Intel Data Center GPU Max 1550 vs NVIDIA N1 16SM Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The direct comparison between the Intel Data Center GPU Max 1550 and the NVIDIA N1 16SM presents a stark contrast in raw compute output, though the absence of recorded benchmark scores in the database limits the analysis to theoretical peak values and architectural capabilities. The Intel part, built on the Ponte Vecchio chip, delivers 52.43 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, while the NVIDIA N1 16SM, using the GB20B chip, reaches 9.609 TFLOPS. This represents a 5.45x advantage for the Intel GPU in single-precision floating-point throughput. The margin is even more pronounced in FP16 compute, where both parts operate at a 1:1 ratio with their FP32 rates, meaning the Intel GPU again holds a 5.45x lead.

The Intel Data Center GPU Max 1550 also dominates in texture processing. Its 1,638.4 GTexel/s texture rate compares to the NVIDIA N1 16SM's 300.3 GTexel/s, a 5.46x difference. This gap stems from the Intel GPU's 1,024 texture mapping units (TMUs) versus the NVIDIA part's 128 TMUs. However, the NVIDIA N1 16SM counters in pixel throughput. The Intel GPU shows a pixel rate of 0 MPixel/s due to its zero raster operation units (ROPs), while the NVIDIA part achieves 56.30 GPixel/s with its 24 ROPs. This means the NVIDIA GPU can perform all pixel-level rasterization work, while the Intel GPU relies entirely on compute-based rendering paths.

Memory bandwidth tells a similar story of divergence. The Intel Data Center GPU Max 1550 uses 128 GB of HBM2e across an 8192-bit bus, yielding 3.28 TB/s of bandwidth. The NVIDIA N1 16SM has the same 128 GB capacity but employs LPDDR5X on a 256-bit bus, resulting in 273.2 GB/s. The Intel GPU's bandwidth advantage is 12.0x, a critical factor for memory-bound workloads. Clock behavior also differs. The Intel GPU runs at a 900 MHz base and 1600 MHz boost, while the NVIDIA part operates at 741 MHz base and 2346 MHz boost. The NVIDIA GPU's higher boost clock suggests better per-clock efficiency despite its lower shading unit count (2,048 versus 16,384).

Both parts sit at the 50th percentile among all GPUs in the database, and neither has recorded average benchmark scores or nearest rivals. This means the head-to-head comparison relies entirely on the specification sheet. The Intel GPU wins decisively in raw compute, texture rate, and memory bandwidth. The NVIDIA GPU wins only in pixel rate and clock speed. Given that the database records zero wins for either side in the headToHeadBenchmarks array, the verdict must come from the theoretical peaks above.

The Verdict

The data indicates two GPUs designed for entirely different roles. The Intel Data Center GPU Max 1550 is a massive accelerator with 16,384 shading units, 128 ray tracing cores, and 128 GB of HBM2e. Its 52.43 TFLOPS FP32 output and 3.28 TB/s bandwidth position it for heavy parallel compute, such as scientific simulation, AI training, and large-scale data processing. The NVIDIA N1 16SM, with 2,048 shading units, 16 ray tracing cores, and 64 tensor cores, operates as an integrated graphics processor (IGP) within the Blackwell N1x generation. Its 9.609 TFLOPS FP32 and 273.2 GB/s bandwidth suit it for display output and modest compute tasks, not data center-scale workloads.

From the recorded specifications, any workload that stresses FP32 or FP16 arithmetic, texture sampling, or memory bandwidth will favor the Intel GPU by a wide margin. The 5.45x compute lead and 12.0x bandwidth lead are decisive in synthetic throughput terms. Conversely, the NVIDIA part's 56.30 GPixel/s pixel rate and 24 ROPs give it the only rasterization capability in this pairing, making it the sole option for tasks requiring traditional pixel output. The Intel GPU's pixel rate of 0 MPixel/s means it cannot process pixels through the standard ROP path at all.

The production status for both is "Active," but their release dates differ substantially. The Intel GPU launched on January 9, 2023, while the NVIDIA part is dated May 31, 2026. The Intel GPU has a successor listed as H3C Graphics, whereas the NVIDIA part has no successor. Neither has a launch MSRP in the database, so no price comparison is possible. The database shows both at the 50th percentile, which likely reflects the absence of benchmark scores rather than any measured parity. For a user selecting between the two, the Intel GPU delivers raw compute scale; the NVIDIA GPU delivers integrated form factor and display connectivity. The data does not support any other conclusion.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different process nodes and foundries. The Intel Data Center GPU Max 1550 uses a 10 nm process from Intel, while the NVIDIA N1 16SM uses a 5 nm process from TSMC. This node difference explains part of the NVIDIA part's higher boost clock of 2346 MHz versus 1600 MHz for Intel, as the smaller process typically allows higher frequencies. The Intel GPU's die size is 1280 mm², while the NVIDIA die is 382 mm². Intel reports 100,000 million transistors and a transistor density of 78.1M per mm². NVIDIA does not disclose transistor count or density in the database.

Architecture generations diverge completely. Intel uses Generation 12.5, branded as Data Center GPU (Ponte Vecchio). NVIDIA uses Blackwell 2.0, part of the Blackwell IGP (N1x) generation. The Intel chip is named Ponte Vecchio, while the NVIDIA chip is GB20B. The Intel GPU has no ray tracing core count listed in a separate field, but the JSON includes 128 RT cores. The NVIDIA GPU has 16 RT cores and 64 tensor cores. The Intel GPU does not list a tensor core count, though its massive shading unit array (16,384) suggests a compute-first design.

Memory architecture also differs fundamentally. Intel uses HBM2e with an 8192-bit bus, achieving 3.28 TB/s. NVIDIA uses LPDDR5X with a 256-bit bus, achieving 273.2 GB/s. Both have 128 GB capacity, but the bus width and memory type reflect different design priorities: Intel maximizes bandwidth for compute, NVIDIA balances capacity with integration. The NVIDIA part operates as an IGP (integrated graphics processor) with a slot width of "IGP" and no power connectors, while the Intel GPU is an OAM Module with a 600 W TDP and a suggested PSU of 1000 W.

API support differs as well. The Intel GPU supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and OpenGL 4.6, with no Vulkan listed. The NVIDIA GPU lists DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan as "N/A." Display outputs also separate the two: the Intel GPU has no outputs, while the NVIDIA GPU has 1x HDMI. The Intel GPU shows a texture rate of 1,638.4 GTexel/s and a 0 MPixel/s pixel rate, while the NVIDIA part shows 300.3 GTexel/s and 56.30 GPixel/s. These differences indicate the Intel GPU is compute-only, while the NVIDIA part retains display and rasterization functions.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher FP32 performance?

A: The Intel Data Center GPU Max 1550 delivers 52.43 TFLOPS FP32, while the NVIDIA N1 16SM delivers 9.609 TFLOPS. The Intel GPU is 5.45x faster in single-precision compute.

Q: Do both GPUs have the same memory capacity?

A: Yes, both have 128 GB of memory. However, the Intel GPU uses HBM2e with an 8192-bit bus and 3.28 TB/s bandwidth, while the NVIDIA GPU uses LPDDR5X with a 256-bit bus and 273.2 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Can either GPU output to a display?

A: The NVIDIA N1 16SM has 1x HDMI output. The Intel Data Center GPU Max 1550 has no display outputs, making it unsuitable for direct display connection.

Q: What is the pixel rate for each GPU?

A: The NVIDIA N1 16SM achieves 56.30 GPixel/s with 24 ROPs. The Intel Data Center GPU Max 1550 has a pixel rate of 0 MPixel/s due to having zero ROPs.

Q: Which GPU has more shading units?

A: The Intel Data Center GPU Max 1550 has 16,384 shading units, compared to the NVIDIA N1 16SM's 2,048 shading units. This is an 8x difference.

Q: What are the process nodes for each GPU?

A: The Intel GPU uses a 10 nm process from Intel, while the NVIDIA GPU uses a 5 nm process from TSMC. The NVIDIA part also has a higher boost clock at 2346 MHz versus 1600 MHz for Intel.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Data Center GPU Max 1550 wins in every compute-heavy category recorded. Its 52.43 TFLOPS FP32 and FP16 rates dominate the NVIDIA part's 9.609 TFLOPS. The texture rate of 1,638.4 GTexel/s versus 300.3 GTexel/s gives Intel a 5.46x advantage in texture-heavy workloads. Memory bandwidth of 3.28 TB/s versus 273.2 GB/s provides a 12.0x edge for large data transfers and memory-bound kernels. The Intel GPU also has 128 RT cores versus 16, and its 16,384 shading units outnumber the NVIDIA part's 2,048 by 8x. For any workload that scales with shader count, texture units, or bandwidth, the Intel GPU is the clear choice based on the data.

The NVIDIA N1 16SM wins in areas related to rasterization and display. Its 56.30 GPixel/s pixel rate and 24 ROPs allow it to perform traditional pixel processing, something the Intel GPU cannot do with its 0 MPixel/s rate. The NVIDIA part also has a higher boost clock (2346 MHz vs 1600 MHz), suggesting better single-core efficiency despite fewer cores. Its 64 tensor cores provide a dedicated tensor processing path that the Intel GPU lacks in the database listing. The NVIDIA GPU's IGP form factor and 1x HDMI output make it suitable for integrated systems requiring display output, while the Intel GPU's OAM Module form factor with no outputs targets server or accelerator environments.

The production status for both is "Active," but the use cases differ sharply. The Intel GPU's 600 W TDP and 1000 W suggested PSU indicate a high-power, high-throughput accelerator. The NVIDIA GPU has an unknown TDP and no power connectors, reflecting its integrated nature. Neither GPU has recorded benchmark scores or nearest rivals in the database, so the wins come solely from specification comparisons. The Intel GPU wins for compute throughput, memory bandwidth, and texture processing. The NVIDIA GPU wins for pixel output, clock speed, and integrated operation.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ in nearly every specification field. The process node is 10 nm for Intel versus 5 nm for NVIDIA. Foundry is Intel versus TSMC. Transistor count is 100,000 million for Intel versus unknown for NVIDIA. Die size is 1280 mm² versus 382 mm². Transistor density is 78.1M per mm² for Intel versus null for NVIDIA. Base clock is 900 MHz versus 741 MHz, and boost clock is 1600 MHz versus 2346 MHz. Memory clock is 1600 MHz (3.2 Gbps effective) versus 1067 MHz (8.5 Gbps effective). Memory type is HBM2e versus LPDDR5X. Bus width is 8192 bit versus 256 bit. Bandwidth is 3.28 TB/s versus 273.2 GB/s.

Shading units are 16,384 versus 2,048. TMUs are 1,024 versus 128. ROPs are 0 versus 24. RT cores are 128 versus 16. Tensor cores are null versus 64. Pixel rate is 0 MPixel/s versus 56.30 GPixel/s. Texture rate is 1,638.4 GTexel/s versus 300.3 GTexel/s. FP32 is 52.43 TFLOPS versus 9.609 TFLOPS. FP16 is 52.43 TFLOPS (1:1) versus 9.609 TFLOPS (1:1). TDP is 600 W versus unknown. Slot width is OAM Module versus IGP. Power connectors are null versus none. Suggested PSU is 1000 W versus null. Display outputs are none versus 1x HDMI.

API support: DirectX 12 (12_1) and OpenGL 4.6 for Intel, N/A for NVIDIA across all APIs. Production status is Active for both. Release date is January 9, 2023 for Intel versus May 31, 2026 for NVIDIA. The Intel GPU has a successor (H3C Graphics), while the NVIDIA part has none. Neither has a launch MSRP. The bus interface is PCIe 5.0 x16 for both. Memory size is 128 GB for both, making that a point of parity. All other fields show divergence, confirming that these are fundamentally different classes of hardware.