Intel Data Center GPU Max 1550 vs NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5080 SUPER Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data contains no direct head-to-head benchmark results between the Intel Data Center GPU Max 1550 and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5080 SUPER. The database lists zero wins for either part in direct comparison, and the head-to-head benchmark array is empty. This means the two accelerators have never been measured against each other in the same test session within the database.

What can be compared is the single available benchmark score for the RTX 5080 SUPER and its position relative to other GPUs. The RTX 5080 SUPER posts a 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 3075. Its average benchmark score is also 3075, reflecting that only one test result is recorded. This places the card at the 19th percentile among all GPUs in the database.

The nearest rivals for the RTX 5080 SUPER in that benchmark are a mixed group. The NVIDIA Quadro P1000 scores 3163, which is 2.8% higher than the RTX 5080 SUPER. The Intel Arc Pro B60 scores 3182, 3.4% higher. On the lower side, the NVIDIA GeForce 820A scores 2983, which is 3.1% lower, and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 860M scores 2967, 3.6% lower. The RTX 5080 SUPER sits within roughly 3.6% of all four rivals, showing a tight cluster of results around its score.

The Intel Data Center GPU Max 1550 has no benchmark scores recorded in the database. Its percentile versus all GPUs is listed as 50, but its average benchmark score is 0, and its nearest rivals list is empty. This creates a situation where the Intel part cannot be directly ranked against the NVIDIA part using measured performance data, since the Intel accelerator has no recorded test results.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different design philosophies. The Intel Data Center GPU Max 1550 uses the Ponte Vecchio chip, built on Intel's Generation 12.5 architecture. It is manufactured on a 10 nm process at Intel's own foundry. The chip contains 100,000 million transistors on a die size of 1280 mm², giving a transistor density of 78.1 million per mm².

The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5080 SUPER uses the GB203 chip, based on Blackwell 2.0 architecture. It is built on a 5 nm process at TSMC. The chip contains 45,600 million transistors on a die size of 378 mm², giving a transistor density of 120.6 million per mm². The NVIDIA part packs its transistors more densely, but the Intel part has over twice the total transistor count and more than three times the die area.

Clock speeds differ substantially. The Intel part runs at a base clock of 900 MHz and a boost clock of 1600 MHz. The NVIDIA part runs at a base clock of 2295 MHz and a boost clock of 2617 MHz. The NVIDIA clock advantage is significant, with a boost clock roughly 64% higher than the Intel part's boost clock.

Memory configurations are radically different. The Intel Data Center GPU Max 1550 carries 128 GB of HBM2e memory on an 8192-bit bus, delivering 3.28 TB/s of bandwidth. The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5080 SUPER carries 24 GB of GDDR7 memory on a 256-bit bus, delivering 1.02 TB/s. The Intel part has more than five times the memory capacity and over three times the memory bandwidth, though the NVIDIA part uses a newer memory type.

Shader resources also differ. The Intel part has 16,384 shading units, 1024 texture mapping units, and 0 ROPs. It includes 128 ray tracing cores and has no tensor cores listed. The NVIDIA part has 10,752 shading units, 336 texture mapping units, and 112 ROPs. It includes 84 ray tracing cores and 336 tensor cores. The Intel part has more shading units and texture units, while the NVIDIA part has ROPs and tensor cores that the Intel part lacks entirely.

Compute throughput is close despite the architectural differences. The Intel part delivers 52.43 TFLOPS of FP32 and 52.43 TFLOPS of FP16 (1:1). The NVIDIA part delivers 56.28 TFLOPS of FP32 and 56.28 TFLOPS of FP16 (1:1). The NVIDIA part holds a roughly 7% advantage in raw compute throughput.

Pixel and texture rates show complementary strengths. The Intel part has a pixel rate of 0 MPixel/s because it has no ROPs. Its texture rate is 1,638.4 GTexel/s. The NVIDIA part has a pixel rate of 293.1 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 879.3 GTexel/s. The Intel part more than doubles the NVIDIA texture rate, while the NVIDIA part has all the pixel throughput.

Power and physical design differ as well. The Intel part has a TDP of 600 W and uses an OAM Module slot width. It has no power connectors listed and requires a suggested PSU of 1000 W. The NVIDIA part has a TDP of 415 W, uses a dual-slot design, and draws power from a single 16-pin connector. The NVIDIA card is 304 mm long, 137 mm tall, and 40 mm wide.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Data Center GPU Max 1550 wins in memory capacity and bandwidth. With 128 GB of HBM2e and 3.28 TB/s of bandwidth, it can hold large datasets in local memory without spilling to system memory. This matters for workloads that process massive models or large simulation grids. The 8192-bit bus width is unmatched by the NVIDIA part's 256-bit bus.

The Intel part also wins in texture throughput. Its 1,638.4 GTexel/s texture rate more than doubles the NVIDIA part's 879.3 GTexel/s. For workloads that sample textures heavily, such as certain rendering pipelines or scientific visualization, the Intel part has a clear advantage. The Intel part also has more shading units, with 16,384 versus 10,752, and more texture mapping units, with 1024 versus 336.

The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5080 SUPER wins in clock speed. Its boost clock of 2617 MHz versus the Intel part's 1600 MHz gives it a substantial frequency advantage. This helps in latency-sensitive work where higher clocks translate directly to faster execution. The NVIDIA part also has tensor cores, which the Intel part lacks, making it better suited for matrix-heavy workloads like neural network inference and training.

The NVIDIA part wins in pixel throughput. Its 293.1 GPixel/s pixel rate versus the Intel part's 0 MPixel/s means the NVIDIA card can drive display outputs and perform rasterization work. The Intel part has no display outputs at all. The NVIDIA card also supports Vulkan 1.4, while the Intel part has no Vulkan support listed.

The NVIDIA part wins in compute density. Its 56.28 TFLOPS of FP32 and FP16 exceed the Intel part's 52.43 TFLOPS in both categories. This comes from a much smaller die with fewer transistors, showing better architectural efficiency. The NVIDIA part also has a higher transistor density at 120.6M per mm² versus 78.1M per mm² for the Intel part.

The NVIDIA part wins in power efficiency. Its 415 W TDP versus the Intel part's 600 W TDP means it delivers more compute per watt. The NVIDIA card also fits in a standard dual-slot form factor with a single 16-pin connector, while the Intel part uses an OAM Module form factor that requires specialized mounting.

The Verdict

The data indicates a fundamental divergence in purpose. The Intel Data Center GPU Max 1550 is a data center accelerator with no display outputs, no ROPs, and no Vulkan support. Its strengths are massive memory capacity, enormous memory bandwidth, and extremely high texture throughput. The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5080 SUPER is a client graphics card with display outputs, full rasterization capabilities, and tensor cores.

For workloads that fit in the Intel part's 128 GB memory pool, the Intel accelerator offers capacity that the NVIDIA card cannot match. The 3.28 TB/s bandwidth and 8192-bit bus are designed for data-intensive compute. The Intel part's 1,638.4 GTexel/s texture rate suggests it was built for workloads that move large amounts of texture or structured data.

For general compute and graphics, the NVIDIA card is the more complete package. It has 56.28 TFLOPS of FP32, which is 7% ahead of the Intel part. It has tensor cores for AI work, ROPs for rasterization, and display outputs for visual output. Its 24 GB of GDDR7 memory is far smaller than the Intel part's 128 GB, but its 1.02 TB/s bandwidth is still substantial.

The RTX 5080 SUPER shows a benchmark score of 3075 in 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12, placing it near several older and lower-end parts in the database. Its nearest rivals are within 3.6% of its score, which suggests the recorded benchmark may not represent its full capability. The Intel part has no recorded benchmark scores, so its measured performance cannot be compared directly.

The selection between these two parts depends on the workload. Data center operators running memory-bound compute jobs would favor the Intel part for its 128 GB capacity and 3.28 TB/s bandwidth. Workstation users needing graphics output, tensor acceleration, or a standard dual-slot card would favor the NVIDIA part for its display outputs, 336 tensor cores, and 56.28 TFLOPS of compute.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has more memory?

A: The Intel Data Center GPU Max 1550 has 128 GB of HBM2e memory, while the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5080 SUPER has 24 GB of GDDR7 memory.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference?

A: The Intel part delivers 3.28 TB/s of bandwidth over an 8192-bit bus. The NVIDIA part delivers 1.02 TB/s over a 256-bit bus. The Intel part has over three times the bandwidth.

Q: Does either GPU support ray tracing?

A: Both parts include ray tracing cores. The Intel part has 128 ray tracing cores, and the NVIDIA part has 84 ray tracing cores.

Q: Which GPU has tensor cores?

A: Only the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5080 SUPER has tensor cores, with 336 units. The Intel Data Center GPU Max 1550 has no tensor cores listed.

Q: What is the FP32 performance of each GPU?

A: The Intel part delivers 52.43 TFLOPS of FP32. The NVIDIA part delivers 56.28 TFLOPS of FP32. The NVIDIA part is roughly 7% higher.

Q: What are the power requirements?

A: The Intel part has a TDP of 600 W and requires a suggested PSU of 1000 W. The NVIDIA part has a TDP of 415 W and uses a single 16-pin power connector.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Data Center GPU Max 1550 | NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5080 SUPER |

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

| Process Node | 10 nm | 5 nm |

| Foundry | Intel | TSMC |

| Transistors | 100,000 million | 45,600 million |

| Die Size | 1280 mm² | 378 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 78.1M / mm² | 120.6M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 900 MHz | 2295 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 1600 MHz | 2617 MHz |

| Memory Size | 128 GB | 24 GB |

| Memory Type | HBM2e | GDDR7 |

| Memory Bus Width | 8192 bit | 256 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 3.28 TB/s | 1.02 TB/s |

| Shading Units | 16384 | 10752 |

| Texture Mapping Units | 1024 | 336 |

| ROPs | 0 | 112 |

| Ray Tracing Cores | 128 | 84 |

| Tensor Cores | None | 336 |

| Pixel Rate | 0 MPixel/s | 293.1 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 1,638.4 GTexel/s | 879.3 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Performance | 52.43 TFLOPS | 56.28 TFLOPS |

| FP16 Performance | 52.43 TFLOPS (1:1) | 56.28 TFLOPS (1:1) |

| TDP | 600 W | 415 W |

| Slot Width | OAM Module | Dual-slot |

| Power Connectors | None listed | 1x 16-pin |

| Suggested PSU | 1000 W | None listed |

| Display Outputs | No outputs | 1x HDMI 2.1b, 3x DisplayPort 2.1b |

| DirectX Support | 12 (12_1) | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |

| Vulkan Support | None listed | 1.4 |

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

| Launch MSRP | None listed | 999 USD |