Intel Data Center GPU Max Subsystem vs NVIDIA N1 16SM Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded database contains no direct head-to-head benchmark runs for the Intel Data Center GPU Max Subsystem and the NVIDIA N1 16SM. Both entries report an average benchmark score of zero, and the wins tally for each side is also zero. This absence of measured performance data means the comparison must rely entirely on the specification sheets and architectural records.

The Intel part carries a reported FP32 throughput of 52.43 TFLOPS, while the NVIDIA N1 16SM delivers 9.609 TFLOPS in FP32. That places the Intel subsystem at approximately 5.45 times the raw single-precision compute of the NVIDIA part, a gap that speaks to their intended operating environments. The Intel GPU also reports an FP16 figure of 52.43 TFLOPS with a 1:1 ratio, while the NVIDIA part lists 9.609 TFLOPS FP16, also 1:1. Neither product has a separate tensor core FP16 figure recorded in the database, so the comparison stops at the shading-unit arithmetic.

Texture throughput shows a similar pattern. The Intel Data Center GPU Max Subsystem lists 1,638.4 GTexel/s, whereas the NVIDIA N1 16SM records 300.3 GTexel/s. That is roughly a 5.45 times advantage for Intel, consistent with the FP32 and FP16 ratios. Pixel rate, however, flips the story. The Intel part reports 0 MPixel/s, indicating no rasterization output stage is active, while the NVIDIA N1 16SM lists 56.30 GPixel/s. The Intel accelerator is not configured for pixel output, so any workload that depends on rasterization would find no support there.

Memory bandwidth also divides the two. The Intel subsystem reports 3.21 TB/s from an 8192-bit HBM2e interface, while the NVIDIA part reports 273.2 GB/s from a 256-bit LPDDR5X interface. The Intel bandwidth is roughly 11.75 times higher, a decisive margin for data-intensive workloads. Both devices carry 128 GB of memory, but the type and bus width differ substantially.

Clock behavior shows the NVIDIA part running higher boost frequencies. The Intel base clock is 900 MHz with a boost of 1600 MHz, while the NVIDIA base is 741 MHz and boost reaches 2346 MHz. The NVIDIA boost clock is 746 MHz higher, yet the Intel part still achieves far greater aggregate throughput due to its massive shader count and memory system.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has more shading units?

A: The Intel Data Center GPU Max Subsystem has 16,384 shading units, while the NVIDIA N1 16SM has 2,048 shading units. Intel also lists 1,024 TMUs against NVIDIA's 128.

Q: What is the memory configuration for each?

A: Both have 128 GB, but Intel uses HBM2e with an 8192-bit bus and 3.21 TB/s bandwidth, while NVIDIA uses LPDDR5X with a 256-bit bus and 273.2 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Do these GPUs support ray tracing?

A: Yes. Intel lists 128 RT cores, and NVIDIA lists 16 RT cores. The Intel subsystem also has no ROPs recorded, while NVIDIA has 24.

Q: What is the process node for each chip?

A: Intel uses a 10 nm process from Intel foundry, with a die size of 1280 mm² and 100,000 million transistors. NVIDIA uses a 5 nm process from TSMC, with a die size of 382 mm² and unknown transistor count.

Q: What are the power connector requirements?

A: Intel requires a 1x 16-pin power connector and lists a suggested PSU of 2800 W, with a TDP of 2400 W. NVIDIA's TDP is unknown, it uses no power connectors, and it is an IGP (integrated graphics processor).

Q: Which product has a display output?

A: The NVIDIA N1 16SM has 1x HDMI output. The Intel Data Center GPU Max Subsystem has no display outputs.

Architecture Differences

The Intel Data Center GPU Max Subsystem is built on the Ponte Vecchio chip, using Intel's Generation 12.5 architecture. The NVIDIA N1 16SM uses the GB20B chip and Blackwell 2.0 architecture. These are fundamentally different design targets. Intel's architecture is a data center accelerator, evidenced by zero ROPs and no display outputs, while NVIDIA's Blackwell 2.0 is an integrated graphics processor, noted by its IGP slot width and a single HDMI output.

The process nodes diverge sharply. Intel uses a 10 nm node from its own foundry, with a die size of 1280 mm² and 100,000 million transistors. The transistor density works out to 78.1M per mm². NVIDIA uses a 5 nm TSMC node with a 382 mm² die and unknown transistor count. The Intel die is roughly 3.35 times larger by area, and the transistor count is explicit while NVIDIA's is not recorded.

Ray tracing hardware exists on both. Intel lists 128 RT cores, NVIDIA lists 16. Tensor cores are present only on the NVIDIA part, which records 64 tensor cores; Intel's tensor core field is null. This means the Intel architecture does not expose a dedicated tensor core count in the database, while NVIDIA does. The shading unit ratio of 8:1 (Intel to NVIDIA) matches the TMU ratio of 8:1, suggesting a consistent design scaling for texture and compute paths, but the RT core ratio is also 8:1, and the tensor core disparity cannot be compared due to Intel's missing field.

The memory subsystem is another architectural fork. Intel uses HBM2e on an 8192-bit bus, a configuration designed for extreme bandwidth. NVIDIA uses LPDDR5X on a 256-bit bus, a low-power memory choice typical of integrated parts. The effective memory clock for Intel is 3.1 Gbps, while NVIDIA runs at 8.5 Gbps effective, but the bus width difference overwhelms the clock advantage.

Specification Differences

The two products differ across nearly every specification field. The Intel part has a base clock of 900 MHz and boost of 1600 MHz. The NVIDIA part has a base clock of 741 MHz and boost of 2346 MHz. Memory clock differs as well: Intel lists 1565 MHz with 3.1 Gbps effective, NVIDIA lists 1067 MHz with 8.5 Gbps effective.

Shading units: Intel 16,384, NVIDIA 2,048. TMUs: Intel 1,024, NVIDIA 128. ROPs: Intel 0, NVIDIA 24. RT cores: Intel 128, NVIDIA 16. Tensor cores: Intel null, NVIDIA 64. Pixel rate: Intel 0 MPixel/s, NVIDIA 56.30 GPixel/s. Texture rate: Intel 1,638.4 GTexel/s, NVIDIA 300.3 GTexel/s. FP32: Intel 52.43 TFLOPS, NVIDIA 9.609 TFLOPS. FP16: both 52.43 and 9.609 respectively, both at 1:1 ratio.

Power and physical specs diverge. Intel TDP is 2400 W, NVIDIA TDP is unknown. Intel uses a 1x 16-pin power connector and suggests a 2800 W PSU. NVIDIA uses no power connectors and has no suggested PSU. Intel is dual-slot with a length of 267 mm (10.5 inches), while NVIDIA is IGP with no recorded dimensions. Bus interface is PCIe 5.0 x16 for both.

Display outputs: Intel has none, NVIDIA has 1x HDMI. API support: Intel lists DirectX 12 (12_1) and OpenGL 4.6 with Vulkan null, NVIDIA lists DirectX N/A, OpenGL N/A, and Vulkan N/A. Release dates differ: Intel released on 2023-01-09, NVIDIA on 2026-05-31. Intel has a successor listed as H3C Graphics, while NVIDIA has no successor. Both are marked as Active production status.

The Verdict

The data indicates two products built for different purposes, not direct competitors. The Intel Data Center GPU Max Subsystem is a high-power, high-bandwidth accelerator with no display output, no ROPs, and a 2400 W TDP. It delivers 52.43 TFLOPS FP32 and 3.21 TB/s memory bandwidth, figures that only make sense in a server or data center context. The NVIDIA N1 16SM is an integrated GPU with a 5 nm process, a single HDMI output, 24 ROPs, and 9.609 TFLOPS FP32, clearly aimed at a client or embedded environment where power draw and physical footprint are constrained.

The benchmark database shows no head-to-head runs, and both parts sit at the 50th percentile versus all GPUs with an average score of zero. That neutral percentile offers no ranking signal. The architectural records, however, are unambiguous: the Intel part dominates in compute throughput, texture rate, memory bandwidth, and core counts, while the NVIDIA part dominates in pixel rate and offers the only display output.

For a workload that demands massive parallel compute and memory bandwidth, such as large-scale scientific simulation or AI training, the Intel subsystem is the only viable choice from this pair. For any workload that requires rasterization, video output, or low-power integration, the NVIDIA N1 16SM is the sole option. The choice is not about which is better; it is about which matches the intended use case.

Where Each One Wins

Intel wins decisively in raw compute. The FP32 figure of 52.43 TFLOPS versus 9.609 TFLOPS gives Intel a 5.45 times advantage. Texture rate follows the same ratio, with 1,638.4 GTexel/s against 300.3 GTexel/s. Memory bandwidth of 3.21 TB/s versus 273.2 GB/s is an even larger margin, roughly 11.75 times. The Intel part also has 128 RT cores versus 16, an 8:1 ratio. Any workload that scales with shading units, texture fill, or memory bandwidth belongs to Intel.

NVIDIA wins in pixel throughput and display capability. The 56.30 GPixel/s pixel rate is entirely absent on Intel, which reports 0 MPixel/s. The single HDMI output on NVIDIA makes it the only one of the two that can drive a display. The NVIDIA part also has 64 tensor cores, a feature Intel does not list. For graphics output, rasterization, or any application that requires a visible framebuffer, NVIDIA is the only contender.

The clock speed story favors NVIDIA for per-core performance. The 2346 MHz boost versus 1600 MHz suggests the NVIDIA cores run faster individually, but the core count difference of 8:1 in Intel's favor negates that advantage in aggregate. The NVIDIA part also uses a newer process node (5 nm vs 10 nm) and a smaller die (382 mm² vs 1280 mm²), which indicates a power-efficient design, though the TDP is unknown for NVIDIA.

The production status for both is Active, and both use PCIe 5.0 x16. Release timing differs by over three years, with Intel launching in January 2023 and NVIDIA in May 2026. The Intel part has a successor (H3C Graphics), while NVIDIA does not. For data center compute, Intel wins. For integrated graphics with display output, NVIDIA wins. The database shows no overlap in their functional domains.