Intel Arc Pro A60M vs NVIDIA N1X 48SM Comparison

# Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded database contains no head-to-head benchmark results for the Intel Arc Pro A60M versus the NVIDIA N1X 48SM. Both entries show an empty benchmark array, and the win counters are zero for each side. This absence of direct comparison data means that no measured performance deltas can be reported from the database. The Intel Arc Pro A60M and the NVIDIA N1X 48SM have not been subjected to the same test suite in the available records, so any attempt to quantify their relative speed would rely on specification-level inference rather than observed results.

The Intel Arc Pro A60M carries a 50th percentile ranking among all GPUs in the database, with an average benchmark score of zero. The NVIDIA N1X 48SM also holds a 50th percentile ranking and an average benchmark score of zero. These identical percentile values indicate that both parts sit at the median of the recorded GPU population, but the zero scores confirm that no actual workload measurements populate either record. Without nearest rival entries for either product, the database provides no comparative anchor points such as delta percentages or rival names to contextualize performance.

What the data does show is a substantial gap in theoretical compute capacity. The NVIDIA N1X 48SM delivers 28.83 TFLOPS of FP32 throughput, while the Intel Arc Pro A60M delivers 5.325 TFLOPS. That places the NVIDIA part at approximately 5.4 times the raw single-precision compute of the Intel part, a difference that would likely translate into significant advantages in compute-bound workloads if benchmark data existed to confirm it. Texture rate follows a similar pattern: the NVIDIA unit reaches 900.9 GTexel/s versus 166.4 GTexel/s for the Intel unit, a ratio of roughly 5.4 to one. Pixel rate differences are narrower, with NVIDIA at 112.6 GPixel/s and Intel at 83.20 GPixel/s, a factor of about 1.35.

The memory subsystems also diverge sharply. The NVIDIA N1X 48SM pairs 128 GB of LPDDR5X memory on a 256-bit bus with 273.2 GB/s of bandwidth. The Intel Arc Pro A60M uses 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus with 256.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The NVIDIA part offers 16 times the memory capacity and roughly 6.7% more bandwidth despite the different memory types. Clock behavior favors NVIDIA as well: the boost clock reaches 2346 MHz versus 1300 MHz for Intel, while base clocks sit at 741 MHz versus 900 MHz, meaning Intel starts higher but NVIDIA pushes much further under load.

# Where Each One Wins

Without recorded benchmark wins, the database cannot assign victories to either product in specific application categories. The win counters show zero for both sides, and the head-to-head benchmark array is empty. Any use-case assessment must therefore derive from architectural and specification differences rather than measured outcomes.

The NVIDIA N1X 48SM shows clear theoretical dominance in compute-heavy scenarios. Its 6144 shading units, 384 texture mapping units, and 192 tensor cores position it for workloads that scale with parallel arithmetic throughput. The FP32 figure of 28.83 TFLOPS and FP16 figure of 28.83 TFLOPS with a 1:1 ratio indicate that the part does not halve throughput for half-precision work, which benefits machine learning inference and training tasks that rely on FP16 operations. The 48 ray tracing cores also suggest strong ray-traced rendering capability, though no benchmark confirms this.

The Intel Arc Pro A60M counters with a different feature profile. Its 2048 shading units and 128 TMUs deliver 5.325 TFLOPS of FP32 and 10.65 TFLOPS of FP16 with a 2:1 ratio, meaning half-precision throughput doubles relative to single-precision. This makes the Intel part relatively more efficient at FP16 work per unit of FP32 capability, though its absolute FP16 output still trails NVIDIA by a factor of roughly 2.7. The 16 ray tracing cores provide ray tracing support, and the 64 ROPs deliver a pixel rate of 83.20 GPixel/s that narrows the gap with NVIDIA more than any other compute metric.

Memory capacity favors NVIDIA decisively for large datasets. The 128 GB LPDDR5X frame buffer can hold models and scenes that simply cannot fit in the Intel part's 8 GB GDDR6 allocation. For professional visualization, AI inference with large batch sizes, or GPU-accelerated databases, the NVIDIA part's capacity advantage is the defining specification. The Intel part's higher base clock of 900 MHz and its 8 GB capacity on a 128-bit bus suggest a design aimed at moderate workloads where power and thermal constraints matter, though the TDP for NVIDIA is listed as unknown, preventing a direct efficiency comparison.

# Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different architectural generations and design philosophies. Intel uses the DG2-256 chip built on the Xe-HPG architecture, belonging to the Alchemist generation in the Pro-Series Mobile lineup. The chip is fabricated on a 6 nm process at TSMC with 11,500 million transistors on a 269 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 42.8 million per square millimeter. NVIDIA counters with the GB20B chip based on the Blackwell 2.0 architecture, part of the Blackwell IGP (N1x) generation. This chip uses a 5 nm TSMC process with a larger 382 mm² die, though transistor count is listed as unknown and density is not recorded.

The NVIDIA part's die is 42% larger by area than the Intel chip, which aligns with its higher resource counts. The 6144 shading units, 384 TMUs, 192 tensor cores, and 48 RT cores far exceed Intel's 2048 shading units, 128 TMUs, 16 RT cores, and no dedicated tensor core count. NVIDIA's tensor core presence is notable because the Intel record lists tensor cores as null, indicating either absence or no available data. The Blackwell 2.0 architecture also supports a 1:1 FP16 to FP32 ratio, while Intel's Xe-HPG uses a 2:1 ratio that doubles half-precision throughput.

Memory architecture differs fundamentally. Intel uses 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus with 2000 MHz memory clock and 16 Gbps effective speed. NVIDIA uses 128 GB of LPDDR5X on a 256-bit bus with 1067 MHz memory clock and 8.5 Gbps effective speed. The GDDR6 configuration on Intel provides higher per-pin data rates, but the wider NVIDIA bus and larger capacity dominate overall bandwidth and capacity.

Interface and output specifications also separate the two. Intel connects via PCIe 4.0 x16, while NVIDIA uses PCIe 5.0 x16, doubling the available interconnect bandwidth for data transfer. Display outputs differ: Intel lists "Portable Device Dependent" outputs, while NVIDIA provides a single HDMI port. API support shows a major split: Intel supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, while NVIDIA lists N/A for DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan, indicating that the N1X 48SM record contains no API compatibility data.

# FAQ

Q: Which GPU has more FP32 compute power?

A: The NVIDIA N1X 48SM delivers 28.83 TFLOPS of FP32, while the Intel Arc Pro A60M delivers 5.325 TFLOPS. NVIDIA's figure is roughly 5.4 times higher.

Q: How much memory does each GPU have?

A: The Intel Arc Pro A60M has 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus with 256.0 GB/s bandwidth. The NVIDIA N1X 48SM has 128 GB of LPDDR5X on a 256-bit bus with 273.2 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: What are the process nodes for these chips?

A: Intel uses a 6 nm TSMC process for the DG2-256 chip. NVIDIA uses a 5 nm TSMC process for the GB20B chip.

Q: Do both GPUs support ray tracing?

A: Yes. The Intel Arc Pro A60M includes 16 ray tracing cores, and the NVIDIA N1X 48SM includes 48 ray tracing cores.

Q: What PCIe interfaces do they use?

A: The Intel Arc Pro A60M uses PCIe 4.0 x16. The NVIDIA N1X 48SM uses PCIe 5.0 x16.

Q: Are there any benchmark results comparing the two?

A: No. The database records contain no head-to-head benchmarks, no average benchmark scores, and no nearest rival entries for either product. Both hold a 50th percentile ranking among all GPUs.

# Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ across nearly every recorded specification field.

Chip and Architecture: Intel uses the DG2-256 chip with Xe-HPG architecture from the Alchemist generation. NVIDIA uses the GB20B chip with Blackwell 2.0 architecture from the Blackwell IGP generation.

Process and Die: Intel is fabricated on a 6 nm process with a 269 mm² die and 11,500 million transistors, giving a density of 42.8 million per mm². NVIDIA uses a 5 nm process with a 382 mm² die, while transistor count and density are unknown.

Clocks: Intel runs at 900 MHz base and 1300 MHz boost. NVIDIA runs at 741 MHz base and 2346 MHz boost. Memory clocks differ as well: Intel uses 2000 MHz with 16 Gbps effective, NVIDIA uses 1067 MHz with 8.5 Gbps effective.

Memory: Intel has 8 GB GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus with 256.0 GB/s bandwidth. NVIDIA has 128 GB LPDDR5X on a 256-bit bus with 273.2 GB/s bandwidth.

Compute Units: Intel has 2048 shading units, 128 TMUs, 64 ROPs, 16 RT cores, and no tensor core count. NVIDIA has 6144 shading units, 384 TMUs, 48 ROPs, 48 RT cores, and 192 tensor cores.

Rates and TFLOPS: Intel achieves 83.20 GPixel/s, 166.4 GTexel/s, 5.325 TFLOPS FP32, and 10.65 TFLOPS FP16. NVIDIA achieves 112.6 GPixel/s, 900.9 GTexel/s, 28.83 TFLOPS FP32, and 28.83 TFLOPS FP16.

Power and Cooling: Intel lists a 95 W TDP. NVIDIA lists TDP as unknown. Both are IGP slot width with no length, height, or width dimensions recorded.

Connectors and Interface: Intel has no power connectors listed and uses PCIe 4.0 x16. NVIDIA has no power connectors and uses PCIe 5.0 x16.

Display Outputs: Intel lists "Portable Device Dependent." NVIDIA lists 1x HDMI.

API Support: Intel supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. NVIDIA lists N/A for all three API categories.

Release Dates: Intel was released on 2023-06-05. NVIDIA was released on 2026-05-31.

Production Status: Both are listed as Active.

Percentile: Both hold a 50th percentile ranking among all GPUs, with average benchmark scores of zero for each.