Intel UHD Graphics 770 Mobile vs NVIDIA N1X 40SM Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded database contains no direct head-to-head benchmark results for the Intel UHD Graphics 770 Mobile versus the NVIDIA N1X 40SM. Both entries list an average benchmark score of 0, and the wins counter shows zero victories for either part. This absence of measured data means the comparison must rely entirely on the specification sheets and architectural parameters captured in the database.

The raw compute figures, however, tell a stark story. The Intel part delivers 819.2 GFLOPS of FP32 throughput, while the NVIDIA N1X 40SM delivers 24.02 TFLOPS. That is a 29.3 times advantage for the NVIDIA part in raw single-precision floating point work, a gap that no architectural nuance can bridge. Pixel fill rates reinforce the same direction: the Intel IGP produces 12.80 GPixel/s, while the NVIDIA part reaches 93.84 GPixel/s, roughly 7.3 times higher. Texture throughput shows an even wider chasm, with the Intel part at 25.60 GTexel/s versus 750.7 GTexel/s for the NVIDIA part, a 29.3 times margin once again.

The FP16 comparison does little to change the picture. Intel lists 1.638 TFLOPS at a 2:1 ratio, meaning it halves its FP32 rate for half-precision work. NVIDIA lists 24.02 TFLOPS at a 1:1 ratio, indicating it sustains the same throughput for FP16 as for FP32. The NVIDIA part therefore exceeds the Intel part by a factor of 14.7 in FP16, and it does so without the efficiency penalty that Intel incurs.

Clock speeds also differ dramatically. Intel's base clock sits at 300 MHz with a boost of 1600 MHz. NVIDIA's base clock is 741 MHz, and its boost reaches 2346 MHz. The NVIDIA part runs at roughly 2.5 times the Intel base clock and 1.5 times the Intel boost clock, meaning the NVIDIA part achieves its massive throughput advantage while operating at a significantly higher frequency. The Intel part's modest clock range reflects its role as a low-power integrated solution, whereas the NVIDIA part clearly targets a different performance tier.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from entirely different architectural lineages. Intel's UHD Graphics 770 Mobile uses Generation 12.2 architecture based on the Raptor Lake chip, manufactured on Intel's 10 nm process. NVIDIA's N1X 40SM uses Blackwell 2.0 architecture based on the GB20B chip, manufactured on TSMC's 5 nm process. The process node difference alone, 10 nm versus 5 nm, explains part of the transistor density and power efficiency gap, though the database does not list transistor counts for the Intel part.

Shader resources diverge sharply. Intel provides 256 shading units, 16 texture mapping units, and 8 raster operation units. NVIDIA provides 5120 shading units, 320 TMUs, and 40 ROPs. The NVIDIA part has 20 times the shading units, 20 times the TMUs, and 5 times the ROPs. Those ratios align closely with the raw throughput differences, confirming that the NVIDIA part scales its execution resources rather than relying on clock speed alone.

The NVIDIA part includes dedicated ray tracing cores (40) and tensor cores (160), neither of which appears in the Intel specification. Intel's architecture has no such specialized hardware, meaning any ray tracing or AI-accelerated workloads would run on general-purpose shaders, if they run at all. The database lists Intel's DirectX support as 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. NVIDIA lists all three APIs as N/A, which suggests the database has not recorded API compatibility for this part, or that its driver stack targets a different interface model.

Memory architecture separates the two completely. Intel uses system shared memory with a system dependent bandwidth, no dedicated VRAM, and a ring bus interface. NVIDIA uses 128 GB of LPDDR5X across a 256 bit bus, delivering 273.2 GB/s of bandwidth. The memory clock for NVIDIA is listed as 1067 MHz with 8.5 Gbps effective data rate. Intel's memory clock is simply labeled "System Shared" with no dedicated figure. The 128 GB capacity on the NVIDIA part is a massive allocation for an integrated GPU, exceeding what most discrete graphics cards carry, and it pairs with a 256 bit bus that gives it 273.2 GB/s, a figure no system-shared IGP can approach.

The bus interface also differs. Intel uses a ring bus, which ties memory access to the CPU's internal fabric. NVIDIA uses PCIe 5.0 x16, a full-bandwidth external interface that allows the GPU to communicate with the host at high speed, even though the part itself is an IGP. Display outputs differ as well: Intel lists "Portable Device Dependent," meaning outputs vary by laptop design, while NVIDIA lists a single HDMI port.

The Verdict

The data points to a decisive performance hierarchy. The NVIDIA N1X 40SM outscores the Intel UHD Graphics 770 Mobile in every recorded compute metric: FP32 throughput, FP16 throughput, pixel fill rate, texture fill rate, shading units, TMUs, ROPs, memory bandwidth, and memory capacity. The Intel part holds advantages only in areas of power consumption and API compatibility. Intel lists a 15 W TDP, while NVIDIA's TDP is listed as unknown, so no direct power comparison is possible from the database. Intel also lists full API support for DirectX 12, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, whereas NVIDIA lists N/A for all three, which could indicate a driver stack that does not expose those traditional APIs.

The percentile ranking for both parts sits at 50, meaning the database places them at the median of all GPUs. That equal ranking likely reflects the lack of measured benchmark data rather than true performance equivalence, since the specification sheets show a 29 fold difference in raw compute. The Intel part was released on January 3, 2023, while the NVIDIA part has a release date of May 31, 2026, over three years later, which explains the architectural gulf.

Users who need a functional integrated GPU for basic display output, light 2D workloads, and legacy API support would find the Intel part sufficient. Users who need serious graphics compute, large memory pools, or ray tracing capabilities would have no choice but the NVIDIA part. The verdict from the recorded data is unambiguous: the NVIDIA N1X 40SM is in a different performance class entirely, and the Intel UHD Graphics 770 Mobile cannot compete on any compute metric the database tracks.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher FP32 performance?

A: The NVIDIA N1X 40SM delivers 24.02 TFLOPS of FP32 throughput, while the Intel UHD Graphics 770 Mobile delivers 819.2 GFLOPS, making the NVIDIA part 29.3 times faster.

Q: Does the Intel GPU support DirectX, OpenGL, or Vulkan?

A: Yes, the Intel UHD Graphics 770 Mobile supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The NVIDIA N1X 40SM lists N/A for all three APIs in the database.

Q: How much memory does each GPU have?

A: The Intel part uses system shared memory with system dependent bandwidth. The NVIDIA part has 128 GB of LPDDR5X across a 256 bit bus with 273.2 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: What are the process nodes for each GPU?

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

Q: Does the NVIDIA GPU have ray tracing or tensor cores?

A: Yes, the NVIDIA N1X 40SM includes 40 ray tracing cores and 160 tensor cores. The Intel UHD Graphics 770 Mobile lists no such hardware.

Q: What is the release date for each GPU?

A: The Intel UHD Graphics 770 Mobile was released on January 3, 2023. The NVIDIA N1X 40SM is dated May 31, 2026.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel UHD Graphics 770 Mobile wins in the narrow category of traditional API compatibility. It lists DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4 support, meaning software written for those interfaces can run on it. The NVIDIA part lists N/A for all three, which suggests either no support or unrecorded support. For legacy applications that require those APIs, the Intel part is the only option with confirmed compatibility.

The Intel part also wins on power draw, with a listed 15 W TDP. The NVIDIA part's TDP is unknown, so a direct comparison is impossible, but the Intel figure indicates a very low power envelope suitable for thin-and-light portables. The NVIDIA part, with its massive shader count and high clocks, would likely draw far more, though the database does not quantify this.

The NVIDIA N1X 40SM wins every compute metric. FP32 throughput, FP16 throughput, pixel rate, texture rate, shading units, TMUs, ROPs, memory capacity, memory bandwidth, and clock speeds all favor NVIDIA. The 128 GB memory allocation dwarfs the Intel part's system shared memory. The 273.2 GB/s bandwidth allows data movement that the Intel part cannot approach, given its system dependent bandwidth. The 40 ray tracing cores and 160 tensor cores give the NVIDIA part capabilities the Intel part lacks entirely.

For gaming, the NVIDIA part's 93.84 GPixel/s pixel rate and 750.7 GTexel/s texture rate suggest it can handle resolutions and detail settings far beyond what the Intel part's 12.80 GPixel/s and 25.60 GTexel/s could manage. For compute workloads, the 24.02 TFLOPS FP32 and FP16 figures position the NVIDIA part as a serious compute accelerator, while the Intel part's 819.2 GFLOPS FP32 and 1.638 TFLOPS FP16 place it firmly in the entry-level segment.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ in nearly every recorded specification field. The process node differs: Intel uses 10 nm from Intel foundry, NVIDIA uses 5 nm from TSMC. The die size is recorded only for NVIDIA at 382 mm², with no figure for Intel. Transistor counts are unknown for both, though NVIDIA lists "unknown" explicitly while Intel lists no value.

Clock speeds diverge substantially. Intel runs at 300 MHz base and 1600 MHz boost. NVIDIA runs at 741 MHz base and 2346 MHz boost, with a memory clock of 1067 MHz at 8.5 Gbps effective. Intel's memory clock is listed as "System Shared."

Memory specifications show the largest gap. Intel has system shared memory, system shared type, system shared bus width, and system dependent bandwidth. NVIDIA has 128 GB of LPDDR5X memory, a 256 bit bus, and 273.2 GB/s bandwidth.

Execution resources differ by fixed ratios. Intel has 256 shading units, 16 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. NVIDIA has 5120 shading units, 320 TMUs, and 40 ROPs. Intel has no RT cores and no tensor cores. NVIDIA has 40 RT cores and 160 tensor cores.

Pixel and texture rates follow the resource counts. Intel produces 12.80 GPixel/s and 25.60 GTexel/s. NVIDIA produces 93.84 GPixel/s and 750.7 GTexel/s. FP32 throughput is 819.2 GFLOPS for Intel versus 24.02 TFLOPS for NVIDIA. FP16 throughput is 1.638 TFLOPS at a 2:1 ratio for Intel versus 24.02 TFLOPS at a 1:1 ratio for NVIDIA.

Power and interface fields also differ. Intel lists a 15 W TDP and a ring bus interface. NVIDIA lists an unknown TDP, no power connectors, and a PCIe 5.0 x16 interface. Intel's display outputs are "Portable Device Dependent," while NVIDIA lists "1x HDMI." The API lists differ completely, with Intel supporting DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, and NVIDIA listing N/A for all three. Release dates place Intel on January 3, 2023, and NVIDIA on May 31, 2026. Intel's production status is Active, and its successor is listed as Arc Graphics-M, while NVIDIA has no successor listed.