Intel Arc Pro B390 vs NVIDIA N1X 48SM Comparison

The Verdict

The database records two distinct integrated graphics solutions with fundamentally different design goals. The Intel Arc Pro B390 targets compact, power-constrained platforms where a unified memory architecture and minimal power draw take priority. The NVIDIA N1X 48SM aims for substantially higher raw compute throughput within an integrated form factor, trading process node efficiency for a much larger silicon footprint.

Benchmark results show no recorded head-to-head data, so the comparison rests entirely on architectural and specification analysis. The Intel part delivers 7.680 TFLOPS FP32 compute with a 80 W TDP, while the NVIDIA part delivers 28.83 TFLOPS FP32, a 3.75x advantage in raw shader throughput. The NVIDIA N1X 48SM also carries 128 GB of dedicated LPDDR5X memory with 273.2 GB/s bandwidth, whereas the Intel Arc Pro B390 shares system memory with bandwidth marked as System Dependent. For workloads that stress memory bandwidth or sustained FP32 throughput, the NVIDIA part holds a clear specification advantage. For systems where power draw, process node efficiency, and a compact IGP form factor matter, the Intel part presents the more restrained option.

Architecture Differences

The Intel Arc Pro B390 uses the Panther Lake chip with Xe3-LPG architecture, fabricated on a 3 nm process at Intel. The NVIDIA N1X 48SM uses the GB20B chip with Blackwell 2.0 architecture, fabricated on a 5 nm process at TSMC. The die size for the NVIDIA part is recorded at 382 mm², while the Intel die size is unknown.

The Intel architecture integrates 1536 shading units, 48 texture mapping units, 24 render output units, and 12 ray tracing cores. The NVIDIA architecture integrates 6144 shading units, 384 TMUs, 48 ROPs, 48 RT cores, and 192 tensor cores. The shading unit count difference is 4x in favor of NVIDIA, and the RT core count difference is also 4x. The Intel part has no recorded tensor core count, while the NVIDIA part includes 192 tensor cores for AI-accelerated workloads.

Clock behavior differs notably. The Intel part has a base clock of 300 MHz and a boost clock of 2500 MHz, a ratio of 8.33x between base and boost. The NVIDIA part has a base clock of 741 MHz and a boost clock of 2346 MHz, a ratio of 3.17x. The Intel part relies on a wider clock ramp to reach its performance ceiling, while the NVIDIA part operates closer to its maximum frequency at idle.

Memory architecture separates the two fundamentally. The Intel Arc Pro B390 uses System Shared memory, meaning the GPU accesses the host system's main memory with no dedicated VRAM allocation. The bandwidth is recorded as System Dependent, so performance scales with the host platform's memory configuration. The NVIDIA N1X 48SM integrates 128 GB of LPDDR5X memory on a 256 bit bus, delivering 273.2 GB/s of dedicated bandwidth. The memory clock is recorded at 1067 MHz with 8.5 Gbps effective transfer rate. This dedicated memory arrangement removes contention with CPU workloads and provides predictable bandwidth for GPU tasks.

API support also diverges. The Intel part supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The NVIDIA part records N/A for DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan, indicating the database lists no API compatibility for this IGP. The bus interface differs as well: the Intel part uses an IGP bus interface, while the NVIDIA part uses PCIe 5.0 x16.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

No head-to-head benchmark results exist in the database for these two parts. The winsA and winsB fields both record zero, and the headToHeadBenchmarks array is empty. The comparison therefore relies on recorded specification data rather than measured performance deltas.

The FP32 throughput figures provide the clearest separation. The Intel Arc Pro B390 delivers 7.680 TFLOPS, while the NVIDIA N1X 48SM delivers 28.83 TFLOPS. This represents a 3.75x advantage for NVIDIA in raw single-precision compute. The FP16 figures show an interesting divergence in execution model. The Intel part achieves 15.36 TFLOPS FP16 using a 2:1 ratio, meaning it executes two FP16 operations per FP32 operation. The NVIDIA part achieves 28.83 TFLOPS FP16 using a 1:1 ratio, meaning FP16 throughput matches FP32 throughput exactly. For FP16 workloads, the NVIDIA advantage narrows to 1.88x.

Pixel and texture throughput follow the same pattern. The NVIDIA part delivers 112.6 GPixel/s pixel fill rate versus 60.00 GPixel/s for Intel, a 1.88x advantage. The texture rate shows a larger gap: 900.9 GTexel/s for NVIDIA versus 120.0 GTexel/s for Intel, a 7.51x advantage. The texture rate gap exceeds the shading unit gap because NVIDIA pairs 384 TMUs with its 6144 shading units, while Intel pairs only 48 TMUs with 1536 shading units.

The RT core count difference of 4x (48 versus 12) suggests ray tracing workloads will scale heavily toward NVIDIA, though no benchmark data confirms this. The tensor core presence on NVIDIA (192 cores) versus the absence of recorded tensor cores on Intel indicates AI inference and machine learning workloads will favor NVIDIA, again without measured confirmation.

Specification Differences

The two parts differ across nearly every recorded specification field:

• Process node: Intel uses 3 nm; NVIDIA uses 5 nm.
• Foundry: Intel uses Intel; NVIDIA uses TSMC.
• Die size: Intel unknown; NVIDIA 382 mm².
• Base clock: Intel 300 MHz; NVIDIA 741 MHz.
• Boost clock: Intel 2500 MHz; NVIDIA 2346 MHz.
• Memory size: Intel System Shared; NVIDIA 128 GB.
• Memory type: Intel System Shared; NVIDIA LPDDR5X.
• Memory bus width: Intel System Shared; NVIDIA 256 bit.
• Memory bandwidth: Intel System Dependent; NVIDIA 273.2 GB/s.
• Memory clock: Intel System Shared; NVIDIA 1067 MHz (8.5 Gbps effective).
• Shading units: Intel 1536; NVIDIA 6144.
• TMUs: Intel 48; NVIDIA 384.
• ROPs: Intel 24; NVIDIA 48.
• RT cores: Intel 12; NVIDIA 48.
• Tensor cores: Intel not recorded; NVIDIA 192.
• Pixel rate: Intel 60.00 GPixel/s; NVIDIA 112.6 GPixel/s.
• Texture rate: Intel 120.0 GTexel/s; NVIDIA 900.9 GTexel/s.
• FP32: Intel 7.680 TFLOPS; NVIDIA 28.83 TFLOPS.
• FP16: Intel 15.36 TFLOPS (2:1); NVIDIA 28.83 TFLOPS (1:1).
• TDP: Intel 80 W; NVIDIA unknown.
• Bus interface: Intel IGP; NVIDIA PCIe 5.0 x16.
• Display outputs: Intel Portable Device Dependent; NVIDIA 1x HDMI.
• DirectX: Intel 12 Ultimate (12_2); NVIDIA N/A.
• OpenGL: Intel 4.6; NVIDIA N/A.
• Vulkan: Intel 1.4; NVIDIA N/A.
• Release date: Intel 2026-01-26; NVIDIA 2026-05-31.

Both parts share the IGP slot width, use no power connectors, and record the same 50th percentile vs all GPUs. Both carry a production status of Active. Neither has a launch MSRP recorded in the database.

FAQ

Q: Which part has higher FP32 compute throughput?

A: The NVIDIA N1X 48SM delivers 28.83 TFLOPS FP32, which is 3.75x the 7.680 TFLOPS of the Intel Arc Pro B390.

Q: How does the memory configuration differ?

A: The Intel Arc Pro B390 uses System Shared memory with bandwidth marked as System Dependent. The NVIDIA N1X 48SM has 128 GB of dedicated LPDDR5X memory on a 256 bit bus with 273.2 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: What are the process node differences?

A: The Intel Arc Pro B390 uses a 3 nm process at Intel. The NVIDIA N1X 48SM uses a 5 nm process at TSMC. The NVIDIA die measures 382 mm² while the Intel die size is not recorded.

Q: Which part supports more graphics APIs?

A: The Intel Arc Pro B390 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The NVIDIA N1X 48SM records N/A for DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan in the database.

Q: How do the RT core counts compare?

A: The Intel Arc Pro B390 has 12 ray tracing cores. The NVIDIA N1X 48SM has 48 ray tracing cores, a 4x difference.

Q: What is the power draw of each part?

A: The Intel Arc Pro B390 records a TDP of 80 W. The NVIDIA N1X 48SM has an unknown TDP in the database. Both use no power connectors and occupy an IGP slot width.