Intel Data Center GPU Max 1550 vs NVIDIA N1 20SM Comparison

FAQ

Q: What are the core specifications of the Intel Data Center GPU Max 1550 and the NVIDIA N1 20SM?

A: The Intel Data Center GPU Max 1550 uses the Ponte Vecchio chip on a 10 nm process with 100,000 million transistors on a 1280 mm² die. It has 16,384 shading units, 1,024 texture mapping units, 128 ray tracing cores, and 128 GB of HBM2e memory on an 8192-bit bus. The NVIDIA N1 20SM uses the GB20B chip on a 5 nm process with a 382 mm² die. It has 2,560 shading units, 160 texture mapping units, 24 ROPs, 20 ray tracing cores, 80 tensor cores, and 128 GB of LPDDR5X memory on a 256-bit bus.

Q: How do the clock speeds compare between the two GPUs?

A: The Intel part has a base clock of 900 MHz and a boost clock of 1600 MHz. The NVIDIA N1 20SM has a lower base clock of 741 MHz but a substantially higher boost clock of 2346 MHz. Memory clocks differ as well: Intel runs at 1600 MHz with 3.2 Gbps effective, while NVIDIA runs at 1067 MHz with 8.5 Gbps effective.

Q: What are the memory bandwidth figures for each GPU?

A: The Intel Data Center GPU Max 1550 delivers 3.28 TB/s of bandwidth from its 128 GB HBM2e configuration. The NVIDIA N1 20SM provides 273.2 GB/s from its 128 GB LPDDR5X setup. This represents a roughly 12x difference in raw memory bandwidth favoring Intel.

Q: What compute throughput does each GPU offer?

A: The Intel Data Center GPU Max 1550 achieves 52.43 TFLOPS for both FP32 and FP16 (1:1 ratio). The NVIDIA N1 20SM achieves 12.01 TFLOPS for both FP32 and FP16 (1:1 ratio). Intel's throughput is approximately 4.4x higher in both precision formats.

Q: What are the physical and interface differences?

A: The Intel GPU is an OAM Module with a 600 W TDP and a suggested PSU of 1000 W. It has no display outputs and uses a PCIe 5.0 x16 interface. The NVIDIA N1 20SM is an IGP (integrated graphics processor) with no power connectors, a single HDMI output, and the same PCIe 5.0 x16 interface. NVIDIA's TDP is listed as unknown.

Q: When were these products released and what are their production statuses?

A: The Intel Data Center GPU Max 1550 was released on 2023-01-09 and is listed as Active in production. The NVIDIA N1 20SM was released on 2026-05-31 and is also listed as Active. Intel lists its successor as H3C Graphics, while NVIDIA has no successor listed.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Data Center GPU Max 1550 dominates in raw compute and memory throughput. Its 52.43 TFLOPS FP32 performance is over 4x the NVIDIA N1 20SM's 12.01 TFLOPS. The 3.28 TB/s memory bandwidth is roughly 12x higher than NVIDIA's 273.2 GB/s. The 8192-bit bus width compared to 256-bit gives Intel a massive advantage in data-intensive workloads. The 128 ray tracing cores versus 20 also indicates a substantial lead in ray tracing operations.

The NVIDIA N1 20SM wins in several efficiency and integration categories. Its boost clock of 2346 MHz is significantly higher than Intel's 1600 MHz, indicating better per-clock efficiency. The 5 nm TSMC process node versus Intel's 10 nm suggests superior power efficiency per transistor. The IGP form factor with no power connectors means it can be integrated into systems without dedicated power delivery. The single HDMI output provides display capability, something Intel's OAM Module lacks entirely. The 80 tensor cores give NVIDIA a dedicated hardware path for tensor operations, though Intel's shading units are far more numerous.

Architecture Differences

The Intel Data Center GPU Max 1550 uses the Ponte Vecchio chip built on Intel's Generation 12.5 architecture. It is fabricated on a 10 nm process at Intel's own foundry. The die measures 1280 mm² and contains 100,000 million transistors, yielding a transistor density of 78.1M per mm². This is a dedicated data center accelerator with an OAM Module form factor, no display outputs, and a 600 W TDP.

The NVIDIA N1 20SM uses the GB20B chip built on the Blackwell 2.0 architecture. It is fabricated on a 5 nm process at TSMC. The die measures 382 mm² and transistor count is listed as unknown. This is an integrated graphics processor (IGP) within the Blackwell IGP (N1x) generation. It includes one HDMI output and no power connectors, suggesting it draws power from the host system.

Memory architectures differ fundamentally. Intel uses 128 GB of HBM2e across an 8192-bit bus, achieving 3.28 TB/s bandwidth. NVIDIA uses 128 GB of LPDDR5X across a 256-bit bus, achieving 273.2 GB/s. The memory type, bus width, and bandwidth all favor Intel dramatically. The NVIDIA part also has 24 ROPs while Intel has 0 ROPs, and Intel's pixel rate is 0 MPixel/s versus NVIDIA's 56.30 GPixel/s. Intel's texture rate is 1,638.4 GTexel/s versus NVIDIA's 375.4 GTexel/s.

The ray tracing and tensor configurations differ. Intel has 128 ray tracing cores and no tensor cores listed. NVIDIA has 20 ray tracing cores and 80 tensor cores. Intel's shading units number 16,384 versus NVIDIA's 2,560, and Intel's TMUs number 1,024 versus NVIDIA's 160.

Specification Differences

The process nodes differ: Intel uses 10 nm while NVIDIA uses 5 nm. The foundries also differ: Intel uses its own foundry, NVIDIA uses TSMC. Intel's die size is 1280 mm² versus NVIDIA's 382 mm². Intel lists 100,000 million transistors; NVIDIA lists unknown.

Clock speeds show Intel at 900 MHz base and 1600 MHz boost. NVIDIA runs at 741 MHz base and 2346 MHz boost. Memory clocks are 1600 MHz with 3.2 Gbps effective for Intel, and 1067 MHz with 8.5 Gbps effective for NVIDIA.

Memory specifications differ substantially. Both have 128 GB capacity, but Intel uses HBM2e with an 8192-bit bus and 3.28 TB/s bandwidth. NVIDIA uses LPDDR5X with a 256-bit bus and 273.2 GB/s bandwidth.

Compute units differ greatly. Intel has 16,384 shading units, 1,024 TMUs, 0 ROPs, and 128 RT cores. NVIDIA has 2,560 shading units, 160 TMUs, 24 ROPs, 20 RT cores, and 80 tensor cores. Intel's pixel rate is 0 MPixel/s; NVIDIA's is 56.30 GPixel/s. Texture rates are 1,638.4 GTexel/s for Intel versus 375.4 GTexel/s for NVIDIA. FP32 and FP16 throughput are both 52.43 TFLOPS for Intel and 12.01 TFLOPS for NVIDIA.

Power and physical characteristics differ. Intel has a 600 W TDP, a suggested PSU of 1000 W, and an OAM Module slot width. NVIDIA's TDP is unknown, it has no power connectors, and its slot width is IGP. Display outputs are none for Intel and 1x HDMI for NVIDIA. The bus interface is PCIe 5.0 x16 for both.

API support differs. Intel supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and OpenGL 4.6, with Vulkan listed as null. NVIDIA lists DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan all as N/A.

Release dates differ: Intel released on 2023-01-09, NVIDIA on 2026-05-31. Intel lists H3C Graphics as its successor; NVIDIA has no successor.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data contains no head-to-head benchmark entries, no wins for either product, and no nearest rival comparisons. The average benchmark scores for both are 0, and both sit at the 50th percentile against all GPUs in the database. This means the comparative performance must be derived from their specification-level capabilities rather than direct measurement results.

The largest advantage for the Intel Data Center GPU Max 1550 lies in memory bandwidth. At 3.28 TB/s versus 273.2 GB/s, Intel delivers approximately 12x more bandwidth. This is a decisive factor for workloads that are memory-bound, such as large matrix operations, data center inference, and scientific computing. The 8192-bit bus width compared to 256-bit reinforces this advantage.

Compute throughput shows a similar pattern. Intel's 52.43 TFLOPS FP32 is 4.37x NVIDIA's 12.01 TFLOPS. The same ratio applies to FP16. The shading unit count of 16,384 versus 2,560 gives Intel a 6.4x advantage in raw shading capacity. Texture rate follows with 1,638.4 GTexel/s versus 375.4 GTexel/s, a 4.37x difference consistent with the compute ratio.

The NVIDIA N1 20SM counters with a 2346 MHz boost clock versus Intel's 1600 MHz, a 46.6% higher boost frequency. This indicates NVIDIA's architecture achieves higher per-clock efficiency despite fewer resources. NVIDIA also has 80 tensor cores where Intel lists none, giving it a dedicated path for tensor operations. The 24 ROPs versus 0 and the 56.30 GPixel/s pixel rate versus 0 MPixel/s show NVIDIA can handle rasterization tasks that Intel's accelerator cannot.

The die size difference is notable: Intel's 1280 mm² versus NVIDIA's 382 mm². Intel uses 100,000 million transistors, while NVIDIA's count is unknown. The transistor density of 78.1M per mm² for Intel indicates a dense packing, though the 5 nm process used by NVIDIA likely achieves higher density given the smaller die.

The Verdict

The Intel Data Center GPU Max 1550 is the clear choice for compute-heavy data center workloads. Its 52.43 TFLOPS FP32 and FP16 throughput, 3.28 TB/s memory bandwidth, and 16,384 shading units position it as a high-throughput accelerator. The 128 GB HBM2e memory on an 8192-bit bus is designed for massive parallel data access. The 600 W TDP and 1000 W suggested PSU indicate it requires dedicated power infrastructure, which is typical for OAM Module data center accelerators. The lack of display outputs confirms its purpose as a compute-only device.

The NVIDIA N1 20SM serves a different role. As an IGP with no power connectors and a single HDMI output, it targets integrated or compact systems where display output and low integration overhead matter. Its 2346 MHz boost clock shows strong per-clock performance, and the 80 tensor cores provide specialized hardware for tensor workloads. The 273.2 GB/s memory bandwidth is modest but appropriate for an integrated processor. The 24 ROPs and 56.30 GPixel/s pixel rate give it rasterization capability that Intel's part lacks entirely.

For data center acceleration, massive parallel compute, or memory-bandwidth-intensive applications, the Intel Data Center GPU Max 1550 is the superior choice based on the recorded specifications. Its 12x memory bandwidth advantage and 4.4x compute advantage are decisive for such workloads.

For integrated graphics, display output, or systems where dedicated power delivery is unavailable, the NVIDIA N1 20SM is the appropriate selection. Its higher boost clock and tensor cores offer specialized capabilities, and its IGP form factor allows deployment where an OAM Module cannot fit.

Both products sit at the 50th percentile in the database, indicating they are mid-pack performers overall. The lack of benchmark scores and head-to-head results means the specification-level advantages described above are the primary basis for comparison.