Intel UHD Graphics 710 Mobile vs NVIDIA N1X 40SM Comparison

FAQ

Q: What are the two GPUs compared in this analysis?

A: The Intel UHD Graphics 710 Mobile, a Raptor Lake integrated processor from Intel, and the NVIDIA N1X 40SM, a Blackwell 2.0 integrated processor from NVIDIA.

Q: Which GPU has a higher boost clock speed?

A: The NVIDIA N1X 40SM boosts to 2346 MHz, while the Intel UHD Graphics 710 Mobile boosts to 1200 MHz.

Q: What is the memory configuration difference between the two?

A: The Intel UHD Graphics 710 Mobile uses System Shared memory, with bandwidth described as System Dependent. The NVIDIA N1X 40SM uses 128 GB of LPDDR5X memory on a 256 bit bus, delivering 273.2 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Which GPU has more shading units?

A: The NVIDIA N1X 40SM has 5120 shading units, compared to 128 shading units on the Intel UHD Graphics 710 Mobile.

Q: What are the release dates for these GPUs?

A: The Intel UHD Graphics 710 Mobile was released on 2023-01-03, and the NVIDIA N1X 40SM was released on 2026-05-31.

Q: What is the process node for each chip?

A: The Intel UHD Graphics 710 Mobile uses a 10 nm process from Intel, while the NVIDIA N1X 40SM uses a 5 nm process from TSMC.

Architecture Differences

The two integrated GPUs represent fundamentally different design generations. The Intel UHD Graphics 710 Mobile is built on the Raptor Lake chip with Generation 12.2 architecture, classified under the HD Graphics-M generation. The NVIDIA N1X 40SM uses the GB20B chip with Blackwell 2.0 architecture, classified under the Blackwell IGP generation.

Process technology separates them clearly: Intel uses a 10 nm node from its own foundry, while NVIDIA uses a 5 nm node from TSMC. The die size for the NVIDIA chip is recorded at 382 mm², while the Intel die size is not listed. Transistor counts are unknown for both, though the NVIDIA chip lists its transistor count as "unknown" explicitly.

The compute resource disparity is enormous. The Intel part features 128 shading units, 8 texture mapping units, and 4 raster output units. The NVIDIA part features 5120 shading units, 320 texture mapping units, and 40 raster output units. Additionally, the NVIDIA N1X 40SM includes 40 ray tracing cores and 160 tensor cores, while the Intel UHD Graphics 710 Mobile has none of either.

Clock behavior differs substantially. The Intel GPU runs at a base of 300 MHz and boosts to 1200 MHz. The NVIDIA GPU runs at a base of 741 MHz and boosts to 2346 MHz. The memory subsystem also diverges: Intel uses System Shared memory with System Dependent bandwidth, while NVIDIA uses 128 GB of LPDDR5X on a 256 bit bus, achieving 273.2 GB/s.

The NVIDIA chip supports PCIe 5.0 x16 as its bus interface, whereas the Intel part uses a Ring Bus. Display outputs differ as well: Intel lists Portable Device Dependent outputs, while NVIDIA lists 1x HDMI. API support also separates them: Intel supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, while NVIDIA lists N/A for all three APIs.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data contains no benchmark scores for either GPU. Both have an average benchmark score of 0 in the database. The head-to-head benchmark list is empty, and neither GPU has any nearest rivals listed. The wins counter shows 0 for both sides.

Despite the lack of direct benchmark numbers, the specification data provides a clear basis for comparison. The NVIDIA N1X 40SM delivers 24.02 TFLOPS of FP32 compute, while the Intel UHD Graphics 710 Mobile delivers 307.2 GFLOPS. That places the NVIDIA part at roughly 78 times the FP32 throughput, a difference derived directly from the recorded values.

Pixel throughput shows a similar gap. The NVIDIA chip achieves 93.84 GPixel/s, while the Intel chip achieves 4.800 GPixel/s. Texture fill rates are 750.7 GTexel/s for NVIDIA versus 9.600 GTexel/s for Intel. These raw throughput figures indicate that the NVIDIA part operates in a different performance class entirely.

Memory bandwidth provides another stark contrast. The NVIDIA N1X 40SM has 273.2 GB/s of dedicated LPDDR5X bandwidth, while the Intel UHD Graphics 710 Mobile relies on System Shared memory with bandwidth described only as System Dependent. The NVIDIA part also has a dedicated memory size of 128 GB, whereas Intel shares system memory.

The clock speeds reinforce the performance gap. The NVIDIA boost clock of 2346 MHz is nearly double the Intel boost clock of 1200 MHz. The NVIDIA base clock of 741 MHz is more than double the Intel base clock of 300 MHz.

The Verdict

The data indicates that the NVIDIA N1X 40SM is the substantially more capable GPU across every measured compute and memory parameter. Its FP32 throughput of 24.02 TFLOPS versus 307.2 GFLOPS, texture rate of 750.7 GTexel/s versus 9.600 GTexel/s, and pixel rate of 93.84 GPixel/s versus 4.800 GPixel/s place it in a completely different performance tier.

The Intel UHD Graphics 710 Mobile, with its 128 shading units, 8 TMUs, and 4 ROPs, targets basic display output and light graphical workloads. The NVIDIA N1X 40SM, with 5120 shading units, 320 TMUs, 40 ROPs, plus ray tracing and tensor cores, targets demanding graphics and compute tasks.

The API support also separates them. Intel lists DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, while NVIDIA lists N/A for all three. This suggests that the NVIDIA part may rely on proprietary interfaces or is intended for a different software ecosystem, whereas the Intel part supports standard graphics APIs.

The release timeline also matters. The Intel GPU launched on 2023-01-03, while the NVIDIA GPU launches on 2026-05-31. The later release date for NVIDIA aligns with its more advanced 5 nm process and Blackwell 2.0 architecture.

For users who need standard API compatibility and basic integrated graphics, the Intel UHD Graphics 710 Mobile provides a functional baseline. For users who need maximum compute throughput, ray tracing, tensor performance, and dedicated high-bandwidth memory, the NVIDIA N1X 40SM is the clear choice based on the recorded specifications.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ across nearly every recorded specification field. The manufacturing process differs: Intel uses 10 nm, NVIDIA uses 5 nm. The foundry differs: Intel uses Intel, NVIDIA uses TSMC. The die size is listed only for NVIDIA at 382 mm².

Clock speeds differ significantly. Intel has a base of 300 MHz and boost of 1200 MHz. NVIDIA has a base of 741 MHz and boost of 2346 MHz. The memory clock for NVIDIA is recorded as 1067 MHz with 8.5 Gbps effective, while Intel's memory clock is listed as System Shared.

Memory specifications differ entirely. Intel uses System Shared size, type, bus width, and bandwidth. NVIDIA uses 128 GB of LPD5X memory with a 256 bit bus and 273.2 GB/s bandwidth.

Compute units differ: Intel has 128 shading units, 8 TMUs, and 4 ROPs. NVIDIA has 5120 shading units, 320 TMUs, and 40 ROPs. NVIDIA also has 40 RT cores and 160 tensor cores, which Intel lacks entirely.

Rates differ: Intel has 4.800 GPixel/s pixel rate and 9.600 GTexel/s texture rate. NVIDIA has 93.84 GPixel/s and 750.7 GTexel/s. FP32 is 307.2 GFLOPS for Intel versus 24.02 TFLOPS for NVIDIA. FP16 is 614.4 GFLOPS (2:1) for Intel versus 24.02 TFLOPS (1:1) for NVIDIA.

Power draw is listed as 15 W for Intel, while NVIDIA's TDP is unknown. The bus interface differs: Intel uses Ring Bus, NVIDIA uses PCIe 5.0 x16. Display outputs differ: Intel has Portable Device Dependent, NVIDIA has 1x HDMI. API support differs: Intel lists DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, while NVIDIA lists N/A for all.

The production status for both is Active. The Intel GPU has a successor listed as Arc Graphics-M, while NVIDIA has no successor. The NVIDIA GPU has no predecessor listed, and neither has a launch MSRP recorded.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA N1X 40SM wins in every measured compute and memory category. Its FP32 throughput of 24.02 TFLOPS versus 307.2 GFLOPS indicates dominance in general-purpose compute workloads. The FP16 performance of 24.02 TFLOPS (1:1) versus 614.4 GFLOPS (2:1) suggests the NVIDIA part handles half-precision workloads at full rate, while Intel achieves half rate.

The NVIDIA part's 40 ray tracing cores and 160 tensor cores enable hardware-accelerated ray tracing and AI inference, capabilities entirely absent from the Intel UHD Graphics 710 Mobile. The 273.2 GB/s memory bandwidth versus System Dependent bandwidth means the NVIDIA part can feed its compute units without system memory contention.

The NVIDIA part's 5120 shading units versus 128 shading units indicates a massive advantage in parallel workload execution. The 320 TMUs versus 8 TMUs and 40 ROPs versus 4 ROPs further reinforce this. The pixel rate of 93.84 GPixel/s versus 4.800 GPixel/s shows the NVIDIA part can drive high-resolution displays and complex rendering.

The Intel UHD Graphics 710 Mobile wins in the category of standard API compatibility. It supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, while NVIDIA lists N/A for all three. This means Intel's part works with standard graphics frameworks, while NVIDIA's API support is unspecified in the database.

The Intel part also has a lower power draw at 15 W, though NVIDIA's TDP is unknown. This suggests Intel's part may be more suitable for power-constrained designs, though without NVIDIA's TDP figure, a direct comparison is impossible.

The Intel part uses a Ring Bus interface, which is typical for integrated processors sharing system memory. The NVIDIA part uses PCIe 5.0 x16, indicating it may connect differently to the host system. The Intel part has Portable Device Dependent display outputs, while NVIDIA has 1x HDMI, suggesting different intended display configurations.

The successor relationship also favors Intel in terms of product line continuity: Intel lists Arc Graphics-M as its successor, while NVIDIA has no successor listed. This indicates Intel has a clear upgrade path, while NVIDIA's product line direction is not recorded.

In summary, the NVIDIA N1X 40SM wins on raw performance, memory bandwidth, ray tracing, and tensor compute. The Intel UHD Graphics 710 Mobile wins on standard API support, lower power draw, and product line continuity. The choice between them depends entirely on whether the workload requires maximum compute or standard software compatibility.