Intel Data Center GPU Max Subsystem vs NVIDIA N1 20SM Comparison

The Intel Data Center GPU Max Subsystem and the NVIDIA N1 20SM occupy opposite ends of the hardware spectrum, yet both are listed as active products in the database. The Intel part is a massive, 1280 mm² compute accelerator built on an Intel 10 nm process, while the NVIDIA part is a compact 382 mm² integrated graphics processor (IGP) fabricated by TSMC on a 5 nm node. Benchmark results for both are sparse, with no recorded head-to-head runs and equal percentile standings, so the analysis below relies entirely on the architectural and specification data recorded in the database.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher boost clock speed?

A: The NVIDIA N1 20SM boosts to 2346 MHz, which is significantly higher than the Intel Data Center GPU Max Subsystem’s 1600 MHz boost clock. The Intel part’s base clock is 900 MHz, while the NVIDIA part’s base clock is 741 MHz.

Q: How do the memory subsystems compare?

A: The Intel Data Center GPU Max Subsystem uses 128 GB of HBM2e across an 8192-bit bus, delivering 3.21 TB/s of bandwidth. The NVIDIA N1 20SM also has 128 GB, but it is LPDDR5X on a 256-bit bus, providing 273.2 GB/s. The Intel memory bandwidth is roughly 11.7 times higher.

Q: Which processor has more shading units?

A: The Intel Data Center GPU Max Subsystem has 16,384 shading units, compared to 2,560 on the NVIDIA N1 20SM. The Intel part also has 1,024 texture mapping units and 128 ray tracing cores, whereas the NVIDIA part has 160 texture mapping units, 24 ROPs, and 20 ray tracing cores.

Q: What are the floating-point performance figures?

A: The Intel Data Center GPU Max Subsystem delivers 52.43 TFLOPS for both FP32 and FP16 (1:1 ratio). The NVIDIA N1 20SM delivers 12.01 TFLOPS for both FP32 and FP16 (1:1 ratio). That places the Intel part 4.36 times ahead in raw throughput.

Q: What are the physical and power characteristics?

A: The Intel Data Center GPU Max Subsystem is a dual-slot card, 267 mm long, with a 2400 W TDP and a single 16-pin power connector. The NVIDIA N1 20SM is an IGP with no slot width, no power connectors, and an unknown TDP. The Intel part’s suggested PSU is 2800 W, while no such value is recorded for the NVIDIA part.

Q: Do both support the same PCIe interface?

A: Yes, both use a PCIe 5.0 x16 bus interface. However, the Intel part has no display outputs, while the NVIDIA N1 20SM has a single HDMI output. The NVIDIA part has no API support listed (DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan are all marked N/A), whereas the Intel part supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and OpenGL 4.6.

Architecture Differences

The two processors are built on fundamentally different architectures. The Intel Data Center GPU Max Subsystem uses the Ponte Vecchio chip, which is part of the Generation 12.5 architecture. The NVIDIA N1 20SM uses the GB20B chip, built on the Blackwell 2.0 architecture. The Intel part is manufactured on a 10 nm process at Intel’s own foundry, while the NVIDIA part uses a 5 nm process from TSMC. The transistor counts differ dramatically: the Intel chip integrates 100,000 million transistors on a die size of 1280 mm², giving a density of 78.1 million transistors per square millimeter. The NVIDIA chip’s transistor count is listed as unknown, but its die size is 382 mm², which is about 29.8% of the Intel die’s area.

The memory technology separates them further. The Intel accelerator uses HBM2e with a 1565 MHz memory clock (3.1 Gbps effective), while the NVIDIA IGP uses LPDDR5X at 1067 MHz (8.5 Gbps effective). The Intel memory bus is 8192 bits wide, which is 32 times wider than the NVIDIA’s 256-bit bus. That width, combined with the higher memory clock, produces the 3.21 TB/s bandwidth versus 273.2 GB/s. The Intel part has no ROPs, resulting in a 0 MPixel/s pixel rate, whereas the NVIDIA part has 24 ROPs and a 56.30 GPixel/s pixel rate. The Intel part’s texture rate is 1,638.4 GTexel/s, while the NVIDIA part delivers 375.4 GTexel/s.

The NVIDIA N1 20SM includes 80 tensor cores, which are not listed for the Intel part. The Intel part has 128 ray tracing cores, while the NVIDIA part has 20. Neither lists a game clock, and both are classified as active production parts. The Intel part’s release date is January 9, 2023, and its successor is listed as H3C Graphics. The NVIDIA part’s release date is May 31, 2026, with no successor recorded.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains no direct benchmark comparisons between the Intel Data Center GPU Max Subsystem and the NVIDIA N1 20SM. The head-to-head benchmark array is empty, and the win counts are zero for both sides. However, the specification data allows for clear performance projections. The Intel part’s FP32 throughput of 52.43 TFLOPS is 4.36 times the NVIDIA’s 12.01 TFLOPS. In FP16, the ratio is identical, as both parts maintain a 1:1 FP16 to FP32 ratio. Texture rate favors the Intel part by a factor of 4.36 as well, with 1,638.4 GTexel/s versus 375.4 GTexel/s. Pixel rate is the only metric where the NVIDIA part leads, at 56.30 GPixel/s compared to 0 MPixel/s for the Intel part, which has no ROPs.

Memory bandwidth is the largest differential. The Intel part’s 3.21 TB/s is approximately 11.7 times the NVIDIA’s 273.2 GB/s. That gap is driven by the Intel part’s 8192-bit bus, which is 32 times wider than the NVIDIA’s 256-bit bus. The NVIDIA part compensates with a higher effective memory clock (8.5 Gbps versus 3.1 Gbps), but the bus width difference overwhelms that advantage. The NVIDIA part’s boost clock of 2346 MHz is 1.47 times the Intel’s 1600 MHz, but that does little to close the gap in raw compute throughput, given the Intel part’s far larger execution resource count.

The NVIDIA N1 20SM has a higher base clock in terms of boost-to-base ratio, but the Intel part’s base clock of 900 MHz is actually higher than the NVIDIA’s 741 MHz. The Intel part’s shading units (16,384) outnumber the NVIDIA’s (2,560) by a factor of 6.4. TMUs follow the same pattern: 1,024 versus 160, a 6.4-fold difference. Ray tracing cores are 128 versus 20, a 6.4-fold difference as well, which suggests the Intel part scales its execution units uniformly. The NVIDIA part’s tensor cores (80) are not matched in the Intel data, though the Intel part does not list tensor core counts at all.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in nearly every recorded specification field. Process node: Intel uses 10 nm, NVIDIA uses 5 nm. Foundry: Intel versus TSMC. Transistors: 100,000 million for Intel, unknown for NVIDIA. Die size: 1280 mm² versus 382 mm². Transistor density: 78.1M / mm² for Intel, not listed for NVIDIA. Base clock: 900 MHz versus 741 MHz. Boost clock: 1600 MHz versus 2346 MHz. Memory clock: 1565 MHz (3.1 Gbps effective) versus 1067 MHz (8.5 Gbps effective). Memory size is the same at 128 GB, but type differs (HBM2e versus LPDDR5X). Bus width: 8192 bits versus 256 bits. Bandwidth: 3.21 TB/s versus 273.2 GB/s.

Shading units: 16,384 versus 2,560. TMUs: 1,024 versus 160. ROPs: 0 versus 24. Ray tracing cores: 128 versus 20. Tensor cores: not listed for Intel, 80 for NVIDIA. Pixel rate: 0 MPixel/s versus 56.30 GPixel/s. Texture rate: 1,638.4 GTexel/s versus 375.4 GTexel/s. FP32: 52.43 TFLOPS versus 12.01 TFLOPS. FP16: 52.43 TFLOPS versus 12.01 TFLOPS. TDP: 2400 W for Intel, unknown for NVIDIA. Slot width: dual-slot versus IGP. Power connectors: 1x 16-pin versus none. Suggested PSU: 2800 W for Intel, null for NVIDIA. Bus interface is identical (PCIe 5.0 x16). Display outputs: none for Intel, 1x HDMI for NVIDIA.

APIs: 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. Dimensions: Intel is 267 mm long (10.5 inches), while NVIDIA has no recorded length, height, or width. Production status is active for both. Release dates differ by over three years. Intel’s predecessor is null, and its successor is H3C Graphics; NVIDIA’s predecessor and successor are both null. Launch MSRP is absent for both, so no pricing information is available.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Data Center GPU Max Subsystem wins decisively in compute-heavy workloads. Its FP32 and FP16 throughput of 52.43 TFLOPS is more than four times that of the NVIDIA N1 20SM, making it the stronger choice for general-purpose parallel computation, scientific simulation, and any task that stresses floating-point math. The Intel part’s 3.21 TB/s memory bandwidth is nearly 12 times the NVIDIA’s, which gives it a major advantage in memory-bound workloads such as large matrix operations, data processing, and training or inference tasks that require rapid access to large datasets. The Intel part’s 128 GB of HBM2e, accessed through an 8192-bit bus, provides a memory subsystem designed for sustained high-throughput access.

The Intel part also leads in texture processing with 1,638.4 GTexel/s, more than four times the NVIDIA’s 375.4 GTexel/s, and it has 6.4 times the shading units and TMUs. The 128 ray tracing cores on the Intel part outnumber the NVIDIA’s 20, suggesting an advantage in ray-traced workloads if the software stack supports them. The Intel part supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and OpenGL 4.6, which makes it suitable for environments that rely on those APIs, though it has no display outputs, so it cannot drive a monitor directly.

The NVIDIA N1 20SM wins in areas tied to its integrated design and higher clock speeds. Its boost clock of 2346 MHz is 47% higher than the Intel’s 1600 MHz, which helps in latency-sensitive tasks that do not scale with massive parallelism. The NVIDIA part has 24 ROPs and a 56.30 GPixel/s pixel rate, while the Intel part has zero ROPs and a 0 MPixel/s pixel rate, so the NVIDIA part is the only one of the two that can perform traditional rasterization output. The NVIDIA part also includes 80 tensor cores, which are absent from the Intel specification list, indicating a dedicated path for tensor operations. Its 128 GB of LPDDR5X memory, while slower in aggregate bandwidth, uses a 256-bit bus and a higher effective memory clock of 8.5 Gbps, which may be more power-efficient per byte moved.

The NVIDIA part’s IGP form factor, with no power connectors and an unknown TDP, contrasts sharply with the Intel part’s 2400 W TDP and 2800 W suggested PSU. The NVIDIA part fits into systems without discrete power delivery, and its single HDMI output allows direct display connection, which the Intel part cannot do. The NVIDIA part’s 5 nm process node versus the Intel part’s 10 nm node suggests a denser, more modern manufacturing process, though the Intel part’s transistor count is still far higher. The NVIDIA part also has a smaller die, 382 mm² versus 1280 mm², which typically correlates with lower manufacturing cost per unit, though no pricing is recorded.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear split by use case. The Intel Data Center GPU Max Subsystem is built for maximum compute density: it packs 100,000 million transistors into a 1280 mm² die, uses 128 GB of HBM2e with 3.21 TB/s bandwidth, and delivers 52.43 TFLOPS of FP32 and FP16 throughput. That makes it the appropriate choice for anyone who needs raw parallel processing power, large memory bandwidth, or high texture throughput. Its lack of ROPs and display outputs confirms it is not intended for rendering to a screen. The 2400 W TDP and 2800 W suggested PSU mean it requires a dedicated power infrastructure, but the database records it as an active product with a successor named H3C Graphics.

The NVIDIA N1 20SM, by contrast, is a compact IGP with a 382 mm² die, a 5 nm TSMC process, and no power connectors. Its 12.01 TFLOPS of FP32 and FP16 is lower by a factor of 4.36, and its 273.2 GB/s bandwidth is lower by a factor of 11.7. However, it is the only one of the two with ROPs, a pixel rate, tensor cores, a display output, and a higher boost clock. Its 2346 MHz boost is substantially higher than the Intel part’s 1600 MHz, and its 56.30 GPixel/s pixel rate is a feature the Intel part cannot offer at all. The NVIDIA part supports no DirectX, OpenGL, or Vulkan APIs in the recorded data, which limits its software compatibility to non-graphics compute stacks. Its release date is May 31, 2026, which is later than the Intel part’s January 9, 2023 release.

For pure compute throughput, the Intel Data Center GPU Max Subsystem is the stronger processor by every measured compute metric. For integrated deployment, display output, rasterization, and tensor-specific workloads, the NVIDIA N1 20SM is the only viable option among the two. The absence of shared benchmarks means these conclusions come from the recorded specifications, but the differences are large enough that the outcome is unlikely to change. The Intel part leads in scale, bandwidth, and raw FLOPS; the NVIDIA part leads in clock speed, pixel output, and integrated functionality.