Intel Data Center GPU Max 1100 vs NVIDIA N1X 40SM Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Data Center GPU Max 1100 and the NVIDIA N1X 40SM occupy distinct positions in the database, with no direct head-to-head benchmark wins recorded for either part. The Intel part is a discrete accelerator built around the Ponte Vecchio chip, while the NVIDIA N1X 40SM is an integrated graphics processor (IGP) based on the Blackwell 2.0 architecture. The recorded data shows a clear split in intended use cases: the Intel part targets high-bandwidth, high-capacity compute workloads, whereas the NVIDIA part is designed for embedded or compact platforms where integration and display output matter.

For the Intel Data Center GPU Max 1100, the strengths lie in its memory subsystem and raw compute throughput. The database records 48 GB of HBM2e memory on an 8192-bit bus, delivering 1.23 TB/s of bandwidth. That figure is roughly 4.5 times the bandwidth of the NVIDIA part, which uses 128 GB of LPDDR5X on a 256-bit bus for 273.2 GB/s. The Intel part also offers a higher base clock (1000 MHz versus 741 MHz) and a larger die (1280 mm² versus 382 mm²), with a transistor count of 100,000 million against an unknown figure for the NVIDIA chip. The Intel part has more shading units (7168 versus 5120), more texture mapping units (448 versus 320), and more RT cores (56 versus 40). These specifications indicate the Intel part is built for sustained computation on large datasets, particularly where memory bandwidth is the limiting factor.

The NVIDIA N1X 40SM, conversely, wins on integration and efficiency of design. It is an IGP with no slot width, no power connectors, and a single HDMI output. The Intel part, by contrast, is a dual-slot card with a 1x 12-pin power connector and a suggested power supply of 700 W. The NVIDIA part’s boost clock is substantially higher at 2346 MHz versus 1550 MHz, and it achieves a higher FP32 throughput at 24.02 TFLOPS versus 22.22 TFLOPS. The NVIDIA part also has 160 tensor cores, whereas the Intel part lists no tensor cores in the database. For workloads that rely on tensor operations, the NVIDIA part holds a functional advantage. The NVIDIA part’s pixel rate is 93.84 GPixel/s, while the Intel part records 0 MPixel/s, indicating the Intel part has no rasterization output units (ROPs are listed as 0). The NVIDIA part has 40 ROPs. This makes the NVIDIA part the only one of the two capable of traditional graphics output, reinforced by its HDMI port.

The percentile ranking for both parts is identical at 50 against all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 0 for each. This suggests that neither part has been exercised by the database’s standard benchmark suite, so the use-case split must be inferred from the architectural and memory specifications rather than from measured performance.

FAQ

Q: Which part has more memory bandwidth?

A: The Intel Data Center GPU Max 1100 has 1.23 TB/s of bandwidth from its HBM2e memory on an 8192-bit bus. The NVIDIA N1X 40SM has 273.2 GB/s from LPDDR5X on a 256-bit bus, so the Intel part is approximately 4.5 times faster in this metric.

Q: Can either part output to a display?

A: The NVIDIA N1X 40SM has 1x HDMI output and a pixel rate of 93.84 GPixel/s. The Intel Data Center GPU Max 1100 has no display outputs and a pixel rate of 0 MPixel/s, so it cannot drive a monitor.

Q: What are the FP32 compute figures for both parts?

A: The Intel part delivers 22.22 TFLOPS of FP32, while the NVIDIA part delivers 24.02 TFLOPS. The NVIDIA part is about 8% higher in this metric, despite having fewer shading units (5120 versus 7168), due to its higher boost clock.

Q: What is the process node difference?

A: The Intel part is fabricated on Intel’s 10 nm process, while the NVIDIA part uses TSMC’s 5 nm process. The Intel die is 1280 mm², and the NVIDIA die is 382 mm².

Q: Which part has tensor cores?

A: The NVIDIA N1X 40SM has 160 tensor cores. The Intel Data Center GPU Max 1100 lists no tensor cores in the database, so the NVIDIA part is the only one with dedicated tensor hardware.

Q: What are the memory capacities?

A: The Intel part has 48 GB of HBM2e, and the NVIDIA part has 128 GB of LPDDR5X. The NVIDIA part holds a 2.67x capacity advantage, though at significantly lower bandwidth.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

No head-to-head benchmark results exist in the database for these two parts. The winsA and winsB fields are both 0, and the headToHeadBenchmarks array is empty. This means the comparison must be conducted on specification-level metrics. Several notable gaps define the matchup.

The most significant advantage for the Intel part is memory bandwidth. At 1.23 TB/s, the Intel part is 4.5 times the NVIDIA part’s 273.2 GB/s. In compute workloads that stream large matrices or datasets, this bandwidth differential often dominates. The Intel part also has a wider memory bus (8192-bit versus 256-bit), which is a 32x difference in bus width, though the NVIDIA part compensates with a higher memory clock (1067 MHz base versus 600 MHz for Intel). The NVIDIA part’s effective memory speed is 8.5 Gbps versus 1200 Mbps effective for the Intel part, but the sheer width of the Intel bus still yields a much higher total bandwidth.

In raw FP32 throughput, the NVIDIA part leads at 24.02 TFLOPS versus 22.22 TFLOPS. That is a 1.8 TFLOPS gap, or roughly 8.1% higher for NVIDIA. The NVIDIA part achieves this with fewer shading units (5120 versus 7168), relying on a boost clock of 2346 MHz versus 1550 MHz. The Intel part’s base clock is higher (1000 MHz versus 741 MHz), but the NVIDIA part’s boost clock is substantially higher, and the NVIDIA part’s texture rate also leads at 750.7 GTexel/s versus 694.4 GTexel/s. The NVIDIA part’s pixel rate of 93.84 GPixel/s is unmatched by the Intel part, which records 0 MPixel/s.

The NVIDIA part also has a clear advantage in tensor core count: 160 versus none listed for Intel. For FP16 compute, both parts list 22.22 TFLOPS and 24.02 TFLOPS respectively, with the same 1:1 ratio as their FP32 figures. The Intel part has more RT cores (56 versus 40), which suggests a stronger ray-tracing geometry throughput, though neither part is primarily marketed for graphics.

The transistor density differs sharply: the Intel part has 78.1M transistors per mm² on a 100,000 million transistor die, while the NVIDIA part’s density is unknown. The Intel die is 1280 mm², which is 3.35 times larger than the NVIDIA die at 382 mm². This size difference, combined with the NVIDIA part’s 5 nm process versus Intel’s 10 nm process, explains why the NVIDIA part can achieve higher clocks on a much smaller die.

Specification Differences

The two parts differ across nearly every recorded specification. The Intel Data Center GPU Max 1100 uses a 10 nm process at Intel’s foundry, while the NVIDIA N1X 40SM uses a 5 nm process at TSMC. The Intel die is 1280 mm² with 100,000 million transistors and a density of 78.1M per mm². The NVIDIA die is 382 mm² with an unknown transistor count and no recorded density.

Clock speeds diverge significantly. The Intel base clock is 1000 MHz and boost is 1550 MHz. The NVIDIA base clock is 741 MHz and boost is 2346 MHz. The memory clock for Intel is 600 MHz with 1200 Mbps effective; for NVIDIA it is 1067 MHz with 8.5 Gbps effective.

Memory configuration: Intel has 48 GB of HBM2e on an 8192-bit bus with 1.23 TB/s bandwidth. NVIDIA has 128 GB of LPDDR5X on a 256-bit bus with 273.2 GB/s bandwidth.

Compute units: Intel has 7168 shading units, 448 TMUs, 0 ROPs, 56 RT cores, and no tensor cores. NVIDIA has 5120 shading units, 320 TMUs, 40 ROPs, 40 RT cores, and 160 tensor cores. The pixel rate is 0 MPixel/s for Intel and 93.84 GPixel/s for NVIDIA. The texture rate is 694.4 GTexel/s for Intel and 750.7 GTexel/s for NVIDIA. FP32 is 22.22 TFLOPS for Intel and 24.02 TFLOPS for NVIDIA; FP16 matches those numbers at a 1:1 ratio for both.

Power and physical attributes: Intel has a TDP of 300 W, is dual-slot, uses a 1x 12-pin power connector, and requires a 700 W suggested PSU. NVIDIA has an unknown TDP, is an IGP with no slot width, no power connectors, and no suggested PSU. Intel has a length of 267 mm (10.5 inches); NVIDIA has no recorded dimensions. Intel has no display outputs; NVIDIA has 1x HDMI. Both use PCIe 5.0 x16. Intel’s DirectX support is 12 (12_1) and OpenGL 4.6; NVIDIA lists N/A for DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan. Intel’s production status is Active, as is NVIDIA’s. Intel was released on 2023-01-09, and NVIDIA on 2026-05-31. Intel has a successor listed as H3C Graphics; NVIDIA has no successor.

Architecture Differences

The Intel Data Center GPU Max 1100 is built on the Ponte Vecchio chip, using Intel’s Generation 12.5 architecture. Its generation is listed as “Data Center GPU (Ponte Vecchio).” The NVIDIA N1X 40SM uses the GB20B chip with Blackwell 2.0 architecture, and its generation is “Blackwell IGP (N1x).” These are fundamentally different design philosophies: one is a discrete, high-power accelerator with a massive die, and the other is an integrated processor designed for system-on-chip integration.

Process technology separates the two clearly. Intel uses a 10 nm node at Intel’s own foundry, while NVIDIA uses a 5 nm node at TSMC. The smaller node for NVIDIA enables a higher boost clock (2346 MHz versus 1550 MHz) on a die that is 898 mm² smaller. The Intel part’s transistor density is 78.1M per mm², but the NVIDIA part’s density is not recorded, so a direct comparison of transistor packing is not possible.

Memory architecture reflects the different roles. Intel uses HBM2e with an 8192-bit bus, a configuration suited for data-center acceleration where bandwidth is paramount. NVIDIA uses LPDDR5X with a 256-bit bus, a configuration typical of integrated or mobile parts where power and physical footprint are constrained. The Intel part’s 48 GB capacity is lower than NVIDIA’s 128 GB, but the bandwidth advantage is heavily in Intel’s favor.

Compute architecture differs in the presence of tensor cores. The NVIDIA part has 160 tensor cores, which are absent from the Intel listing. The Intel part has more RT cores (56 versus 40) and more shading units (7168 versus 5120). The NVIDIA part has 40 ROPs and a pixel rate of 93.84 GPixel/s, while the Intel part has 0 ROPs and a 0 MPixel/s pixel rate. This suggests the Intel part is not designed for rasterization at all, consistent with its lack of display outputs.

API support also diverges. Intel lists DirectX 12 (12_1) and OpenGL 4.6, while NVIDIA lists N/A for all APIs. The NVIDIA part’s only display output is HDMI, which, combined with the N/A API entries, indicates it is intended for specialized or embedded use rather than general-purpose graphics. The Intel part, despite having no display outputs, retains API support in the database, likely for compute-oriented API usage.

The release dates are far apart: Intel in January 2023 and NVIDIA in May 2026. The Intel part has a successor (H3C Graphics), while the NVIDIA part does not. Both are marked as Active in production status. The Intel part is a dual-slot card requiring a 700 W PSU, while the NVIDIA part is an IGP with no power connectors, reinforcing the split between a standalone accelerator and an integrated solution.