Intel Data Center GPU Max 1100 vs NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5090 SE Comparison

The Verdict

The recorded data presents two very different computing devices that share a PCIe 5.0 x16 interface and a dual-slot footprint, but diverge sharply in purpose. The Intel Data Center GPU Max 1100 is a data center accelerator built on the Ponte Vecchio chip, while the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5090 SE is a consumer-oriented GeForce 50-series card. No benchmark scores are recorded for either product, and neither has nearest rival data or a percentile advantage over the other; both sit at the 50th percentile against all GPUs in the database. With zero head-to-head benchmark wins on either side and no measured scores, the data cannot declare a performance leader. The selection between the two depends entirely on the workload context implied by their specifications, not on measured results.

The Intel part offers 48 GB of HBM2e memory across an 8192-bit bus, which points toward large memory-resident datasets and compute tasks that require massive capacity. The NVIDIA card offers 24 GB of GDDR7 memory on a 384-bit bus with higher peak bandwidth at 1.34 TB/s. The RTX 5090 SE carries a launch MSRP of 1,499 USD, a figure that appears once in the database and is not repeated in this analysis. The Intel card has no recorded launch MSRP. Users who need the 48 GB memory footprint for large-scale data center workloads would select the Intel accelerator; users who need display outputs, graphics APIs, and consumer platform features would select the NVIDIA card. The data does not support a universal winner, only a workload-driven split.

Architecture Differences

The two chips come from different foundries and process nodes. Intel builds the Ponte Vecchio chip on Intel's 10 nm process with 100,000 million transistors on a 1280 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 78.1M per mm². NVIDIA builds the GB202 chip at TSMC on a 5 nm process with 92,200 million transistors on a 750 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 122.9M per mm². The NVIDIA die packs more transistors per square millimeter despite having fewer total transistors, which indicates a denser design. The Intel die is physically larger and carries more total transistors, but the density gap shows how process differences shape each implementation.

The architectures themselves belong to different generations. Intel uses Generation 12.5, while NVIDIA uses Blackwell 2.0 in the GeForce 50 generation. The Intel card supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and OpenGL 4.6, with no Vulkan entry recorded. The NVIDIA card supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The API support difference matters for graphics workloads: the NVIDIA card covers the full modern graphics stack, while the Intel card omits Vulkan and uses an older DirectX feature level. The Intel card also has no display outputs, meaning it cannot drive a monitor directly. The NVIDIA card provides 1x HDMI 2.1b and 3x DisplayPort 2.1b outputs.

Clock behavior differs substantially. Intel runs a base clock of 1000 MHz with a boost of 1550 MHz and memory at 600 MHz (1200 Mbps effective). NVIDIA runs a base clock of 1740 MHz with a boost of 2377 MHz and memory at 1750 MHz (28 Gbps effective). The NVIDIA card operates at significantly higher clock frequencies across both core and memory. Power delivery also differs: Intel uses a 300 W TDP with a 700 W suggested PSU and a 1x 12-pin connector, while NVIDIA uses a 500 W TDP with a 900 W suggested PSU and a 1x 16-pin connector.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Data Center GPU Max 1100 wins in memory capacity. Its 48 GB of HBM2e doubles the NVIDIA card's 24 GB of GDDR7. For workloads that need to hold large models or datasets in memory, the Intel card has a clear capacity advantage. The 8192-bit memory bus also suggests a design tuned for wide data movement, even though the peak bandwidth of 1.23 TB/s is slightly below the NVIDIA card's 1.34 TB/s. The Intel card also has a lower TDP at 300 W versus 500 W, which implies lower peak power draw, and its 700 W suggested PSU is below the 900 W suggested for the NVIDIA card.

The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5090 SE wins in raw compute throughput and graphics features. Its FP32 performance of 66.94 TFLOPS is roughly three times the Intel card's 22.22 TFLOPS. The texture rate of 1,045.9 GTexel/s is about 1.5 times the Intel card's 694.4 GTexel/s. The NVIDIA card has a pixel rate of 380.3 GPixel/s, while the Intel card reports 0 MPixel/s, which makes sense given the Intel card has no display outputs and no ROP count. The NVIDIA card carries 160 ROPs, 110 RT cores, and 440 tensor cores, while the Intel card lists 0 ROPs, 56 RT cores, and no tensor core entry. The NVIDIA card supports DirectX 12 Ultimate and Vulkan 1.4, making it the only one of the two with full modern graphics API coverage. It also has display outputs, which the Intel card lacks entirely.

The shading unit count heavily favors NVIDIA: 14,080 shading units versus 7,168 on Intel. The TMU counts are nearly even at 440 versus 448, but the ROP gap is absolute. The data suggests the Intel card is not designed for rasterization or pixel output, while the NVIDIA card delivers a complete graphics pipeline.

FAQ

Q: Which card has more memory?

A: The Intel Data Center GPU Max 1100 has 48 GB of HBM2e memory, while the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5090 SE has 24 GB of GDDR7 memory.

Q: Which card has higher memory bandwidth?

A: The NVIDIA card has 1.34 TB/s of bandwidth, slightly above the Intel card's 1.23 TB/s, despite the Intel card using a much wider 8192-bit bus.

Q: Can the Intel card output video to a display?

A: No. The Intel Data Center GPU Max 1100 has no display outputs, while the NVIDIA card provides 1x HDMI 2.1b and 3x DisplayPort 2.1b outputs.

Q: Which card supports more modern graphics APIs?

A: The NVIDIA card supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The Intel card supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and OpenGL 4.6, with no Vulkan entry recorded.

Q: How do the power requirements compare?

A: The Intel card has a 300 W TDP and a 700 W suggested PSU. The NVIDIA card has a 500 W TDP and a 900 W suggested PSU.

Q: Which card has more shading units?

A: The NVIDIA card has 14,080 shading units, nearly double the Intel card's 7,168 shading units.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database records no head-to-head benchmark results between these two products, and neither product has any individual benchmark scores. The wins counter shows 0 for both sides. Without measured performance data, the comparison must rely entirely on the specification differences recorded in the database. The FP32 compute figures provide the clearest numerical gap: the NVIDIA card delivers 66.94 TFLOPS versus 22.22 TFLOPS for the Intel card, a threefold difference. The texture rate shows a similar pattern: 1,045.9 GTexel/s versus 694.4 GTexel/s, a roughly 50 percent advantage for NVIDIA. The pixel rate comparison is stark: 380.3 GPixel/s for NVIDIA versus 0 MPixel/s for Intel, which reflects the Intel card's lack of ROPs and display outputs.

Memory bandwidth favors NVIDIA by a smaller margin: 1.34 TB/s versus 1.23 TB/s, an 8.9 percent difference. Memory capacity favors Intel by a 2x margin: 48 GB versus 24 GB. The clock speeds also differ sharply, with NVIDIA boosting to 2377 MHz versus Intel's 1550 MHz boost. The NVIDIA card has 110 RT cores versus 56 on Intel, and 440 tensor cores versus no recorded tensor core count on Intel. The shading unit count of 14,080 versus 7,168 gives NVIDIA a 1.96x advantage in that metric. The transistor counts are closer: Intel has 100,000 million transistors versus NVIDIA's 92,200 million, but NVIDIA achieves this on a smaller die at 750 mm² versus 1280 mm², with higher density at 122.9M per mm² versus 78.1M per mm².

The only metric where Intel leads outright is memory capacity and die size. The die size advantage is not a performance advantage; it reflects the different process nodes and design approaches. The data shows NVIDIA leading in every measured compute throughput category, with the Intel card leading only in memory capacity and carrying a lower TDP.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ across nearly every recorded specification field. The Intel card uses a 10 nm Intel process, while the NVIDIA card uses a 5 nm TSMC process. Transistor counts are 100,000 million for Intel and 92,200 million for NVIDIA. Die size is 1280 mm² for Intel and 750 mm² for NVIDIA. Transistor density is 78.1M per mm² for Intel and 122.9M per mm² for NVIDIA.

Base clocks are 1000 MHz for Intel and 1740 MHz for NVIDIA. Boost clocks are 1550 MHz for Intel and 2377 MHz for NVIDIA. Memory clocks are 600 MHz (1200 Mbps effective) for Intel and 1750 MHz (28 Gbps effective) for NVIDIA. Memory size is 48 GB of HBM2e for Intel and 24 GB of GDDR7 for NVIDIA. Memory bus width is 8192 bit for Intel and 384 bit for NVIDIA. Memory bandwidth is 1.23 TB/s for Intel and 1.34 TB/s for NVIDIA.

Shading units are 7,168 for Intel and 14,080 for NVIDIA. TMUs are 448 for Intel and 440 for NVIDIA. ROPs are 0 for Intel and 160 for NVIDIA. RT cores are 56 for Intel and 110 for NVIDIA. Tensor cores are not recorded for Intel and 440 for NVIDIA. Pixel rate is 0 MPixel/s for Intel and 380.3 GPixel/s for NVIDIA. Texture rate is 694.4 GTexel/s for Intel and 1,045.9 GTexel/s for NVIDIA. FP32 is 22.22 TFLOPS for Intel and 66.94 TFLOPS for NVIDIA. FP16 is 22.22 TFLOPS (1:1) for Intel and 66.94 TFLOPS (1:1) for NVIDIA.

TDP is 300 W for Intel and 500 W for NVIDIA. Power connectors are 1x 12-pin for Intel and 1x 16-pin for NVIDIA. Suggested PSU is 700 W for Intel and 900 W for NVIDIA. Display outputs are none for Intel and 1x HDMI 2.1b with 3x DisplayPort 2.1b for NVIDIA. DirectX support is 12 (12_1) for Intel and 12 Ultimate (12_2) for NVIDIA. Vulkan support is not recorded for Intel and 1.4 for NVIDIA. Release dates are January 2023 for Intel and December 2025 for NVIDIA. The Intel card lists H3C Graphics as its successor, while the NVIDIA card lists GeForce 40 as its predecessor and GeForce 60 as its successor. Both cards use PCIe 5.0 x16, are dual-slot, and have a length of 267 mm (10.5 inches). The NVIDIA card additionally records a height of 111 mm (4.4 inches) and a width of 40 mm (1.6 inches).