Intel UHD Graphics 710 Mobile vs NVIDIA N1 20SM Comparison

Intel UHD Graphics 710 Mobile is an integrated graphics processor built on Intel’s Raptor Lake chip, using the Generation 12.2 architecture on a 10 nm process. NVIDIA N1 20SM is an integrated GPU from NVIDIA’s Blackwell 2.0 architecture, fabricated by TSMC on a 5 nm process. The recorded data shows a substantial performance gap between the two, driven by differences in core configuration, memory subsystem, and architectural design.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel UHD Graphics 710 Mobile holds a narrow set of advantages rooted in its integrated design philosophy. Its 15 W thermal design power fits within the power envelope of low-power Raptor Lake systems. The GPU uses a Ring Bus interface, which is typical for integrated graphics sharing the CPU’s memory fabric. Its display outputs are portable device dependent, meaning the GPU does not constrain the system’s connectivity options. The Intel part supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, providing broad API compatibility for legacy and modern software. Its FP16 rate is listed at 614.4 GFLOPS with a 2:1 ratio, allowing double the throughput of FP32 for applications that can use reduced precision.

The NVIDIA N1 20SM wins decisively in raw compute and memory performance. Its shading unit count of 2560 is twenty times higher than Intel’s 128, and its texture mapping units (160 vs 8) and render output units (24 vs 4) follow the same pattern. The NVIDIA part delivers 12.01 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, which is 39 times the Intel part’s 307.2 GFLOPS. FP16 performance is equally strong at 12.01 TFLOPS with a 1:1 ratio, indicating full-rate half-precision compute. The memory subsystem is a major differentiator: NVIDIA uses 128 GB of LPDDR5X on a 256-bit bus, yielding 273.2 GB/s of bandwidth. Intel’s memory is system shared, with bandwidth described as system dependent. NVIDIA also includes dedicated ray tracing cores (20) and tensor cores (80), both of which are entirely absent from the Intel specification. The NVIDIA part’s pixel rate of 56.30 GPixel/s and texture rate of 375.4 GTexel/s dwarf the Intel’s 4.800 GPixel/s and 9.600 GTexel/s.

In terms of raw compute, memory capacity, and feature set, NVIDIA’s part dominates. Intel’s advantage is limited to power consumption (15 W vs unknown TDP), API compatibility, and the flexibility of a system-shared memory pool.

FAQ

Q: How do the FP32 performance figures compare between the two GPUs?

A: The NVIDIA N1 20SM delivers 12.01 TFLOPS of FP32 compute, while the Intel UHD Graphics 710 Mobile provides 307.2 GFLOPS. This makes the NVIDIA part approximately 39 times faster in single-precision floating-point operations.

Q: What memory configurations do the two GPUs use?

A: The Intel UHD Graphics 710 Mobile uses system shared memory with a type of system shared and a bus width of system shared, with bandwidth listed as system dependent. The NVIDIA N1 20SM uses 128 GB of LPDDR5X on a 256-bit bus, providing 273.2 GB/s of bandwidth.

Q: Does either GPU support ray tracing or tensor operations?

A: The Intel UHD Graphics 710 Mobile lists no ray tracing cores and no tensor cores. The NVIDIA N1 20SM includes 20 ray tracing cores and 80 tensor cores, providing dedicated hardware for those workloads.

Q: What are the thermal design power ratings?

A: The Intel UHD Graphics 710 Mobile has a TDP of 15 W. The NVIDIA N1 20SM has a TDP listed as unknown in the database.

Q: Which GPU has a higher boost clock?

A: The NVIDIA N1 20SM boosts to 2346 MHz, while the Intel UHD Graphics 710 Mobile boosts to 1200 MHz. NVIDIA’s boost clock is nearly double Intel’s.

Q: How do the pixel and texture rates differ?

A: The NVIDIA N1 20SM achieves 56.30 GPixel/s and 375.4 GTexel/s. The Intel UHD Graphics 710 Mobile achieves 4.800 GPixel/s and 9.600 GTexel/s. NVIDIA is roughly 11.7 times faster in pixel throughput and 39 times faster in texture throughput.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded benchmark data shows no direct head-to-head benchmark scores between the two parts, but the specification-level comparisons provide a clear picture. The most significant win for the NVIDIA N1 20SM is in FP32 compute. At 12.01 TFLOPS versus 307.2 GFLOPS, the NVIDIA part offers a 39-fold advantage. This gap is mirrored in FP16: NVIDIA’s 12.01 TFLOPS (1:1) versus Intel’s 614.4 GFLOPS (2:1). Even accounting for Intel’s 2:1 ratio, NVIDIA’s full-rate FP16 is still nearly 19.5 times higher.

Memory bandwidth is another decisive category. NVIDIA’s 273.2 GB/s is derived from a 256-bit LPDDR5X interface, while Intel’s bandwidth is system dependent, meaning it is tied to the host CPU’s memory configuration. In a typical dual-channel DDR4 or DDR5 setup, system shared bandwidth would be far below 273.2 GB/s. The 128 GB capacity of the NVIDIA part also dwarfs any system shared allocation, which is typically capped at a fraction of system RAM.

Texture and pixel throughput follow the same trend. NVIDIA’s texture rate of 375.4 GTexel/s is 39 times Intel’s 9.600 GTexel/s. Pixel rate is 56.30 GPixel/s versus 4.800 GPixel/s, an 11.7 times difference. These numbers indicate that the NVIDIA part can handle high-resolution rendering and complex texture-heavy workloads without becoming a bottleneck.

Clock speeds also favor NVIDIA. The boost clock of 2346 MHz is nearly double Intel’s 1200 MHz, and the base clock of 741 MHz is more than double Intel’s 300 MHz. Higher clocks, combined with more shading units, explain the massive compute delta.

The only categories where Intel shows a win are API support and power. Intel lists DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, while NVIDIA lists N/A for all three APIs. This means software relying on those standard APIs would need translation or compatibility layers on the NVIDIA part, potentially reducing out-of-the-box compatibility. Intel’s 15 W TDP is a concrete power figure, while NVIDIA’s is unknown, preventing a direct comparison.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ in nearly every measurable specification. The Intel UHD Graphics 710 Mobile has 128 shading units, 8 texture mapping units, and 4 render output units. The NVIDIA N1 20SM has 2560 shading units, 160 texture mapping units, and 24 render output units. NVIDIA also adds 20 ray tracing cores and 80 tensor cores, neither of which exist on the Intel part.

Clock speeds are significantly different: Intel operates at a base of 300 MHz and a boost of 1200 MHz, while NVIDIA operates at 741 MHz base and 2346 MHz boost. Memory configuration diverges completely: Intel uses system shared memory with a system dependent bandwidth, while NVIDIA uses 128 GB of LPDDR5X on a 256-bit bus with a fixed bandwidth of 273.2 GB/s.

Process technology and foundry differ as well. Intel uses a 10 nm process at its own foundry, while NVIDIA uses a 5 nm process at TSMC. The die size for NVIDIA is 382 mm², while Intel does not list a die size. The bus interface also differs: Intel uses Ring Bus, while NVIDIA uses PCIe 5.0 x16.

Display outputs are listed as portable device dependent for Intel, while NVIDIA specifies 1x HDMI. Power connectors are absent for Intel, while NVIDIA lists none. The production status for both is active, but the release dates differ: Intel released on 2023-01-03, and NVIDIA on 2026-05-31. Intel has a successor listed as Arc Graphics-M, while NVIDIA has no successor listed.

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide is stark. Intel’s part is built on Raptor Lake, using Generation 12.2 architecture, which is a continuation of Intel’s integrated graphics design philosophy. It is classified under the HD Graphics-M (Raptor Lake) generation. The NVIDIA N1 20SM uses the Blackwell 2.0 architecture, built on the GB20B chip, and is part of the Blackwell IGP (N1x) generation.

Process node differences are significant: Intel uses 10 nm, while NVIDIA uses 5 nm. The smaller node allows NVIDIA to pack 2560 shading units into a die of 382 mm², while Intel’s integrated approach on 10 nm yields only 128 shading units. NVIDIA’s transistor count is listed as unknown, but the die size is recorded. Intel does not provide die size or transistor count.

The memory architecture reflects different design goals. Intel uses system shared memory, meaning the GPU borrows from the CPU’s memory pool. This simplifies system design but limits bandwidth to the host memory controller’s capabilities. NVIDIA uses dedicated 128 GB LPDDR5X on a 256-bit bus, providing predictable, high-bandwidth performance at 273.2 GB/s. NVIDIA’s memory clock is listed as 1067 MHz with 8.5 Gbps effective, while Intel’s memory clock is system shared.

Feature support diverges sharply. NVIDIA includes 20 ray tracing cores and 80 tensor cores, enabling hardware-accelerated ray tracing and AI workloads. Intel lists no such units. API support is inverted: Intel supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, while NVIDIA lists N/A for all three. This suggests the NVIDIA part may target a proprietary or specialized software stack, whereas Intel’s part is designed for mainstream OS and API compatibility.

The FP16 ratio also highlights architectural priorities. Intel supports FP16 at a 2:1 ratio, meaning half the throughput of FP32. NVIDIA supports FP16 at a 1:1 ratio, matching FP32 throughput exactly. This indicates NVIDIA’s architecture is optimized for mixed-precision compute, while Intel’s is more conservative.

The bus interface differs: Intel uses Ring Bus, which is typical for integrated graphics sharing the CPU’s internal fabric. NVIDIA uses PCIe 5.0 x16, a high-bandwidth external interface, even though the part is listed as an IGP. This suggests the NVIDIA part may be designed to interface with a host through PCIe while still being integrated into a package.

The thermal design power for Intel is 15 W, a clear figure for low-power integration. NVIDIA’s TDP is unknown, but the presence of 2560 shading units, 20 ray tracing cores, and 80 tensor cores on a 5 nm process with 382 mm² die suggests a much higher power envelope. Without a recorded TDP, the database cannot confirm the thermal behavior of the NVIDIA part, but the compute capability implies a substantial power demand.

The release timeline shows Intel’s part from early 2023 and NVIDIA’s from mid-2026, a gap of over three years. This explains the generational leap in specifications. Intel’s successor, Arc Graphics-M, indicates the company is moving beyond the Generation 12.2 design, while NVIDIA’s N1 20SM has no successor listed, suggesting it is the latest in its line.

Both parts are listed as active in production, and both hold a 50th percentile rank against all GPUs in the database. However, the percentile rank is based on average benchmark scores, which are zero for both parts in the recorded data. The specification-level deltas are so large that the percentile ranking does not reflect the actual performance gap. The database shows no head-to-head benchmark results, so the comparison relies entirely on the recorded specifications.