIA at 382 mm², with no die size listed for Intel. Transistor counts are not recorded for either part.

The execution resource counts are dramatically different. Intel has 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. NVIDIA has 5120 shading units, 320 TMUs, and 40 ROPs. NVIDIA also has 40 ray tracing cores and 160 tensor cores, which Intel does not list. The clock speeds differ as well: Intel runs at 300 MHz base and 1750 MHz boost, while NVIDIA runs at 741 MHz base and 2346 MHz boost.

Memory architecture is a fundamental split. Intel uses system shared memory for size, type, bus width, and bandwidth, with bandwidth labeled system dependent. NVIDIA uses 128 GB of LPDDR5X on a 256 bit bus with 273.2 GB/s fixed bandwidth. NVIDIA’s memory clock is listed at 1067 MHz with 8.5 Gbps effective transfer rate, while Intel’s memory clock is listed as system shared.

The bus interface also differs. Intel uses a Ring Bus, while NVIDIA uses PCIe 5.0 x16. Display outputs are recorded as portable device dependent for Intel and 1x HDMI for NVIDIA. Power connectors are listed as none for NVIDIA, with no power connector data for Intel. NVIDIA’s TDP is unknown in the database, while Intel’s TDP is recorded at 65 W. Both are classified as IGP slot width, meaning they are integrated graphics processors.

FP16 performance reveals an architectural difference in precision handling. Intel delivers 3.584 TFLOPS FP16 with a 2:1 ratio, meaning FP16 throughput is half of its FP32 rate. NVIDIA delivers 24.02 TFLOPS FP16 with a 1:1 ratio, meaning FP16 throughput matches its FP32 rate. This indicates NVIDIA does not sacrifice half-precision throughput, while Intel’s design applies a reduction factor.

The API surface is another architectural difference. Intel lists DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. NVIDIA lists DirectX as N/A, OpenGL as N/A, and Vulkan as N/A. This suggests the NVIDIA part may rely on proprietary or undocumented interfaces, while Intel provides standard API support. The production status of both parts is Active, and neither has a recorded launch MSRP.