Intel Data Center GPU Max 1550 vs NVIDIA N1X 40SM Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark database contains no recorded performance measurements for either the Intel Data Center GPU Max 1550 or the NVIDIA N1X 40SM. Both entries show an average benchmark score of zero, and the head-to-head comparison table is empty. The percentile vs all GPUs is identical for both parts at the 50th mark, which reflects the absence of tested workloads rather than parity in capability. Without benchmark data, the analysis must rely entirely on the architectural and specification records in the database.

The Intel Data Center GPU Max 1550 delivers 52.43 TFLOPS of FP32 compute and the same 52.43 TFLOPS for FP16 at a 1:1 ratio. The NVIDIA N1X 40SM delivers 24.02 TFLOPS FP32 and 24.02 TFLOPS FP16, also at 1:1. The Intel part leads in raw floating-point throughput by a factor of approximately 2.18 in both precisions. Texture rate favors Intel as well: 1,638.4 GTexel/s versus 750.7 GTexel/s, a 2.18x advantage that mirrors the shading unit count difference of 16,384 versus 5,120. The Intel GPU also carries 1,024 texture mapping units against 320 on the NVIDIA part, and 128 ray tracing cores versus 40.

Memory bandwidth heavily favors Intel. The Max 1550 uses 128 GB of HBM2e across an 8,192-bit bus, producing 3.28 TB/s of bandwidth. The N1X 40SM uses 128 GB of LPDDR5X across a 256-bit bus, producing 273.2 GB/s. That is a 12x difference in memory bandwidth, a gap that will dominate any memory-intensive workload. Pixel rate is the one rasterization metric where NVIDIA leads: the N1X 40SM records 93.84 GPixel/s, while the Intel part shows 0 MPixel/s, indicating no conventional pixel output stage. The Intel GPU also has 0 ROPs, while the NVIDIA part has 40.

Clock behavior differs substantially. The Intel part has a base clock of 900 MHz and a boost of 1,600 MHz. The NVIDIA part has a base of 741 MHz and a boost of 2,346 MHz. The NVIDIA silicon reaches a 58.5% higher boost frequency, which helps it close some of the compute gap in latency-sensitive tasks despite the much lower core count. The Intel part compensates with a 68.1% higher base clock, which matters for sustained workloads that stay near base frequencies.

The NVIDIA part has 160 tensor cores, while the Intel entry lists none in the database. This indicates a structural difference in AI acceleration: NVIDIA has dedicated tensor hardware, while Intel's approach relies on the general-purpose shading units and ray tracing cores. The Intel part has 128 ray tracing cores versus 40 on NVIDIA, a 3.2x advantage in ray traversal hardware.

Power draw is only recorded for the Intel side: 600 W TDP with a suggested PSU of 1,000 W. The NVIDIA part lists unknown TDP and no power connector requirement, as it is an integrated GPU package (IGP). The Intel part is an OAM module, while the NVIDIA part is an IGP with a single HDMI output and no display outputs on the Intel side.

The Verdict

The database shows two very different products with no overlapping benchmark results. The Intel Data Center GPU Max 1550 is a discrete accelerator module aimed at compute-heavy data center workloads. Its 3.28 TB/s memory bandwidth, 52.43 TFLOPS FP32, and 128 GB HBM2e capacity place it in a class for large-scale parallel processing, particularly tasks that saturate memory bandwidth. The NVIDIA N1X 40SM is an integrated graphics processor with 24.02 TFLOPS FP32, 273.2 GB/s bandwidth, and a 2,346 MHz boost clock, which suits it for embedded or mobile contexts where power and physical footprint are constrained.

For raw compute throughput, the Intel part delivers 2.18x the FP32 and FP16 performance of the NVIDIA part. For memory bandwidth, the Intel part delivers 12x the throughput. For texture processing, the Intel part delivers 2.18x the rate. Any workload that scales with shader count, texture units, or memory bandwidth will favor the Intel GPU by a wide margin.

For pixel throughput, the NVIDIA part has a clear advantage with 93.84 GPixel/s versus effectively zero on the Intel part. The Intel GPU has no ROPs and no pixel rate, meaning it is not designed for traditional rasterization output. The NVIDIA part has 40 ROPs and a single HDMI output, indicating it can drive a display. The Intel part has no display outputs at all.

The NVIDIA part also has tensor cores, which the Intel entry lacks. For AI workloads that rely on dedicated tensor instructions, the NVIDIA part provides hardware acceleration that the Intel part does not expose in the database. The Intel part's 128 ray tracing cores versus 40 on NVIDIA gives it a hardware advantage in ray traversal, but the NVIDIA part's higher boost clock and tensor cores shift the balance in other areas.

The production status for both is active. The Intel part released on 2023-01-09, while the NVIDIA part is dated 2026-05-31. The Intel part has a successor listed as H3C Graphics, while the NVIDIA part has no successor. The Intel die is 1,280 mm² on a 10 nm process with 100,000 million transistors, while the NVIDIA die is 382 mm² on a 5 nm process with unknown transistor count. The Intel chip has a transistor density of 78.1M per mm², while the NVIDIA density is not recorded.

Architecture Differences

The Intel Data Center GPU Max 1550 uses the Ponte Vecchio chip, built on Intel's Generation 12.5 architecture and fabricated on a 10 nm process at Intel's foundry. The die measures 1,280 mm² and contains 100,000 million transistors, giving a density of 78.1M transistors per mm². The NVIDIA N1X 40SM uses the GB20B chip, built on Blackwell 2.0 architecture and fabricated on a 5 nm process at TSMC. The die measures 382 mm² with an unknown transistor count. The Intel die is 3.35x larger physically, and the process nodes differ by two generations in naming, with Intel on 10 nm and NVIDIA on 5 nm.

Memory architecture diverges completely. The Intel part uses HBM2e memory with a 1,600 MHz memory clock and 3.2 Gbps effective data rate, across an 8,192-bit bus, yielding 3.28 TB/s bandwidth. The NVIDIA part uses LPDDR5X with a 1,067 MHz memory clock and 8.5 Gbps effective data rate, across a 256-bit bus, yielding 273.2 GB/s. Both have 128 GB capacity, but the bus width difference of 32x explains the bandwidth gap. The Intel memory clock is lower but the bus is far wider.

The compute architecture differs in core organization. The Intel part has 16,384 shading units, 1,024 TMUs, 0 ROPs, and 128 RT cores. The NVIDIA part has 5,120 shading units, 320 TMUs, 40 ROPs, 40 RT cores, and 160 tensor cores. The Intel part has no tensor core entry in the database, while NVIDIA dedicates hardware to tensor operations. The Intel part has no pixel rate (0 MPixel/s) while NVIDIA records 93.84 GPixel/s.

Clock behavior reflects different design goals. Intel runs a 900 MHz base and 1,600 MHz boost. NVIDIA runs a 741 MHz base and 2,346 MHz boost. The NVIDIA boost is 746 MHz higher, a 46.6% increase over Intel's boost. The NVIDIA base is 159 MHz lower, a 17.7% deficit. This suggests NVIDIA relies on aggressive boosting to reach performance, while Intel maintains a higher sustained floor.

The physical form factors differ. The Intel part is an OAM module with a PCIe 5.0 x16 bus interface and a 600 W TDP, requiring a 1,000 W suggested PSU. The NVIDIA part is an IGP with a PCIe 5.0 x16 bus interface, no power connectors, and unknown TDP. The Intel part has no display outputs, while the NVIDIA part has one HDMI output. API support also differs: the Intel part supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and OpenGL 4.6, while the NVIDIA part lists N/A for DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan, indicating it is not intended for conventional graphics API workloads.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher FP32 compute?

A: The Intel Data Center GPU Max 1550 delivers 52.43 TFLOPS FP32, while the NVIDIA N1X 40SM delivers 24.02 TFLOPS. Intel leads by 2.18x.

Q: How does memory bandwidth compare?

A: The Intel part has 3.28 TB/s from HBM2e on a 8,192-bit bus. The NVIDIA part has 273.2 GB/s from LPDDR5X on a 256-bit bus. Intel leads by 12x.

Q: Does either GPU support display output?

A: The NVIDIA N1X 40SM has one HDMI output and 40 ROPs with a 93.84 GPixel/s pixel rate. The Intel Data Center GPU Max 1550 has no display outputs and 0 MPixel/s pixel rate.

Q: What are the process nodes?

A: Intel uses a 10 nm process at Intel foundry. NVIDIA uses a 5 nm process at TSMC. The Intel die is 1,280 mm², while the NVIDIA die is 382 mm².

Q: Which GPU has tensor cores?

A: The NVIDIA N1X 40SM has 160 tensor cores. The Intel Data Center GPU Max 1550 lists no tensor cores in the database.

Q: What are the release dates?

A: The Intel Data Center GPU Max 1550 released on 2023-01-09. The NVIDIA N1X 40SM has a release date of 2026-05-31. Both are listed as active in production.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Data Center GPU Max 1550 wins in raw compute throughput. Its 52.43 TFLOPS FP32 and FP16 double the NVIDIA part's 24.02 TFLOPS. The 16,384 shading units versus 5,120 gives Intel a 3.2x core count advantage. The 1,024 TMUs versus 320 gives Intel a 3.2x texture unit advantage, and the 1,638.4 GTexel/s texture rate confirms it. The 128 RT cores versus 40 gives Intel a 3.2x ray tracing hardware advantage.

The Intel part wins decisively in memory bandwidth. The 3.28 TB/s from HBM2e on an 8,192-bit bus is 12x the NVIDIA part's 273.2 GB/s from LPDDR5X on a 256-bit bus. For workloads that stream large datasets, such as scientific simulation, data analytics, or large model inference, this bandwidth advantage dominates. The 128 GB capacity is equal, but the Intel part can move that data far faster.

The Intel part wins in sustained base clock performance. Its 900 MHz base is 21.5% higher than NVIDIA's 741 MHz base. For workloads that run at steady state without boosting, the Intel part maintains a higher frequency floor.

The NVIDIA N1X 40SM wins in peak clock speed. Its 2,346 MHz boost is 46.6% higher than Intel's 1,600 MHz boost. For short bursts of single-threaded or lightly threaded work, the NVIDIA part reaches a much higher frequency.

The NVIDIA part wins in pixel throughput. Its 93.84 GPixel/s and 40 ROPs enable traditional rasterization, while the Intel part has zero pixel rate. The NVIDIA part also has one HDMI output, making it capable of driving a display, something the Intel part cannot do.

The NVIDIA part wins in tensor acceleration. The 160 tensor cores provide dedicated hardware for AI operations, while the Intel part has none listed. For machine learning inference and training that uses tensor instructions, the NVIDIA part has a structural advantage.

The NVIDIA part wins in power efficiency per unit of silicon. Its 382 mm² die on a 5 nm process is 3.35x smaller than Intel's 1,280 mm² die on 10 nm. The unknown TDP for NVIDIA makes direct power comparison impossible, but the smaller die and integrated form factor indicate a lower power envelope than Intel's 600 W TDP. The NVIDIA part requires no power connectors, while the Intel part suggests a 1,000 W PSU.

The NVIDIA part also wins in physical integration. As an IGP, it fits into a system without a discrete module slot, while the Intel part is an OAM module requiring dedicated mounting and power delivery. The NVIDIA part has a single HDMI output, while Intel has none.

The Intel part wins in texture throughput by 2.18x, in memory bandwidth by 12x, in FP32 by 2.18x, in FP16 by 2.18x, and in ray tracing cores by 3.2x. The NVIDIA part wins in pixel rate, tensor cores, boost clock, and display output. The database shows no benchmark scores for either, so these wins are architectural and theoretical, not measured. The Intel part is built for data center compute with massive memory bandwidth and shading throughput. The NVIDIA part is built for integrated, low-footprint deployment with tensor acceleration and display capability.