Intel Graphics 24EU Mobile vs NVIDIA N1 16SM Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded database contains no direct head-to-head benchmark entries for the Intel Graphics 24EU Mobile and NVIDIA N1 16SM. Both GPUs sit at the 50th percentile among all recorded graphics processors, and neither has an average benchmark score listed. This absence of measured results means any comparison must rely entirely on the specification data captured in the database.

The raw compute figures present a stark contrast. The NVIDIA N1 16SM delivers 9.609 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, while the Intel Graphics 24EU Mobile manages 384.0 GFLOPS. That places the NVIDIA part approximately 25 times ahead in single-precision floating-point throughput. The FP16 comparison is equally lopsided: NVIDIA sustains 9.609 TFLOPS with a 1:1 ratio, while Intel reaches 768.0 GFLOPS using a 2:1 ratio, effectively halving its rate when precision doubles.

Texture and pixel throughput follow the same pattern. The N1 16SM produces 300.3 GTexel/s against Intel's 12.00 GTexel/s, a 25-fold gap. Pixel fill rates show 56.30 GPixel/s versus 4.000 GPixel/s, roughly a 14-fold difference. These numbers indicate that in any workload dominated by raw shading, texturing, or rasterization, the NVIDIA part holds an overwhelming advantage.

Clock behavior further separates the two. The NVIDIA N1 16SM operates with a 741 MHz base clock and boosts to 2346 MHz, while the Intel part runs at a 300 MHz base and 1000 MHz boost. Higher clocks compound the NVIDIA advantage given its larger execution resource pool.

Memory bandwidth tells a similar story. The N1 16SM accesses 128 GB of LPDDR5X across a 256-bit bus, achieving 273.2 GB/s. The Intel Graphics 24EU Mobile relies on System Shared memory with bandwidth listed as System Dependent, meaning its effective throughput varies with the host platform's memory configuration. In the database's recorded configuration, no fixed bandwidth figure exists for Intel, but the absence of a dedicated high-speed memory subsystem suggests a substantial bandwidth deficit.

Neither GPU shows any wins in the head-to-head benchmark tally: winsA equals 0 and winsB equals 0. With zero recorded benchmark results for either part, the database offers no measured performance deltas to report. The specification sheet alone establishes the NVIDIA N1 16SM as the dominant compute resource, but the absence of empirical testing leaves the exact margins unquantified beyond the theoretical rates listed above.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher boost clock?

A: The NVIDIA N1 16SM boosts to 2346 MHz, while the Intel Graphics 24EU Mobile peaks at 1000 MHz.

Q: How do the FP32 compute figures compare?

A: The NVIDIA N1 16SM reaches 9.609 TFLOPS, versus 384.0 GFLOPS for the Intel part, a roughly 25-fold difference in single-precision throughput.

Q: What memory configurations do these GPUs use?

A: The NVIDIA N1 16SM uses 128 GB of LPDDR5X over a 256-bit bus with 273.2 GB/s bandwidth. The Intel Graphics 24EU Mobile uses System Shared memory with System Dependent bandwidth.

Q: Which GPU has more shading units?

A: The NVIDIA N1 16SM contains 2048 shading units, compared to 192 shading units on the Intel Graphics 24EU Mobile.

Q: Do both GPUs support the same graphics APIs?

A: No. The Intel part supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The NVIDIA part lists N/A for DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan in the database.

Q: What are the process nodes for each chip?

A: The Intel Twin Lake chip uses a 10 nm process from Intel's foundry. The NVIDIA GB20B chip uses a 5 nm process from TSMC.

Architecture Differences

The Intel Graphics 24EU Mobile is built on the Xe-LP architecture, part of the HD Graphics-T generation under the Twin Lake chip. It belongs to Intel's integrated graphics lineage, occupying a 10 nm process node fabricated at Intel's own foundry. The execution pipeline consists of 192 shading units, 12 texture mapping units, and 4 raster output units. The architecture omits dedicated ray tracing cores and tensor cores entirely, relying purely on conventional shader hardware. The FP16 rate of 768.0 GFLOPS operates at a 2:1 ratio relative to FP32, indicating that the hardware uses a packed execution path rather than dedicated half-precision units.

The NVIDIA N1 16SM uses the Blackwell 2.0 architecture, specifically the Blackwell IGP (N1x) generation built around the GB20B chip. TSMC fabricates this die on a 5 nm process, and the recorded die size reaches 382 mm². The compute layout includes 2048 shading units, 128 TMUs, and 24 ROPs. Unlike the Intel part, the NVIDIA architecture integrates 16 ray tracing cores and 64 tensor cores, adding dedicated hardware for ray-traced workloads and AI inference. The FP16 rate matches FP32 exactly at 9.609 TFLOPS with a 1:1 ratio, suggesting true native half-precision throughput rather than a packed approximation.

The two designs diverge in their API support profiles. Intel exposes DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, making it broadly compatible with existing graphics software. The NVIDIA part lists N/A across all three APIs in the database, which may reflect a specialized or non-standard software stack rather than a limitation of the hardware itself. The bus interfaces also differ: Intel uses a Ring Bus, while NVIDIA connects via PCIe 5.0 x16. Display outputs vary as well, with Intel's being Portable Device Dependent and NVIDIA offering a single HDMI port.

The NVIDIA chip integrates significantly more memory logic, with a 256-bit LPDDR5X interface feeding 128 GB of capacity. Intel's architecture shares system memory without a dedicated bus width or fixed bandwidth, making its memory behavior platform-dependent. These architectural choices point to different design goals: Intel targets lightweight integrated graphics for portable devices, while NVIDIA's Blackwell IGP appears aimed at substantial on-die compute and memory resources.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ across nearly every recorded specification field. The process node places Intel at 10 nm against NVIDIA's 5 nm, with foundries split between Intel and TSMC. Die size is unknown for Intel but measured at 382 mm² for NVIDIA. Base clocks run 300 MHz on Intel versus 741 MHz on NVIDIA, while boost clocks reach 1000 MHz versus 2346 MHz respectively.

Memory configurations diverge completely. Intel uses System Shared memory with System Dependent bandwidth, while NVIDIA employs 128 GB of LPDDR5X on a 256-bit bus delivering 273.2 GB/s. The memory clock is recorded as System Shared for Intel, compared to 1067 MHz with 8.5 Gbps effective for NVIDIA.

Execution resources show substantial differences in every category. Shading units: 192 versus 2048. Texture mapping units: 12 versus 128. Raster output units: 4 versus 24. Ray tracing cores: absent on Intel versus 16 on NVIDIA. Tensor cores: absent on Intel versus 64 on NVIDIA.

Pixel rate reaches 4.000 GPixel/s on Intel versus 56.30 GPixel/s on NVIDIA. Texture rate measures 12.00 GTexel/s against 300.3 GTexel/s. FP32 throughput stands at 384.0 GFLOPS versus 9.609 TFLOPS. FP16 throughput shows 768.0 GFLOPS at 2:1 on Intel, versus 9.609 TFLOPS at 1:1 on NVIDIA.

Thermal design power is listed as 6 W for Intel, while NVIDIA's TDP is unknown. Both use IGP slot widths, but NVIDIA lists power connectors as None while Intel leaves the field null. Bus interfaces differ: Ring Bus for Intel, PCIe 5.0 x16 for NVIDIA. Display outputs show Portable Device Dependent for Intel and 1x HDMI for NVIDIA. API support diverges with Intel listing DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, while NVIDIA records N/A for all three.

Release dates separate the products by roughly a year and a half: Intel launched on 2024-12-31, while NVIDIA's release date is 2026-05-31. Both carry Active production status, and neither has a launch MSRP recorded in the database.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA N1 16SM dominates every compute metric recorded in the database. Its FP32 throughput of 9.609 TFLOPS, FP16 throughput of 9.609 TFLOPS, texture rate of 300.3 GTexel/s, and pixel rate of 56.30 GPixel/s all exceed Intel's corresponding figures by at least an order of magnitude. The 2048 shading units, 128 TMUs, and 24 ROPs provide the execution resources necessary for demanding graphics workloads. The 64 tensor cores and 16 ray tracing cores add capabilities that the Intel part lacks entirely, making the N1 16SM suitable for AI acceleration and ray-traced rendering where such hardware is required. The 128 GB LPDDR5X memory pool with 273.2 GB/s bandwidth supports large datasets and high-resolution textures without relying on system memory sharing.

The Intel Graphics 24EU Mobile holds advantages in specific operational areas. Its 6 W TDP represents a fixed power envelope, whereas NVIDIA's TDP remains unknown, making Intel the only part with a confirmed low-power profile. The Ring Bus interface and Portable Device Dependent display outputs indicate a design intended for compact mobile systems where integration flexibility matters more than peak performance. Intel's software compatibility is broader on paper: DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4 support covers mainstream graphics APIs, while NVIDIA lists N/A for all three, suggesting potential software stack limitations for standard applications. The 10 nm process, while older than NVIDIA's 5 nm node, comes from Intel's own foundry, which may offer supply chain simplicity for Intel-based platforms.

In practice, the database's benchmark results show no measured wins for either side. The winsA and winsB fields both read 0, and neither GPU has any head-to-head entries. The percentileVsAllGpus values sit identically at 50 for both parts, placing them at the median of all recorded GPUs despite their massive specification differences. This suggests the database's percentile calculation may not fully capture the performance gulf implied by the raw specifications, or that the absence of benchmark data skews the ranking.

For workloads centered on raw graphics throughput, memory bandwidth, ray tracing, or tensor operations, the NVIDIA N1 16SM is the clear choice based on the recorded data. For systems requiring minimal power draw, tight integration with portable device display logic, or broad legacy API support, the Intel Graphics 24EU Mobile offers characteristics that the NVIDIA part does not match in the database's records. The absence of measured benchmark scores means these conclusions derive from specification analysis alone, but the magnitude of the differences across every compute metric leaves little ambiguity about their relative positioning.