Intel Data Center GPU Max 1100 vs NVIDIA N1 16SM Comparison

FAQ

Q: What are the core architectural identities of the Intel Data Center GPU Max 1100 and the NVIDIA N1 16SM?

A: The Intel part uses the Ponte Vecchio chip based on Generation 12.5 architecture, built on a 10 nm process at Intel's own foundry. The NVIDIA N1 16SM uses the GB20B chip based on Blackwell 2.0 architecture, built on a 5 nm process at TSMC.

Q: How do the two compare in terms of raw compute throughput?

A: The Intel Data Center GPU Max 1100 delivers 22.22 TFLOPS for both FP32 and FP16, while the NVIDIA N1 16SM delivers 9.609 TFLOPS for both FP32 and FP16. The Intel part has more than double the FP32 throughput.

Q: Which GPU has more memory and what type is it?

A: The NVIDIA N1 16SM has 128 GB of LPDDR5X memory on a 256-bit bus, delivering 273.2 GB/s of bandwidth. The Intel Data Center GPU Max 1100 has 48 GB of HBM2e memory on an 8192-bit bus, delivering 1.23 TB/s of bandwidth.

Q: What are the physical form factor differences?

A: The Intel Data Center GPU Max 1100 is a dual-slot card measuring 267 mm (10.5 inches) in length, requires a 1x 12-pin power connector, and has no display outputs. The NVIDIA N1 16SM is an IGP (integrated graphics processor) with no power connectors and one HDMI output.

Q: Do both support the same PCIe interface?

A: Yes, both use PCIe 5.0 x16 as their bus interface.

Q: What is the transistor count and die size for each?

A: The Intel chip contains 100,000 million transistors on a 1280 mm² die, giving a density of 78.1M transistors per mm². The NVIDIA chip's transistor count is unknown, but its die size is 382 mm².

Architecture Differences

The two processors represent fundamentally different design philosophies. The Intel Data Center GPU Max 1100 is a discrete data center accelerator built on Ponte Vecchio, a Generation 12.5 architecture, fabricated on Intel's 10 nm process. Its die spans 1280 mm² and contains 100,000 million transistors, yielding a transistor density of 78.1M per mm². The NVIDIA N1 16SM is a Blackwell 2.0 architecture part built on the GB20B chip, fabricated by TSMC on a 5 nm process with a 382 mm² die. The transistor count for the NVIDIA chip is not recorded.

The compute resources differ sharply. The Intel GPU has 7168 shading units, 448 texture mapping units, 56 ray tracing cores, and no raster operations pipelines (0 ROPs). The NVIDIA N1 16SM has 2048 shading units, 128 TMUs, 24 ROPs, 16 ray tracing cores, and 64 tensor cores. The Intel part lacks tensor cores entirely, while the NVIDIA part includes them. The pixel rate for the Intel GPU is recorded as 0 MPixel/s, reflecting its lack of ROPs, whereas the NVIDIA GPU delivers 56.30 GPixel/s.

Clock behavior also differs. The Intel GPU has a base clock of 1000 MHz and a boost clock of 1550 MHz. The NVIDIA GPU has a lower base of 741 MHz but a significantly higher boost of 2346 MHz. Memory clocks are 600 MHz (1200 Mbps effective) for the Intel part versus 1067 MHz (8.5 Gbps effective) for the NVIDIA part.

The Intel Data Center GPU Max 1100 supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and OpenGL 4.6, with no Vulkan support recorded. The NVIDIA N1 16SM lists N/A for DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan. The Intel part has no display outputs, while the NVIDIA part has one HDMI output.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Data Center GPU Max 1100 wins decisively in raw compute throughput. Its FP32 performance of 22.22 TFLOPS is more than double the NVIDIA N1 16SM's 9.609 TFLOPS. The same applies to FP16, where both maintain a 1:1 ratio with their FP32 figures. Texture rate follows the same pattern: 694.4 GTexel/s for Intel versus 300.3 GTexel/s for NVIDIA.

Memory bandwidth is another clear Intel victory. The HBM2e configuration delivers 1.23 TB/s across an 8192-bit bus, which is more than four times the NVIDIA part's 273.2 GB/s over a 256-bit bus. For workloads that are bandwidth-bound, such as large data center inference or scientific computing, this difference is substantial.

The NVIDIA N1 16SM wins in areas where the Intel part has no presence. It has 24 ROPs and a pixel rate of 56.30 GPixel/s, while the Intel GPU records 0 ROPs and 0 MPixel/s. This makes the NVIDIA part the only one of the two capable of traditional rasterization output. The NVIDIA part also includes 64 tensor cores, which the Intel GPU lacks entirely. The NVIDIA part has 128 GB of memory, nearly three times the Intel GPU's 48 GB, and its 5 nm process from TSMC allows a much higher boost clock of 2346 MHz versus 1550 MHz.

The NVIDIA N1 16SM is an IGP with a single HDMI output, meaning it can drive a display, while the Intel Data Center GPU Max 1100 has no display outputs and is designed exclusively for compute tasks.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ in nearly every measurable specification.

• Chip: Intel uses Ponte Vecchio; NVIDIA uses GB20B.
• Architecture: Intel is Generation 12.5; NVIDIA is Blackwell 2.0.
• Process node: Intel is 10 nm; NVIDIA is 5 nm.
• Foundry: Intel is Intel; NVIDIA is TSMC.
• Transistors: Intel has 100,000 million; NVIDIA's count is unknown.
• Die size: Intel is 1280 mm²; NVIDIA is 382 mm².
• Transistor density: Intel is 78.1M / mm²; NVIDIA has no recorded density.
• Base clock: Intel is 1000 MHz; NVIDIA is 741 MHz.
• Boost clock: Intel is 1550 MHz; NVIDIA is 2346 MHz.
• Memory clock: Intel is 600 MHz (1200 Mbps effective); NVIDIA is 1067 MHz (8.5 Gbps effective).
• Memory size: Intel is 48 GB; NVIDIA is 128 GB.
• Memory type: Intel is HBM2e; NVIDIA is LPDDR5X.
• Memory bus: Intel is 8192 bit; NVIDIA is 256 bit.
• Memory bandwidth: Intel is 1.23 TB/s; NVIDIA is 273.2 GB/s.
• Shading units: Intel has 7168; NVIDIA has 2048.
• TMUs: Intel has 448; NVIDIA has 128.
• ROPs: Intel has 0; NVIDIA has 24.
• Ray tracing cores: Intel has 56; NVIDIA has 16.
• Tensor cores: Intel has none; NVIDIA has 64.
• Pixel rate: Intel is 0 MPixel/s; NVIDIA is 56.30 GPixel/s.
• Texture rate: Intel is 694.4 GTexel/s; NVIDIA is 300.3 GTexel/s.
• FP32: Intel is 22.22 TFLOPS; NVIDIA is 9.609 TFLOPS.
• FP16: Intel is 22.22 TFLOPS (1:1); NVIDIA is 9.609 TFLOPS (1:1).
• TDP: Intel is 300 W; NVIDIA is unknown.
• Slot width: Intel is dual-slot; NVIDIA is IGP.
• Power connectors: Intel uses 1x 12-pin; NVIDIA uses none.
• Suggested PSU: Intel is 700 W; NVIDIA has none recorded.
• Display outputs: Intel has none; NVIDIA has 1x HDMI.
• DirectX: Intel is 12 (12_1); NVIDIA is N/A.
• OpenGL: Intel is 4.6; NVIDIA is N/A.
• Vulkan: Intel has none recorded; NVIDIA is N/A.
• Dimensions: Intel is 267 mm (10.5 inches) long; NVIDIA has no dimensions recorded.
• Release date: Intel is 2023-01-09; NVIDIA is 2026-05-31.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded head-to-head benchmark data contains no entries, and both parts have an average benchmark score of 0 with a percentile rank of 50 among all GPUs. However, the specification data provides clear quantitative comparisons.

The most significant win for the Intel Data Center GPU Max 1100 is in FP32 compute. At 22.22 TFLOPS, it is roughly 2.3 times the NVIDIA N1 16SM's 9.609 TFLOPS. The same ratio applies to FP16, as both parts operate at a 1:1 ratio with their FP32 figures. This means any workload relying on general-purpose compute will see a substantial advantage on the Intel part.

Texture rate tells a similar story. The Intel GPU delivers 694.4 GTexel/s, which is approximately 2.3 times the NVIDIA part's 300.3 GTexel/s. This is consistent with the Intel GPU having 448 TMUs versus 128 on the NVIDIA part, combined with the higher base clock.

Memory bandwidth is where the Intel GPU's advantage is most pronounced. At 1.23 TB/s, it is roughly 4.5 times the NVIDIA part's 273.2 GB/s. The 8192-bit bus on the Intel GPU dwarfs the 256-bit bus on the NVIDIA part, even though the NVIDIA memory runs at a higher effective speed of 8.5 Gbps versus 1200 Mbps.

The NVIDIA N1 16SM counterattacks in rasterization and memory capacity. Its pixel rate of 56.30 GPixel/s is a complete win, since the Intel GPU records 0 MPixel/s. The NVIDIA part also has 24 ROPs versus none on the Intel part. For memory capacity, the NVIDIA GPU offers 128 GB, which is 2.67 times the Intel GPU's 48 GB. This could matter for workloads that require holding very large datasets in local memory, despite the lower bandwidth.

The NVIDIA part also has a higher boost clock of 2346 MHz versus 1550 MHz on the Intel GPU. This reflects the more advanced 5 nm process and likely explains how the NVIDIA part achieves meaningful compute with far fewer shading units.

The Verdict

The data supports a clear split by use case. The Intel Data Center GPU Max 1100 is the compute and bandwidth specialist. Its FP32 and FP16 throughput of 22.22 TFLOPS, texture rate of 694.4 GTexel/s, and memory bandwidth of 1.23 TB/s make it the stronger choice for data center workloads that demand raw number crunching and massive memory throughput. The 300 W TDP and 700 W suggested PSU indicate it is designed for a server environment with dedicated power delivery. Its lack of display outputs and 0 ROPs confirm it is not intended for any graphics output role.

The NVIDIA N1 16SM is the more versatile part. It is the only one of the two with display output capability, offering 1x HDMI. It has 24 ROPs and a pixel rate of 56.30 GPixel/s, which the Intel part cannot match. It also includes 64 tensor cores, a feature absent from the Intel GPU, suggesting it supports tensor-based workloads that the Intel part cannot accelerate. Its 128 GB memory capacity is the largest in this comparison, and its 5 nm process allows a boost clock of 2346 MHz that is 51% higher than the Intel part's boost.

For pure compute density, the Intel GPU has no equal here. For a system that needs graphics output, tensor acceleration, or very large memory capacity in a compact IGP form factor, the NVIDIA N1 16SM is the only option that fits. The Intel part wins on speed and bandwidth; the NVIDIA part wins on capacity, features, and output capability. The release dates also differ, with the Intel part launching in 2023 and the NVIDIA part scheduled for 2026, which may reflect different design goals and market timing.