Intel Data Center GPU Max 1550 vs NVIDIA N1X 48SM Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data does not contain any benchmark scores, win counts, or performance measurements for either the Intel Data Center GPU Max 1550 or the NVIDIA N1X 48SM. The database shows zero benchmark entries for both parts, an average benchmark score of zero for each, and no head-to-head benchmark results. The percentile versus all GPUs is identical for both at 50, indicating that without measured performance data, neither part can be ranked above the other in any workload category.

The absence of benchmark data does not mean the hardware is equivalent. The specification sheets reveal two very different designs: the Intel part is a discrete accelerator module with 16,384 shading units, while the NVIDIA part is an integrated graphics processor with 6,144 shading units. The compute ceilings differ substantially: Intel lists 52.43 TFLOPS for both FP32 and FP16, while NVIDIA lists 28.83 TFLOPS for both FP32 and FP16. That is a 23.6 TFLOPS gap in raw floating-point throughput, but without benchmark scores, the database cannot confirm how those theoretical peaks translate into application performance.

Texture rate favors Intel at 1,638.4 GTexel/s versus 900.9 GTexel/s for NVIDIA. Pixel rate tells the opposite story: Intel lists 0 MPixel/s because it has no ROPs, while NVIDIA lists 112.6 GPixel/s with 48 ROPs. The Intel card is not designed for rasterization output, whereas the NVIDIA chip can drive display output through a single HDMI port. For any workload that requires pixel rendering or display output, the data shows NVIDIA has the only functional pathway.

The memory systems also diverge sharply. Both parts carry 128 GB of memory, but Intel uses HBM2e on an 8192-bit bus delivering 3.28 TB/s of bandwidth. NVIDIA uses LPDDR5X on a 256-bit bus delivering 273.2 GB/s. The Intel memory bandwidth is roughly 12 times higher, a figure that suggests a massive advantage for memory-bound compute kernels. The database does not include measured results, but the bandwidth differential is the largest single specification gap between the two parts.

Clock behavior differs as well. Intel runs a 900 MHz base clock and 1600 MHz boost. NVIDIA runs a 741 MHz base clock and 2346 MHz boost. The NVIDIA boost clock is 746 MHz higher than Intel's boost, which partially compensates for the lower shader count, but not enough to close the FP32 gap in raw terms.

The FAQ section below addresses the most common questions that the specification data can answer.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher FP32 compute performance?

A: The Intel Data Center GPU Max 1550 lists 52.43 TFLOPS FP32, while the NVIDIA N1X 48SM lists 28.83 TFLOPS FP32. Intel is 23.6 TFLOPS ahead in raw single-precision throughput.

Q: How do the memory bandwidth figures compare?

A: Intel delivers 3.28 TB/s through HBM2e on an 8192-bit bus. NVIDIA delivers 273.2 GB/s through LPDDR5X on a 256-bit bus. Intel's bandwidth is about 12 times higher.

Q: Which GPU can output to a display?

A: The NVIDIA N1X 48SM has one HDMI output. The Intel Data Center GPU Max 1550 has no display outputs and reports 0 MPixel/s pixel rate with zero ROPs.

Q: What are the process node differences?

A: Intel uses a 10 nm process from Intel's own foundry with a 1280 mm² die. NVIDIA uses a 5 nm process from TSMC with a 382 mm² die. The database does not list a transistor count for NVIDIA.

Q: Do both GPUs support the same APIs?

A: No. Intel lists DirectX 12 (12_1) and OpenGL 4.6 support. NVIDIA lists N/A for DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan, reflecting its integrated graphics role rather than a discrete accelerator role.

Q: What is the form factor difference?

A: Intel is an OAM module with a 600 W TDP and a suggested PSU of 1000 W. NVIDIA is an IGP with no listed TDP, no power connectors, and no suggested PSU.

The Verdict

The data indicates two different product categories. The Intel Data Center GPU Max 1550 is a compute accelerator with no display path. The NVIDIA N1X 48SM is an integrated processor with display output. Any workload that needs pixel output or rasterization must use the NVIDIA part, as Intel reports zero pixel rate and zero ROPs.

For compute-heavy tasks, the Intel card holds the specification advantage: 52.43 TFLOPS FP32 versus 28.83 TFLOPS, 16,384 shading units versus 6,144, and 3.28 TB/s memory bandwidth versus 273.2 GB/s. The Intel texture rate of 1,638.4 GTexel/s is also higher than NVIDIA's 900.9 GTexel/s. These numbers point to Intel as the stronger choice for workloads that saturate shader throughput and memory bandwidth, such as dense math or large data movement.

The NVIDIA part counters with a higher boost clock, 2346 MHz versus 1600 MHz, and a much smaller die at 382 mm² versus 1280 mm². It also uses a 5 nm TSMC process versus Intel's 10 nm process, which suggests better power efficiency per area, though the database does not list NVIDIA's TDP.

The absence of benchmark scores and the identical 50th percentile ranking mean the database cannot declare an overall winner. Buyers choosing purely on recorded performance data will find no measured results to separate them. Buyers choosing on specification limits will pick Intel for raw compute and memory bandwidth, or NVIDIA for display output and integrated form factor.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Data Center GPU Max 1550 | NVIDIA N1X 48SM |

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

| Architecture | Generation 12.5 | Blackwell 2.0 |

| Process node | 10 nm | 5 nm |

| Foundry | Intel | TSMC |

| Die size | 1280 mm² | 382 mm² |

| Base clock | 900 MHz | 741 MHz |

| Boost clock | 1600 MHz | 2346 MHz |

| Memory type | HBM2e | LPDDR5X |

| Memory bus | 8192 bit | 256 bit |

| Memory bandwidth | 3.28 TB/s | 273.2 GB/s |

| Shading units | 16384 | 6144 |

| TMUs | 1024 | 384 |

| ROPs | 0 | 48 |

| RT cores | 128 | 48 |

| Tensor cores | Not listed | 192 |

| Pixel rate | 0 MPixel/s | 112.6 GPixel/s |

| Texture rate | 1,638.4 GTexel/s | 900.9 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 52.43 TFLOPS | 28.83 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | 52.43 TFLOPS (1:1) | 28.83 TFLOPS (1:1) |

| TDP | 600 W | Unknown |

| Slot width | OAM Module | IGP |

| Power connectors | Not listed | None |

| Suggested PSU | 1000 W | Not listed |

| Display outputs | No outputs | 1x HDMI |

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

| OpenGL | 4.6 | N/A |

| Release date | 2023-01-09 | 2026-05-31 |

| Transistors | 100,000 million | Unknown |

Architecture Differences

The Intel Data Center GPU Max 1550 uses the Ponte Vecchio chip built on Generation 12.5 architecture. It is fabricated on a 10 nm process at Intel's own foundry, with 100,000 million transistors on a 1280 mm² die. The transistor density is listed as 78.1M per mm². The NVIDIA N1X 48SM uses the GB20B chip built on Blackwell 2.0 architecture. It is fabricated on a 5 nm process at TSMC, with a 382 mm² die and no transistor count listed.

The compute core counts differ substantially. Intel has 16,384 shading units, 1,024 texture mapping units, 0 ROPs, and 128 ray tracing cores. NVIDIA has 6,144 shading units, 384 TMUs, 48 ROPs, 48 ray tracing cores, and 192 tensor cores. Intel does not list tensor core count, while NVIDIA does not list ROP count as zero, instead providing 48.

Memory architecture is a major distinction. Intel uses HBM2e across 8,192 bits of bus width, yielding 3.28 TB/s bandwidth. NVIDIA uses LPDDR5X across 256 bits, yielding 273.2 GB/s bandwidth. The memory clock differs: Intel lists 1600 MHz memory clock with 3.2 Gbps effective, while NVIDIA lists 1067 MHz with 8.5 Gbps effective.

Feature support diverges on the API front. Intel lists DirectX 12 (12_1) and OpenGL 4.6, with no Vulkan entry. NVIDIA lists N/A for DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan. The NVIDIA part has a single HDMI output, while Intel has no display outputs at all. The Intel card is an OAM module with a 600 W TDP and a suggested PSU of 1000 W. The NVIDIA part is an IGP with no listed TDP, no power connectors, and no suggested PSU.

Release timing differs: the Intel part entered the database with a release date of 2023-01-09, while the NVIDIA part has a release date of 2026-05-31. The Intel part lists a successor, the H3C Graphics, while the NVIDIA part has no successor listed. Both parts are marked as Active in production status, and both use PCIe 5.0 x16 as the bus interface.