Intel Data Center GPU Max Subsystem vs NVIDIA N1X 48SM Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded database contains no direct benchmark scores for either the Intel Data Center GPU Max Subsystem or the NVIDIA N1X 48SM. Both entries show an average benchmark score of 0, and the head-to-head benchmark table is empty. Consequently, there are no measured wins in either direction to walk through with exact numbers.

What the database does provide is a full specification profile for each part, and those specifications reveal where each device holds a theoretical advantage. The Intel part delivers 52.43 TFLOPS of FP32 compute, while the NVIDIA part delivers 28.83 TFLOPS. That puts the Intel accelerator ahead by roughly 82% in raw FP32 throughput, a substantial margin. The Intel device also offers 52.43 TFLOPS of FP16 performance with a 1:1 ratio, while the NVIDIA part offers 28.83 TFLOPS of FP16, again with a 1:1 ratio. The same proportional gap carries over.

Texture throughput tells a similar story. The Intel part reaches 1,638.4 GTexel/s, while the NVIDIA part reaches 900.9 GTexel/s. That is an 82% lead for Intel as well, consistent with the FP32 and FP16 compute gap. Shading unit counts reinforce this: Intel has 16,384 shading units versus NVIDIA's 6,144, a 2.67x difference. Texture mapping units are 1,024 versus 384, a 2.67x difference as well.

The NVIDIA part, however, holds advantages in several specific areas. Pixel rate is 112.6 GPixel/s on the NVIDIA device, while the Intel device records 0 MPixel/s. That is because the Intel Data Center GPU Max Subsystem has no ROPs and no display outputs, making it unsuitable for rasterization tasks that require pixel output. The NVIDIA part has 48 ROPs and a single HDMI output, so it can drive a display and perform conventional graphics work. The NVIDIA part also has 192 tensor cores, while the Intel part lists no tensor core count at all. Ray tracing cores are 48 on the NVIDIA side versus 128 on the Intel side, so Intel leads in ray tracing core count by a factor of 2.67.

Clock speeds differ markedly. The Intel part runs at a 900 MHz base and 1600 MHz boost. The NVIDIA part runs at a 741 MHz base and 2346 MHz boost. The NVIDIA boost clock is 46.6% higher than Intel's boost clock, which helps close some of the compute gap despite the much smaller core count. Memory clocks also differ: Intel uses 1565 MHz with 3.1 Gbps effective, while NVIDIA uses 1067 MHz with 8.5 Gbps effective. The NVIDIA memory runs at a much higher effective data rate, but the bus width is far narrower.

Neither part has a percentile advantage in the database, as both sit at the 50th percentile against all GPUs. Neither has any nearest rivals listed. The absence of benchmark data means percentile rankings are neutral placeholders rather than measured outcomes.

The Verdict

The data supports a clear split based on workload type. The Intel Data Center GPU Max Subsystem is built for compute-heavy, data center oriented tasks. Its 52.43 TFLOPS FP32 throughput, 128 GB of HBM2e memory on an 8192-bit bus, and 3.21 TB/s memory bandwidth position it as a high-throughput accelerator for large parallel workloads. The 128 ray tracing cores and 16,384 shading units indicate a device designed to push massive amounts of data through parallel pipelines.

The NVIDIA N1X 48SM, by contrast, is an integrated graphics processor (IGP) built on the Blackwell 2.0 architecture. Its 28.83 TFLOPS FP32 throughput is roughly half of Intel's, but it brings 192 tensor cores, 48 ROPs, a 112.6 GPixel/s pixel rate, and a single HDMI output. Those features make it capable of rendering to a display and handling AI-focused tensor operations, none of which the Intel part can do given its lack of ROPs and display outputs.

For users who need raw compute throughput, large memory capacity, and massive memory bandwidth, the Intel part is the only choice in this comparison. For users who need a GPU that can output to a display, perform rasterization, or leverage tensor cores, the NVIDIA part is the only option. The Intel part has no pixel rate, no ROPs, and no display outputs, so it simply cannot perform conventional graphics rendering. The NVIDIA part, despite its lower compute throughput, offers a complete graphics pipeline.

Neither device has a measured benchmark score in the database, so any purchasing decision must rely on the specification differences alone. The Intel part is a dual-slot, 2400 W TDP accelerator requiring a 2800 W suggested PSU and a single 16-pin power connector. The NVIDIA part is an IGP with no power connectors listed and no TDP figure, making it far more practical for systems where power delivery and physical space are constrained.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher FP32 compute performance?

A: The Intel Data Center GPU Max Subsystem delivers 52.43 TFLOPS of FP32, while the NVIDIA N1X 48SM delivers 28.83 TFLOPS. Intel leads by roughly 82%.

Q: Can the Intel Data Center GPU Max Subsystem output to a display?

A: No. The Intel part lists "No outputs" for display outputs, has 0 ROPs, and a pixel rate of 0 MPixel/s. The NVIDIA part has 1x HDMI output and a pixel rate of 112.6 GPixel/s.

Q: What memory type and capacity does each GPU use?

A: The Intel part uses 128 GB of HBM2e with an 8192-bit bus and 3.21 TB/s bandwidth. The NVIDIA part uses 128 GB of LPDDR5X with a 256-bit bus and 273.2 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Which GPU has tensor cores?

A: The NVIDIA N1X 48SM has 192 tensor cores. The Intel Data Center GPU Max Subsystem lists no tensor core count in the database.

Q: What are the boost clock speeds of each GPU?

A: The Intel part boosts to 1600 MHz, while the NVIDIA part boosts to 2346 MHz. The NVIDIA boost clock is 46.6% higher.

Q: What is the process node for each GPU?

A: The Intel part uses a 10 nm process from Intel foundry. The NVIDIA part uses a 5 nm process from TSMC.

Specification Differences

The two devices differ across nearly every measurable specification.

Process node: Intel uses 10 nm, NVIDIA uses 5 nm. Foundry: Intel uses Intel, NVIDIA uses TSMC. Transistor count: Intel lists 100,000 million transistors, NVIDIA lists "unknown". Die size: Intel is 1280 mm², NVIDIA is 382 mm². Transistor density: Intel is 78.1M per mm², NVIDIA has no listed density.

Clock speeds: Intel base 900 MHz, boost 1600 MHz; NVIDIA base 741 MHz, boost 2346 MHz. Memory clock: Intel 1565 MHz with 3.1 Gbps effective, NVIDIA 1067 MHz with 8.5 Gbps effective.

Memory: Both have 128 GB capacity, 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.

Compute units: Intel has 16,384 shading units, 1,024 TMUs, 0 ROPs, 128 RT cores, and no tensor core count. NVIDIA has 6,144 shading units, 384 TMUs, 48 ROPs, 48 RT cores, and 192 tensor cores.

Pixel rate: Intel 0 MPixel/s, NVIDIA 112.6 GPixel/s. Texture rate: Intel 1,638.4 GTexel/s, NVIDIA 900.9 GTexel/s. FP32: Intel 52.43 TFLOPS, NVIDIA 28.83 TFLOPS. FP16: Intel 52.43 TFLOPS (1:1), NVIDIA 28.83 TFLOPS (1:1).

Power and physical: Intel has a TDP of 2400 W, a dual-slot form factor, a 1x 16-pin power connector, and a suggested PSU of 2800 W. NVIDIA has an unknown TDP, an IGP form factor, no power connectors, and no suggested PSU. Intel dimensions are 267 mm (10.5 inches) in length; NVIDIA has no listed dimensions.

Display outputs: Intel has none, NVIDIA has 1x HDMI. APIs: Intel supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and OpenGL 4.6, with no Vulkan listed; NVIDIA lists N/A for DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan.

Release dates: Intel released on 2023-01-09, NVIDIA releases on 2026-05-31. Bus interface: both use PCIe 5.0 x16. Production status: both are Active. Successor: Intel has a successor named H3C Graphics, NVIDIA has none listed.

Architecture Differences

The Intel Data Center GPU Max Subsystem is built on the Ponte Vecchio chip using Intel's Generation 12.5 architecture. It is categorized in the database as a Data Center GPU (Ponte Vecchio). The NVIDIA N1X 48SM is built on the GB20B chip using the Blackwell 2.0 architecture, categorized as a Blackwell IGP (N1x).

The process nodes differ significantly: Intel uses a 10 nm node fabricated at Intel, while NVIDIA uses a 5 nm node fabricated at TSMC. The Intel die is 1280 mm² with 100,000 million transistors, giving a density of 78.1M transistors per mm². The NVIDIA die is 382 mm² with an unknown transistor count and no density figure.

The Intel architecture is designed around a massive parallel compute array. It has 16,384 shading units, 1,024 texture mapping units, and 128 ray tracing cores. The NVIDIA architecture uses a smaller array with 6,144 shading units, 384 texture mapping units, and 48 ray tracing cores, but it adds 192 tensor cores and 48 ROPs. The presence of tensor cores on NVIDIA indicates a dedicated hardware path for tensor operations, which Intel does not list.

Memory architecture differs fundamentally. Intel uses HBM2e with an 8192-bit bus and 3.21 TB/s bandwidth, a configuration aimed at feeding the large shader array with maximum data throughput. NVIDIA uses LPDDR5X with a 256-bit bus and 273.2 GB/s bandwidth, a configuration suited to an integrated processor with lower power demands.

The Intel part has no ROPs and no pixel output capability, which means its architecture is purely compute-oriented. The NVIDIA part has 48 ROPs and a pixel rate of 112.6 GPixel/s, so its architecture includes a full rasterization pipeline. The NVIDIA part also lists an HDMI output, confirming its ability to drive a display.

Clock behavior differs as well. Intel runs at a modest 900 MHz base and 1600 MHz boost. NVIDIA runs at a lower 741 MHz base but a much higher 2346 MHz boost. The higher boost clock on NVIDIA partially compensates for the smaller core count, though the total FP32 throughput remains lower.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Data Center GPU Max Subsystem wins in raw compute throughput. Its FP32 figure of 52.43 TFLOPS is 82% higher than NVIDIA's 28.83 TFLOPS. Its FP16 figure of 52.43 TFLOPS (1:1) is likewise 82% higher. Texture rate of 1,638.4 GTexel/s versus 900.9 GTexel/s gives Intel an 82% lead in texture work. Ray tracing core count of 128 versus 48 gives Intel a 2.67x advantage in that specific area.

Intel also wins in memory bandwidth by a wide margin. The 3.21 TB/s bandwidth from HBM2e on an 8192-bit bus dwarfs the 273.2 GB/s from LPDDR5X on a 256-bit bus. For workloads that are memory-bandwidth bound, such as large data center inference or simulation tasks, that bandwidth advantage is decisive. The 128 GB capacity is equal on both parts, but the data path feeding that capacity is far wider on Intel.

The NVIDIA N1X 48SM wins in graphics output capability. It has a pixel rate of 112.6 GPixel/s and 48 ROPs, enabling actual rasterization output. Intel has 0 MPixel/s and 0 ROPs, so it cannot produce a rendered frame. The NVIDIA part also has a single HDMI output, which the Intel part lacks entirely.

NVIDIA wins in tensor core availability. The 192 tensor cores provide a dedicated path for tensor-heavy workloads, such as certain AI inference and training operations. Intel lists no tensor cores, so any such workload would rely on general-purpose shader compute.

NVIDIA wins in power practicality. The Intel part has a 2400 W TDP and requires a 2800 W suggested PSU with a 1x 16-pin connector. The NVIDIA part has an unknown TDP, no power connectors, and an IGP form factor, which means it integrates into a system without discrete power delivery requirements. For compact or power-constrained systems, that is a significant practical advantage.

NVIDIA also wins on clock speed. The 2346 MHz boost clock is 46.6% higher than Intel's 1600 MHz boost clock. While this does not overcome Intel's compute lead, it indicates newer architecture efficiency and better per-clock performance on the NVIDIA side.

The NVIDIA part has a smaller die at 382 mm² versus Intel's 1280 mm², and uses a 5 nm process versus Intel's 10 nm. Those factors point to higher manufacturing efficiency, though Intel's transistor count of 100,000 million versus NVIDIA's unknown figure prevents a direct density comparison.