Intel Data Center GPU Max 1550 vs NVIDIA RTX PRO 4500 Blackwell Workstation Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Data Center GPU Max 1550 and the NVIDIA RTX PRO 4500 Blackwell Workstation serve fundamentally different roles, and the recorded specifications make that split clear. The Intel part is built around massive memory capacity and raw compute throughput, while the NVIDIA part is a workstation-focused card with display outputs and a conventional form factor.

For memory-bound workloads, the Intel Data Center GPU Max 1550 is the clear leader. It carries 128 GB of HBM2e memory across an 8192-bit bus, delivering 3.28 TB/s of bandwidth. The NVIDIA RTX PRO 4500 has 32 GB of GDDR7 on a 256-bit bus, reaching 896.0 GB/s. The Intel part offers 4 times the capacity and roughly 3.7 times the bandwidth. Any workload that requires holding large datasets close to the processor, such as large language model inference or scientific simulation, will favor the Intel card.

For raw FP32 compute, the two are nearly matched. The Intel card delivers 52.43 TFLOPS, while the NVIDIA card delivers 50.53 TFLOPS. That difference is only about 3.8% in favor of Intel. In FP16, both maintain a 1:1 ratio, so the same margin persists. This means the Intel card has a slight theoretical edge in general compute, but the gap is small enough that other factors, such as driver maturity and software ecosystem, will likely decide real-world performance.

The NVIDIA RTX PRO 4500 wins in every area related to graphics and display. It has a pixel rate of 269.6 GPixel/s, while the Intel card has a pixel rate of 0 MPixel/s. The NVIDIA card includes 112 ROPs, 82 RT cores, and 328 tensor cores. The Intel card has 128 RT cores but no ROPs and no tensor cores. The NVIDIA card also outputs to 4x DisplayPort 2.1b, while the Intel card has no display outputs at all. For any rendering, ray tracing, or display-driven workstation task, the NVIDIA card is the only viable option.

The power envelope also separates them decisively. The Intel card has a 600 W TDP and requires a 1000 W suggested PSU. The NVIDIA card has a 200 W TDP and a 550 W suggested PSU. The NVIDIA card consumes one-third the power of the Intel part, making it far more practical for desktop workstations and multi-GPU configurations in standard chassis.

Architecture Differences

The two accelerators come from different fabrication approaches and design philosophies. The Intel Data Center GPU Max 1550 uses the Ponte Vecchio chip, built on Intel's 10 nm process with 100,000 million transistors on a 1280 mm² die. The transistor density is 78.1 million per mm². This is a massive, multi-tile design aimed at data center compute density.

The NVIDIA RTX PRO 4500 uses the GB203 chip, built on TSMC's 5 nm process with 45,600 million transistors on a 378 mm² die. The transistor density is 120.6 million per mm². The NVIDIA chip is considerably smaller and denser, which explains its much lower power draw.

The Intel architecture is Generation 12.5, while the NVIDIA architecture is Blackwell 2.0. Both support PCIe 5.0 x16, so host connectivity is identical. The Intel card is an OAM Module, meaning it is designed for server racks rather than desktop systems. The NVIDIA card is a Dual-slot design, 267 mm long, 111 mm tall, and 40 mm wide, fitting into standard workstation chassis.

Memory technology differs completely. Intel uses HBM2e, a high-bandwidth stacked memory designed for compute density. NVIDIA uses GDDR7, a graphics memory type that balances bandwidth with cost and power. The Intel card has 16,384 shading units and 1,024 TMUs, while the NVIDIA card has 10,496 shading units and 328 TMUs. The Intel card has more than 1.5 times the shading units and more than 3 times the TMUs.

The RT core counts also differ: 128 on the Intel card versus 82 on the NVIDIA card. However, the Intel card has no tensor cores, while the NVIDIA card has 328. The Intel card also has zero ROPs, making it incapable of rasterization output. The NVIDIA card supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) and Vulkan 1.4, while the Intel card supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and OpenGL 4.6 with no Vulkan listing.

The release timeline also differs. The Intel card was released on January 9, 2023, while the NVIDIA card was released on March 17, 2025. The NVIDIA card has a predecessor named Workstation Ada, while the Intel card has a successor named H3C Graphics.

FAQ

Q: Which card has more memory bandwidth?

A: The Intel Data Center GPU Max 1550 delivers 3.28 TB/s of bandwidth, which is about 3.7 times the 896.0 GB/s of the NVIDIA RTX PRO 4500.

Q: Can the Intel card drive displays?

A: No. The Intel card has no display outputs and a pixel rate of 0 MPixel/s. The NVIDIA card has 4x DisplayPort 2.1b outputs and a pixel rate of 269.6 GPixel/s.

Q: Which card is more power efficient?

A: The NVIDIA RTX PRO 4500 has a 200 W TDP and a 550 W suggested PSU, while the Intel card has a 600 W TDP and a 1000 W suggested PSU. The NVIDIA card uses one-third the power.

Q: Do both cards support PCIe 5.0?

A: Yes. Both the Intel Data Center GPU Max 1550 and the NVIDIA RTX PRO 4500 use a PCIe 5.0 x16 bus interface.

Q: Which card has tensor cores?

A: Only the NVIDIA RTX PRO 4500 has tensor cores, with 328 available. The Intel card lists no tensor cores.

Q: What is the FP32 compute difference between the two?

A: The Intel card delivers 52.43 TFLOPS, while the NVIDIA card delivers 50.53 TFLOPS. The Intel part is ahead by roughly 3.8%.

Specification Differences

The following fields show where the two cards differ according to the database records:

| Specification | Intel Data Center GPU Max 1550 | NVIDIA RTX PRO 4500 Blackwell Workstation |

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

| Chip | Ponte Vecchio | GB203 |

| Architecture | Generation 12.5 | Blackwell 2.0 |

| 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 | 1635 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 1600 MHz | 2407 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 1600 MHz, 3.2 Gbps effective | 1750 MHz, 28 Gbps effective |

| Memory Size | 128 GB | 32 GB |

| Memory Type | HBM2e | GDDR7 |

| Memory Bus Width | 8192 bit | 256 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 3.28 TB/s | 896.0 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 16384 | 10496 |

| TMUs | 1024 | 328 |

| ROPs | 0 | 112 |

| RT Cores | 128 | 82 |

| Tensor Cores | None | 328 |

| Pixel Rate | 0 MPixel/s | 269.6 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 1,638.4 GTexel/s | 789.5 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 52.43 TFLOPS | 50.53 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | 52.43 TFLOPS (1:1) | 50.53 TFLOPS (1:1) |

| TDP | 600 W | 200 W |

| Slot Width | OAM Module | Dual-slot |

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

| Suggested PSU | 1000 W | 550 W |

| Display Outputs | No outputs | 4x DisplayPort 2.1b |

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

| Vulkan | Not listed | 1.4 |

| Dimensions | Not listed | 267 mm x 111 mm x 40 mm |

| Release Date | 2023-01-09 | 2025-03-17 |

| Predecessor | None | Workstation Ada |

| Successor | H3C Graphics | None |

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database shows no direct head-to-head benchmark results for these two accelerators, so the comparison must rest on the recorded specification data. The biggest win for the Intel card is memory bandwidth. At 3.28 TB/s versus 896.0 GB/s, the Intel card is approximately 3.7 times faster. This is a decisive advantage for any workload that streams large volumes of data through memory.

The Intel card also leads in texture rate. Its 1,638.4 GTexel/s is more than double the 789.5 GTexel/s of the NVIDIA card. This suggests that texture-heavy compute tasks, when they can be offloaded, will execute faster on the Intel part.

The FP32 compute gap is narrow but real. The Intel card posts 52.43 TFLOPS against 50.53 TFLOPS. That is a 1.90 TFLOPS difference, or about 3.8% ahead. The FP16 figures are identical in ratio, so the same margin holds there.

The NVIDIA card wins decisively in pixel throughput. Its 269.6 GPixel/s compares to 0 MPixel/s on the Intel card. The NVIDIA card also has 112 ROPs, while the Intel card has none. This is not a marginal difference; it is a categorical one. The NVIDIA card can render images; the Intel card cannot.

Clock speeds also favor the NVIDIA card. Its base clock is 1635 MHz versus 900 MHz on the Intel card, and its boost clock is 2407 MHz versus 1600 MHz. Higher clocks typically translate to better latency-sensitive performance, even when the shader count is lower.

The NVIDIA card also has 328 tensor cores, while the Intel card has none. For AI inference and training workloads that rely on tensor operations, the NVIDIA card has dedicated hardware. The Intel card must use its general-purpose shading units for such tasks.

The Verdict

The data points to two different buyers. The Intel Data Center GPU Max 1550 is for compute-dense data center installations where memory capacity and bandwidth are the limiting factors. Its 128 GB of HBM2e and 3.28 TB/s bandwidth make it suitable for large-scale scientific computing, simulation, and workloads that require holding massive datasets in fast memory. Its 600 W TDP and OAM Module form factor indicate a rack-mounted server environment, not a desktop workstation.

The NVIDIA RTX PRO 4500 Blackwell Workstation is for professional graphics and workstation tasks. It is the only one of the two with display outputs, a pixel rate, and ROPs. Its 32 GB of GDDR7 and 896.0 GB/s bandwidth are sufficient for professional rendering, video editing, and AI-assisted workflows. Its 200 W TDP and Dual-slot design allow it to fit into standard desktop chassis with a 550 W PSU.

The compute gap is close enough that the Intel card's 3.8% FP32 lead will rarely decide a purchase. The memory gap is large enough that it will. The NVIDIA card's display capability is exclusive, and its tensor cores provide dedicated AI acceleration that the Intel card lacks.

Buyers who need a graphics card for a workstation should select the NVIDIA RTX PRO 4500. Buyers who need a memory-dense accelerator for a server rack should select the Intel Data Center GPU Max 1550. The two products do not compete in the same use case, and the specification data confirms that split.