Intel Data Center GPU Max 1550 vs NVIDIA Rubin GPU Comparison

Intel Data Center GPU Max 1550 and NVIDIA Rubin GPU represent two distinct approaches to data center acceleration. The Intel part is built on the Ponte Vecchio chip with a Generation 12.5 architecture, while the NVIDIA part uses the GR100 chip with the Rubin architecture. Both are active production parts with no display outputs, but their technical profiles differ substantially across compute, memory, and interface specifications.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database does not contain direct benchmark scores for either GPU, so the comparison relies on recorded technical specifications and their implications for compute workloads. The most significant advantage for the NVIDIA Rubin GPU appears in raw floating-point throughput. The Rubin GPU delivers 130.0 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, compared to 52.43 TFLOPS for the Intel Data Center GPU Max 1550. That puts the NVIDIA part at roughly 2.5 times the FP32 capability of the Intel part, a substantial lead for general compute tasks that rely on single-precision arithmetic.

The gap widens further in FP16 performance. The NVIDIA Rubin GPU reaches 260.0 TFLOPS with a 2:1 ratio relative to its FP32 output, meaning it doubles its throughput when operating on half-precision data. The Intel Data Center GPU Max 1550 offers 52.43 TFLOPS of FP16 with a 1:1 ratio, so it does not gain any additional throughput from reduced precision. The result is a 5x difference in FP16 capability, which matters for AI inference and training workloads that commonly use half-precision formats.

Texture processing also favors the NVIDIA part, though by a smaller margin. The Rubin GPU achieves a texture rate of 2,031.2 GTexel/s, while the Intel Max 1550 records 1,638.4 GTexel/s. That represents a 24% advantage for the NVIDIA GPU in texture-heavy operations. Pixel rate tells a different story, as the Intel part has 0 ROPs and a pixel rate of 0 MPixel/s, while the NVIDIA part has 24 ROPs and a pixel rate of 54.41 GPixel/s. The Intel GPU is not designed for rasterization output, so the NVIDIA part dominates any pixel-generation workload by default.

Memory bandwidth is another major differentiator. The NVIDIA Rubin GPU provides 22.1 TB/s of bandwidth from its HBM4 memory stack, compared to 3.28 TB/s from the Intel Max 1550's HBM2e memory. That is a 6.7x bandwidth advantage for the NVIDIA part, which directly impacts memory-bound workloads such as large model inference, data analytics, and scientific simulations. The NVIDIA GPU also has more memory capacity at 288 GB versus 128 GB, giving it more room for large datasets and model weights.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA Rubin GPU wins across almost every measurable compute category in the database. Its FP32 and FP16 throughput are multiples of the Intel part, its texture rate is higher, its pixel rate is functional versus non-functional, and its memory bandwidth and capacity are both larger. This makes the NVIDIA part the clear choice for AI training, inference, and any workload that benefits from high floating-point throughput and massive memory bandwidth.

The Intel Data Center GPU Max 1550 does have specific structural advantages. It uses a PCIe 5.0 x16 interface, while the NVIDIA Rubin GPU uses PCIe 6.0 x16. The Intel part also has a lower power draw at 600 W TDP versus 2300 W for the NVIDIA part, and it suggests a 1000 W PSU compared to 2700 W for the NVIDIA part. These figures indicate that the Intel GPU can be deployed in systems with less demanding power infrastructure, which may suit certain rack-level density or cooling constraints.

The Intel part also has a higher base clock at 900 MHz versus 700 MHz for the NVIDIA part, though the NVIDIA part boosts to 2267 MHz compared to 1600 MHz for the Intel part. The Intel GPU includes 128 ray tracing cores, while the NVIDIA part does not list RT cores in the database. The Intel part also supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and OpenGL 4.6, whereas the NVIDIA part lists all APIs as N/A. For workloads that require those specific graphics APIs, the Intel GPU has a functional path while the NVIDIA part does not.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs are built on different process nodes and foundries. The Intel Data Center GPU Max 1550 uses a 10 nm process at Intel, while the NVIDIA Rubin GPU uses a 3 nm process at TSMC. The transistor counts reflect the node difference: the Intel chip packs 100,000 million transistors on a 1280 mm² die, while the NVIDIA chip has 336,000 million transistors on a 1456 mm² die. The transistor density for the NVIDIA part is 230.8M per mm², versus 78.1M per mm² for the Intel part, indicating a much tighter integration on the newer process.

Memory architecture differs significantly. The Intel Max 1550 uses HBM2e with an 8192-bit bus and a memory clock of 1600 MHz, which translates to 3.2 Gbps effective. The NVIDIA Rubin GPU uses HBM4 with a 16384-bit bus and a memory clock of 2695 MHz, translating to 10.8 Gbps effective. The wider bus and faster memory clock on the NVIDIA part produce the 22.1 TB/s bandwidth figure, while the Intel part's narrower and slower memory configuration yields 3.28 TB/s.

Compute unit counts also diverge. The Intel GPU has 16384 shading units, 1024 TMUs, and no ROPs. The NVIDIA GPU has 28672 shading units, 896 TMUs, and 24 ROPs. The NVIDIA part also lists 896 tensor cores, while the Intel part has no tensor core field in the database. The Intel part includes 128 RT cores, which the NVIDIA part does not specify. These structural differences explain the FP32 and FP16 performance gaps, as the NVIDIA part has nearly double the shading units and dedicated tensor hardware.

Form factor and interface details also differ. The Intel part uses an OAM Module slot width, while the NVIDIA part uses an SXM Module. The Intel part connects via PCIe 5.0 x16, and the NVIDIA part via PCIe 6.0 x16. Neither part has display outputs, and both are listed with a percentile rank of 50 against all GPUs in the database, which places them at the median in the recorded distribution.

The Verdict

The data indicates that the NVIDIA Rubin GPU is the stronger compute platform for FP32 and FP16 workloads, memory-bound tasks, and any application requiring high bandwidth or large memory capacity. Its 130.0 TFLOPS FP32 and 260.0 TFLOPS FP16 figures, combined with 22.1 TB/s bandwidth and 288 GB of HBM4, position it as a high-end accelerator for AI and scientific computing. The Intel Data Center GPU Max 1550, with 52.43 TFLOPS in both FP32 and FP16, 3.28 TB/s bandwidth, and 128 GB of HBM2e, sits at a lower performance tier.

The Intel part does have a lower power requirement at 600 W versus 2300 W, and it supports PCIe 5.0 rather than PCIe 6.0, which may matter for existing infrastructure compatibility. It also has RT cores and graphics API support, making it usable in certain graphics or ray tracing contexts where the NVIDIA part has no listed API support. However, for raw compute density, the NVIDIA part delivers 2.5x the FP32 throughput, 5x the FP16 throughput, and 6.7x the memory bandwidth, all within a larger but still single-module form factor.

For users prioritizing maximum compute throughput in AI, HPC, or data analytics, the NVIDIA Rubin GPU is the data-backed choice. For users constrained by power budgets or needing PCIe 5.0 compatibility and graphics API support, the Intel Data Center GPU Max 1550 offers a viable alternative with lower system-level demands.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher FP32 performance?

A: The NVIDIA Rubin GPU delivers 130.0 TFLOPS of FP32, while the Intel Data Center GPU Max 1550 delivers 52.43 TFLOPS.

Q: How does memory bandwidth compare between the two?

A: The NVIDIA Rubin GPU provides 22.1 TB/s from HBM4 memory, while the Intel Data Center GPU Max 1550 provides 3.28 TB/s from HBM2e memory.

Q: Which GPU has more memory capacity?

A: The NVIDIA Rubin GPU has 288 GB of memory, compared to 128 GB on the Intel Data Center GPU Max 1550.

Q: Does either GPU support ray tracing?

A: The Intel Data Center GPU Max 1550 includes 128 ray tracing cores, while the NVIDIA Rubin GPU does not list RT cores in the database.

Q: What are the power requirements for each GPU?

A: The Intel Data Center GPU Max 1550 has a 600 W TDP with a suggested PSU of 1000 W. The NVIDIA Rubin GPU has a 2300 W TDP with a suggested PSU of 2700 W.

Q: Which GPU supports PCIe 6.0?

A: The NVIDIA Rubin GPU uses a PCIe 6.0 x16 interface, while the Intel Data Center GPU Max 1550 uses PCIe 5.0 x16.

Specification Differences

| Field | Intel Data Center GPU Max 1550 | NVIDIA Rubin GPU |

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

| Chip | Ponte Vecchio | GR100 |

| Architecture | Generation 12.5 | Rubin |

| Process Node | 10 nm | 3 nm |

| Foundry | Intel | TSMC |

| Transistors | 100,000 million | 336,000 million |

| Die Size | 1280 mm² | 1456 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 78.1M / mm² | 230.8M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 900 MHz | 700 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 1600 MHz | 2267 MHz |

| Memory Size | 128 GB | 288 GB |

| Memory Type | HBM2e | HBM4 |

| Memory Bus Width | 8192 bit | 16384 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 3.28 TB/s | 22.1 TB/s |

| Shading Units | 16384 | 28672 |

| TMUs | 1024 | 896 |

| ROPs | 0 | 24 |

| RT Cores | 128 | N/A |

| Tensor Cores | N/A | 896 |

| Pixel Rate | 0 MPixel/s | 54.41 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 1,638.4 GTexel/s | 2,031.2 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Performance | 52.43 TFLOPS | 130.0 TFLOPS |

| FP16 Performance | 52.43 TFLOPS (1:1) | 260.0 TFLOPS (2:1) |

| TDP | 600 W | 2300 W |

| Slot Width | OAM Module | SXM Module |

| Suggested PSU | 1000 W | 2700 W |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 5.0 x16 | PCIe 6.0 x16 |

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

| OpenGL Support | 4.6 | N/A |

| Release Date | 2023-01-09 | 2025-12-31 |