Intel Data Center GPU Max Subsystem vs NVIDIA N1X 40SM Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows no benchmark scores for either the Intel Data Center GPU Max Subsystem or the NVIDIA N1X 40SM. Both entries carry an average benchmark score of 0 and a percentile rank of 50 among all GPUs in the database. With zero head-to-head benchmark results, no direct performance comparison can be made from measured workloads. The absence of scores means the database cannot confirm any advantage for either part in compute, graphics, or ray tracing tests. What remains available is the full specification sheet, which allows for a structural comparison of capabilities, but not a numeric performance verdict.

The Intel part is specified with 52.43 TFLOPS of FP32 compute, while the NVIDIA part delivers 24.02 TFLOPS of FP32. That places Intel at more than double the raw floating-point throughput on paper. Texture rate follows the same pattern: Intel lists 1,638.4 GTexel/s versus 750.7 GTexel/s for NVIDIA. Pixel rate, however, is reversed. The Intel accelerator shows 0 MPixel/s, meaning it has no raster output pipeline, while the NVIDIA IGP shows 93.84 GPixel/s. The Intel device is not designed for display output, confirmed by its "No outputs" display configuration, whereas the NVIDIA part includes 1x HDMI.

The FP16 figures mirror FP32 exactly for both parts, with Intel at 52.43 TFLOPS (1:1) and NVIDIA at 24.02 TFLOPS (1:1). Neither chip scales FP16 throughput relative to FP32, which indicates a 1:1 ratio in both architectures. The Intel side has 128 ray tracing cores, the NVIDIA side has 40. The NVIDIA part also includes 160 tensor cores, a feature the Intel specification lists as null, meaning the database records no tensor core count for Ponte Vecchio.

Memory bandwidth is a major separator. Intel uses 128 GB of HBM2e across an 8192-bit bus for 3.21 TB/s of bandwidth. NVIDIA uses 128 GB of LPDDR5X across a 256-bit bus for 273.2 GB/s. That is a factor of roughly 11.7 in favor of Intel in raw memory throughput. The memory type and bus width differences explain the gap. Intel also has a much higher memory clock at 1565 MHz (3.1 Gbps effective) compared to 1067 MHz (8.5 Gbps effective) for NVIDIA, though the effective data rate is higher on the NVIDIA module due to the LPDDR5X signaling.

Clock speeds tell a different story. The Intel base clock is 900 MHz with a boost of 1600 MHz. The NVIDIA base clock is 741 MHz with a boost of 2346 MHz. The NVIDIA part boosts to a substantially higher frequency, but it does so with far fewer shading units: 5120 versus 16384 for Intel. The Intel part also has 1024 texture mapping units versus 320 for NVIDIA, and 0 ROPs versus 40 for NVIDIA.

Architecture Differences

The two chips come from different foundries and process nodes. Intel builds Ponte Vecchio on a 10 nm process at Intel, with a die size of 1280 mm² and 100,000 million transistors. That yields a transistor density of 78.1M per mm². NVIDIA builds the GB20B chip on a 5 nm process at TSMC, with a die size of 382 mm². The transistor count for the NVIDIA chip is listed as unknown, and the density is not recorded.

Architecture generation also diverges. Intel uses Generation 12.5, also labeled Data Center GPU (Ponte Vecchio). NVIDIA uses Blackwell 2.0, labeled Blackwell IGP (N1x). The Intel architecture is designed for discrete data center acceleration, while the NVIDIA architecture is an integrated graphics processor (IGP), as indicated by its slot width of "IGP" and lack of power connectors. The Intel part is a dual-slot card with a 1x 16-pin power connector and a suggested PSU of 2800 W. The NVIDIA part has no power connectors and no suggested PSU figure.

The bus interface is identical: PCIe 5.0 x16 for both. Display outputs differ entirely. Intel has no display outputs, while NVIDIA has 1x HDMI. API support also diverges. Intel supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and OpenGL 4.6, with Vulkan listed as null. NVIDIA lists DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan all as N/A. That means the NVIDIA part has no recorded graphics API support, consistent with its IGP classification but unusual for a chip with a display output.

Memory subsystem architecture is fundamentally different. Intel uses HBM2e with an 8192-bit memory bus, a configuration typical of compute accelerators with massive parallel bandwidth requirements. NVIDIA uses LPDDR5X with a 256-bit bus, a configuration typical of integrated graphics sharing system memory. Both have 128 GB of capacity, but the bandwidth difference is stark. The Intel part also has a much larger physical die, more than three times the area of the NVIDIA chip.

Where Each One Wins

The data supports distinct use cases for each part based on the specification differences, even without benchmark scores.

The Intel Data Center GPU Max Subsystem wins in raw compute throughput. Its FP32 and FP16 figures are both 52.43 TFLOPS, which is more than double the NVIDIA part's 24.02 TFLOPS. Texture rate is also more than double at 1,638.4 GTexel/s versus 750.7 GTexel/s. The 128 ray tracing cores give it a structural advantage for ray-traced workloads, assuming software support exists. Memory bandwidth is the most lopsided metric: 3.21 TB/s versus 273.2 GB/s. Any workload that is memory-bound, such as large model inference, scientific simulation, or data processing, will favor the Intel part on paper. The 8192-bit bus and HBM2e memory type are designed for exactly that kind of throughput.

The NVIDIA N1X 40SM wins in rasterization and display-centric tasks. It has 40 ROPs and a pixel rate of 93.84 GPixel/s, while Intel has 0 ROPs and 0 MPixel/s. The NVIDIA part also has a display output via 1x HDMI, making it usable for graphics output. Its boost clock of 2346 MHz is significantly higher than Intel's 1600 MHz, which helps in latency-sensitive or lightly threaded workloads. The 160 tensor cores provide a dedicated matrix math unit that Intel does not list, potentially benefiting AI inference tasks that use tensor core instructions. The NVIDIA part also uses a 5 nm process from TSMC, which typically offers better power efficiency per transistor, though no TDP is recorded for the NVIDIA part to confirm that advantage.

The NVIDIA part is an IGP with no power connectors, so it requires no additional power cabling. The Intel part is a dual-slot card with a 1x 16-pin connector and a suggested PSU of 2800 W. For systems where power delivery and physical space are constrained, the NVIDIA part is the only viable option from the recorded data.

The Intel part has no pixel output capability at all. It cannot drive a display, so it is strictly a compute accelerator. The NVIDIA part can drive a display through HDMI and has a full raster pipeline, making it a more general-purpose device.

The Verdict

The recorded data makes the choice straightforward for specific workloads. If the task requires massive memory bandwidth, high FP32 throughput, and large-scale parallel compute, the Intel Data Center GPU Max Subsystem is the part with the specifications to match. Its 3.21 TB/s bandwidth, 52.43 TFLOPS FP32, and 128 GB of HBM2e are all higher than the NVIDIA counterpart by wide margins. The 16384 shading units and 1024 TMUs also point to a device built for throughput over latency.

If the task requires display output, rasterization, or tensor core acceleration, the NVIDIA N1X 40SM is the only part with those features. It has 40 ROPs, 93.84 GPixel/s pixel rate, 160 tensor cores, and 1x HDMI output. Its 24.02 TFLOPS FP32 is still substantial, and its higher boost clock of 2346 MHz may help in workloads that do not scale across thousands of cores. The 273.2 GB/s bandwidth is low relative to the Intel part, but for an IGP it is consistent with a shared memory design.

There are no benchmark scores in the database, so neither part can be declared a performance winner in actual tests. The structural differences, however, are clear. The Intel part is a dedicated compute accelerator with no display path. The NVIDIA part is an integrated GPU with display and raster capabilities. The production status for both is Active. The Intel part was released on 2023-01-09, while the NVIDIA part has a release date of 2026-05-31. The Intel part has a successor listed as H3C Graphics, while the NVIDIA part has no successor.

The data does not support a universal recommendation. It supports a workload-specific one. For compute density and memory throughput, Intel. For display and raster work, NVIDIA. No other conclusion is possible from the recorded specifications.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher FP32 compute?

A: The Intel Data Center GPU Max Subsystem lists 52.43 TFLOPS FP32, while the NVIDIA N1X 40SM lists 24.02 TFLOPS FP32. Intel is more than double on paper.

Q: Which GPU has more memory bandwidth?

A: Intel has 3.21 TB/s from 128 GB of HBM2e on an 8192-bit bus. NVIDIA has 273.2 GB/s from 128 GB of LPDDR5X on a 256-bit bus. Intel leads by a wide margin.

Q: Can either GPU output to a display?

A: The NVIDIA N1X 40SM has 1x HDMI output. The Intel Data Center GPU Max Subsystem has no display outputs.

Q: What are the process nodes for each chip?

A: Intel uses a 10 nm process at Intel with a 1280 mm² die. NVIDIA uses a 5 nm process at TSMC with a 382 mm² die.

Q: Which GPU has tensor cores?

A: The NVIDIA N1X 40SM has 160 tensor cores. The Intel Data Center GPU Max Subsystem lists no tensor core count in the database.

Q: What is the power requirement for the Intel part?

A: The Intel part has a TDP of 2400 W, uses a 1x 16-pin power connector, and has a suggested PSU of 2800 W. The NVIDIA part has no power connectors and an unknown TDP.

Specification Differences

| Field | Intel Data Center GPU Max Subsystem | NVIDIA N1X 40SM |

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

| Chip | Ponte Vecchio | GB20B |

| Architecture | Generation 12.5 | Blackwell 2.0 |

| Generation | Data Center GPU (Ponte Vecchio) | Blackwell IGP (N1x) |

| Process Node | 10 nm | 5 nm |

| Foundry | Intel | TSMC |

| Transistors | 100,000 million | unknown |

| Die Size | 1280 mm² | 382 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 78.1M / mm² | null |

| Base Clock | 900 MHz | 741 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 1600 MHz | 2346 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 1565 MHz, 3.1 Gbps effective | 1067 MHz, 8.5 Gbps effective |

| Memory Size | 128 GB | 128 GB |

| Memory Type | HBM2e | LPDDR5X |

| Memory Bus Width | 8192 bit | 256 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 3.21 TB/s | 273.2 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 16384 | 5120 |

| TMUs | 1024 | 320 |

| ROPs | 0 | 40 |

| RT Cores | 128 | 40 |

| Tensor Cores | null | 160 |

| Pixel Rate | 0 MPixel/s | 93.84 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 1,638.4 GTexel/s | 750.7 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 52.43 TFLOPS | 24.02 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | 52.43 TFLOPS (1:1) | 24.02 TFLOPS (1:1) |

| TDP | 2400 W | unknown |

| Slot Width | Dual-slot | IGP |

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

| Suggested PSU | 2800 W | null |

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

| Display Outputs | No outputs | 1x HDMI |

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

| OpenGL | 4.6 | N/A |

| Vulkan | null | N/A |

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

| Predecessor | null | null |

| Successor | H3C Graphics | null |