Intel Data Center GPU Max 1100 vs NVIDIA Rubin GPU Comparison

FAQ

Q: What are the core architectural identities of these two accelerators?

A: The Intel Data Center GPU Max 1100 uses the Ponte Vecchio chip built on Intel's Generation 12.5 architecture with a 10 nm process. The NVIDIA Rubin GPU uses the GR100 chip built on the Rubin architecture with a 3 nm process from TSMC.

Q: How do their memory systems compare?

A: The Intel part has 48 GB of HBM2e memory on an 8192-bit bus, delivering 1.23 TB/s bandwidth. The NVIDIA Rubin has 288 GB of HBM4 memory on a 16384-bit bus, delivering 22.1 TB/s bandwidth.

Q: Which has higher transistor density?

A: The NVIDIA Rubin reaches 230.8M transistors per mm², while the Intel Max 1100 achieves 78.1M per mm². Total transistor counts are 336,000 million for Rubin versus 100,000 million for the Intel chip.

Q: What are the FP32 and FP16 throughput figures?

A: The Intel Max 1100 delivers 22.22 TFLOPS FP32 and 22.22 TFLOPS FP16 (1:1 ratio). The NVIDIA Rubin delivers 130.0 TFLOPS FP32 and 260.0 TFLOPS FP16 (2:1 ratio).

Q: What are the power requirements?

A: The Intel Max 1100 has a TDP of 300 W with a suggested PSU of 700 W. The NVIDIA Rubin has a TDP of 2300 W with a suggested PSU of 2700 W.

Q: What interface and form factor do they use?

A: The Intel Max 1100 uses PCIe 5.0 x16 in a Dual-slot form factor with a 267 mm length. The NVIDIA Rubin uses PCIe 6.0 x16 in an SXM Module form factor.

Architecture Differences

The Intel Data Center GPU Max 1100 and NVIDIA Rubin GPU represent two fundamentally different design philosophies for data center acceleration.

The Intel part is built on Ponte Vecchio, a chip from Intel's Generation 12.5 architecture. It uses a 10 nm process node fabricated by Intel itself. The die size is 1280 mm², housing 100,000 million transistors, which yields a density of 78.1M transistors per mm². This is a relatively lower density, suggesting a design optimized for interconnect-heavy tiling rather than raw transistor packing.

The NVIDIA Rubin uses the GR100 chip, built on the Rubin architecture. It is fabricated by TSMC on a 3 nm process, the most advanced node in the database. The die is larger at 1456 mm² but packs 336,000 million transistors, giving a density of 230.8M per mm², roughly three times the Intel part's density.

Memory architecture diverges sharply. Intel uses 48 GB of HBM2e across an 8192-bit bus, producing 1.23 TB/s of bandwidth. NVIDIA uses 288 GB of HBM4 across a 16384-bit bus, producing 22.1 TB/s, a nearly 18x bandwidth advantage. The memory clock differs too: Intel's memory runs at 600 MHz (1200 Mbps effective), while Rubin's runs at 2695 MHz (10.8 Gbps effective).

Compute resources show stark differences. The Intel Max 1100 has 7168 shading units, 448 texture mapping units, 0 ROPs, and 56 ray tracing cores. It has no dedicated tensor cores listed. The NVIDIA Rubin has 28672 shading units, 896 TMUs, 24 ROPs, and 896 tensor cores. Its ray tracing core count is not listed. Rubin's texture rate is 2,031.2 GTexel/s versus 694.4 GTexel/s for Intel. Pixel rate is 54.41 GPixel/s for Rubin versus 0 MPixel/s for Intel, reflecting the Intel part's lack of ROPs.

Clock behavior differs meaningfully. Intel runs at a base of 1000 MHz with a boost of 1550 MHz. NVIDIA runs at a much lower base of 700 MHz but boosts to 2267 MHz, a far higher peak clock.

API support also differs. Intel supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and OpenGL 4.6, with Vulkan not listed. NVIDIA lists all three APIs as N/A, indicating a server-focused part without consumer graphics API support.

The bus interface moves from PCIe 5.0 x16 on Intel to PCIe 6.0 x16 on NVIDIA. The Intel card is Dual-slot with a 267 mm length and a single 12-pin power connector. The NVIDIA part is an SXM Module with no listed power connector, length, or dimensions.

Production status for both is Active. Intel released on January 9, 2023, while NVIDIA's release date is December 31, 2025. Intel's successor is the H3C Graphics; NVIDIA's predecessor is Server Blackwell.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database currently records no head-to-head benchmark runs between these two parts. Both have zero benchmark scores and zero wins in direct comparisons. The average benchmark score for each is 0, and both sit at the 50th percentile among all GPUs, though that percentile is based on incomplete data.

Without direct measurements, the recorded specifications provide the only comparative basis. The FP32 throughput difference is substantial: Rubin delivers 130.0 TFLOPS, which is 5.85 times the Intel part's 22.22 TFLOPS. In FP16, Rubin's 260.0 TFLOPS is 11.7 times Intel's 22.22 TFLOPS. The FP16 ratio differs: Intel computes FP16 at 1:1 against FP32, while Rubin uses a 2:1 ratio, meaning Rubin's FP16 is double its FP32 rate.

Memory bandwidth is the largest relative gap. Rubin's 22.1 TB/s is about 17.97 times Intel's 1.23 TB/s. Memory capacity is 288 GB versus 48 GB, a 6x difference. Texture rate favors Rubin at 2,031.2 GTexel/s versus 694.4 GTexel/s, a factor of 2.93. Shading unit count favors Rubin at 28672 versus 7168, a factor of 4.

The only areas where Intel leads are clock base and physical power efficiency. Intel's base clock is 1000 MHz versus 700 MHz for Rubin. Intel's TDP is 300 W versus 2300 W for Rubin, meaning Intel consumes 13% of Rubin's power envelope while delivering 17% of its FP32 throughput.

The transistor density gap is notable: Rubin's 230.8M per mm² is 2.96 times Intel's 78.1M per mm². The total transistor count is 3.36 times higher on Rubin.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Data Center GPU Max 1100 | NVIDIA Rubin GPU |

|---|---|---|

| Chip | Ponte Vecchio | GR100 |

| Architecture | Generation 12.5 | Rubin |

| Process Node | 10 nm | 3 nm |

| Foundry | Intel | TSMC |

| Transistors | 100,000 million | 336,000 million |

| Die Size | 1280 mm² | 1456 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 78.1M / mm² | 230.8M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 1000 MHz | 700 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 1550 MHz | 2267 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 600 MHz, 1200 Mbps effective | 2695 MHz, 10.8 Gbps effective |

| Memory Size | 48 GB | 288 GB |

| Memory Type | HBM2e | HBM4 |

| Memory Bus Width | 8192 bit | 16384 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 1.23 TB/s | 22.1 TB/s |

| Shading Units | 7168 | 28672 |

| TMUs | 448 | 896 |

| ROPs | 0 | 24 |

| RT Cores | 56 | Not listed |

| Tensor Cores | Not listed | 896 |

| Pixel Rate | 0 MPixel/s | 54.41 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 694.4 GTexel/s | 2,031.2 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 22.22 TFLOPS | 130.0 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | 22.22 TFLOPS (1:1) | 260.0 TFLOPS (2:1) |

| TDP | 300 W | 2300 W |

| Slot Width | Dual-slot | SXM Module |

| Power Connectors | 1x 12-pin | Not listed |

| Suggested PSU | 700 W | 2700 W |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 5.0 x16 | PCIe 6.0 x16 |

| Display Outputs | No outputs | No outputs |

| DirectX | 12 (12_1) | N/A |

| OpenGL | 4.6 | N/A |

| Vulkan | Not listed | N/A |

| Length | 267 mm (10.5 inches) | Not listed |

| Release Date | 2023-01-09 | 2025-12-31 |

| Predecessor | Not listed | Server Blackwell |

| Successor | H3C Graphics | Not listed |

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA Rubin wins decisively in raw compute throughput. Its FP32 figure of 130.0 TFLOPS is nearly six times Intel's 22.22 TFLOPS. In FP16, the gap widens to 260.0 TFLOPS versus 22.22 TFLOPS, an 11.7x advantage. This makes Rubin the clear choice for dense matrix math, AI training, and mixed-precision workloads.

Memory capacity and bandwidth belong to Rubin. The 288 GB HBM4 pool is six times larger than Intel's 48 GB HBM2e. Bandwidth of 22.1 TB/s is approximately 18 times higher. Workloads that stream large datasets, such as large language model inference or scientific simulations with massive working sets, will see substantially better performance on Rubin.

Texture throughput also favors Rubin at 2,031.2 GTexel/s versus 694.4 GTexel/s. Rubin's 896 TMUs and 28672 shading units provide a 4x shading unit advantage and 2x TMU advantage. Rubin also has 896 tensor cores; Intel lists none.

The Intel Max 1100 wins in power efficiency. Its 300 W TDP versus 2300 W means it draws about 13% of Rubin's power. For the same wattage, Intel's FP32 efficiency is roughly 74.07 TFLOPS per 1000 W, while Rubin's is 56.52 TFLOPS per 1000 W. Intel is more efficient per watt in FP32, though far behind in absolute throughput.

Intel also wins on form factor flexibility. It is a Dual-slot PCIe 5.0 x16 card with a 267 mm length and a single 12-pin connector, fitting into standard server chassis with a 700 W PSU. Rubin requires an SXM Module form factor with a 2700 W PSU, which demands specialized infrastructure.

Intel supports DirectX 12 and OpenGL 4.6; Rubin lists N/A for all graphics APIs. For any workload requiring traditional graphics API support, Intel is the only option between the two.

Intel's base clock of 1000 MHz is higher than Rubin's 700 MHz, though Rubin's boost clock of 2267 MHz far exceeds Intel's 1550 MHz.

The Verdict

The data shows two accelerators aimed at different tiers of the data center market.

The NVIDIA Rubin GPU is the performance leader across every raw compute metric. It delivers 5.85 times the FP32 throughput, 11.7 times the FP16 throughput, 17.97 times the memory bandwidth, and 6 times the memory capacity of the Intel Max 1100. It has 896 tensor cores for AI acceleration, where Intel lists none. Its 3 nm process with 336,000 million transistors provides a density of 230.8M per mm², enabling this scale.

The Intel Data Center GPU Max 1100 occupies a different role. At 300 W, it is a power-conscious accelerator with PCIe 5.0 compatibility and standard Dual-slot mounting. Its 48 GB memory and 1.23 TB/s bandwidth are sufficient for moderate workloads. Its FP32 efficiency of 74.07 TFLOPS per 1000 W slightly exceeds Rubin's 56.52 TFLOPS per 1000 W, making it the more power-efficient choice in FP32 terms. It also brings DirectX 12 and OpenGL support that Rubin lacks.

For organizations deploying dense AI training clusters or large-scale inference, the Rubin GPU's massive memory and compute resources justify its infrastructure demands. For systems constrained by power, chassis space, or software requiring graphics APIs, the Intel Max 1100 provides a working alternative.

The database shows no direct benchmark comparisons, so the spec sheet must guide decisions. The gap in FP16 throughput is the most decisive differentiator: Rubin's 260.0 TFLOPS versus Intel's 22.22 TFLOPS is a 11.7x spread. No workload that depends on FP16 will favor Intel. Conversely, no workload that depends on low power draw will favor Rubin.

The verdict follows the numbers: choose the NVIDIA Rubin for maximum absolute performance, choose the Intel Max 1100 for power-constrained deployments or graphics API needs. The 300 W versus 2300 W power gap is not a minor detail; it changes the entire system design. A server populated with Rubin modules needs liquid cooling or extreme air cooling, a 2700 W PSU per module, and PCIe 6.0 support. A server with Intel Max 1100 cards runs on standard 700 W PSUs and PCIe 5.0 slots.

Both parts are Active in production status. Intel released in January 2023 with a successor already named (H3C Graphics). NVIDIA releases at the end of 2025, succeeding Server Blackwell. The release timing alone suggests Intel is an earlier-generation part, while Rubin is a next-generation product. The 3 nm process and HBM4 memory confirm this positioning.