NVIDIA GB10 vs NVIDIA N1 16SM Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA GB10 has an average benchmark score of 117393 and sits in the 95th percentile of all GPUs. The NVIDIA N1 16SM has no recorded benchmark scores, an average benchmark score of 0, and sits in the 50th percentile.

Q: What is the difference in shading units between the two?

A: The GB10 uses 6144 shading units, while the N1 16SM uses 2048 shading units. The GB10 also has 384 texture mapping units versus 128 on the N1 16SM, and 48 render output units versus 24.

Q: Do both GPUs use the same memory configuration?

A: Yes, both the GB10 and the N1 16SM use 128 GB of LPDDR5X memory on a 256-bit bus, with 273.2 GB/s of bandwidth and memory clocks at 1067 MHz (8.5 Gbps effective).

Q: How do the boost clocks compare?

A: The GB10 has a base clock of 1665 MHz and a boost clock of 2418 MHz. The N1 16SM has a base clock of 741 MHz and a boost clock of 2346 MHz, so the GB10 has both a higher base and higher boost clock.

Q: Which GPU has a higher compute throughput?

A: The GB10 delivers 29.71 TFLOPS in FP32 and FP16 (1:1), while the N1 16SM delivers 9.609 TFLOPS in both FP32 and FP16 (1:1). The GB10 is roughly three times higher in raw floating-point throughput.

Q: Are the architectures the same?

A: Both GPUs are built on the Blackwell 2.0 architecture, use the GB20B chip, are fabricated on a 5 nm process at TSMC, and share a 382 mm² die size. The GB10 belongs to the Server Blackwell (Bxx) generation, while the N1 16SM belongs to the Blackwell IGP (N1x) generation.

Architecture Differences

The NVIDIA GB10 and NVIDIA N1 16SM both use the GB20B chip, Blackwell 2.0 architecture, a 5 nm TSMC process, and a 382 mm² die size. The core difference lies in how the silicon is partitioned. The GB10 enables 6144 shading units, 384 texture mapping units, 48 render output units, 48 ray tracing cores, and 384 tensor cores. The N1 16SM enables 2048 shading units, 128 texture mapping units, 24 render output units, 16 ray tracing cores, and 64 tensor cores. This is a 3x reduction in shading units and texture mapping units, a 2x reduction in render output units, a 3x reduction in ray tracing cores, and a 6x reduction in tensor cores.

Clock behavior also differs substantially. The GB10 runs at a 1665 MHz base and 2418 MHz boost, while the N1 16SM runs at 741 MHz base and 2346 MHz boost. The boost clocks are relatively close, but the base clock of the GB10 is more than double that of the N1 16SM, indicating a different power and thermal envelope. The GB10 is rated at 140 W TDP with a 300 W suggested PSU, while the N1 16SM has no recorded TDP and no suggested PSU in the database.

Both GPUs share the same memory subsystem: 128 GB of LPDDR5X, 256-bit bus, 273.2 GB/s bandwidth, and 1067 MHz memory clock. Both are integrated graphics processors (IGP) with no power connectors, a PCIe 5.0 x16 interface, and a single HDMI output. Neither supports DirectX, OpenGL, or Vulkan APIs, which confirms a compute-oriented role rather than a consumer graphics role. The N1 16SM has no recorded dimensions, while the GB10 measures 150 mm by 51 mm by 150 mm.

The GB10 has a release date of October 2025, while the N1 16SM is dated May 2026. The GB10 lists a predecessor (Server Hopper) and successor (Server Rubin), while the N1 16SM has neither. The N1 16SM also has no launch MSRP in the database.

The Verdict

The data clearly favors the NVIDIA GB10 for any workload that depends on raw compute throughput, ray tracing, or tensor operations. Its FP32 throughput of 29.71 TFLOPS is more than three times the 9.609 TFLOPS of the N1 16SM. Its 48 ray tracing cores versus 16, and 384 tensor cores versus 64, give it a decisive advantage in accelerated workloads. The GB10 also has a higher average benchmark score of 117393 and sits in the 95th percentile of all GPUs, while the N1 16SM has no recorded benchmark scores and sits at the 50th percentile.

The N1 16SM, by contrast, is a lower-configuration variant of the same chip. It uses fewer shading units, fewer texture units, fewer render output units, and fewer specialized cores. Its boost clock of 2346 MHz is only 3% lower than the GB10's 2418 MHz, but its base clock of 741 MHz is far lower. The N1 16SM has no TDP rating, no suggested PSU, and no benchmark data, which limits its measurable performance profile.

For users selecting between these two, the GB10 is the only option with verified performance data. The N1 16SM appears to be a cut-down part intended for lower-power or smaller-footprint integrations, but without recorded benchmarks, its real-world performance cannot be quantified from the database. The GB10's 140 W TDP and 300 W suggested PSU indicate a power-hungry part, while the N1 16SM's power characteristics are unrecorded. The GB10 also has a launch MSRP of 3,999 USD, while the N1 16SM has no launch MSRP recorded.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ in the following recorded fields:

• Shading units: GB10 has 6144; N1 16SM has 2048.
• Texture mapping units: GB10 has 384; N1 16SM has 128.
• Render output units: GB10 has 48; N1 16SM has 24.
• Ray tracing cores: GB10 has 48; N1 16SM has 16.
• Tensor cores: GB10 has 384; N1 16SM has 64.
• Base clock: GB10 is 1665 MHz; N1 16SM is 741 MHz.
• Boost clock: GB10 is 2418 MHz; N1 16SM is 2346 MHz.
• Pixel rate: GB10 is 116.1 GPixel/s; N1 16SM is 56.30 GPixel/s.
• Texture rate: GB10 is 928.5 GTexel/s; N1 16SM is 300.3 GTexel/s.
• FP32 throughput: GB10 is 29.71 TFLOPS; N1 16SM is 9.609 TFLOPS.
• FP16 throughput: GB10 is 29.71 TFLOPS (1:1); N1 16SM is 9.609 TFLOPS (1:1).
• TDP: GB10 is 140 W; N1 16SM is unknown.
• Suggested PSU: GB10 is 300 W; N1 16SM has none recorded.
• Dimensions: GB10 is 150 mm by 51 mm by 150 mm; N1 16SM has none recorded.
• Release date: GB10 is October 2025; N1 16SM is May 2026.
• Predecessor: GB10 lists Server Hopper; N1 16SM has none.
• Successor: GB10 lists Server Rubin; N1 16SM has none.
• Launch MSRP: GB10 is 3,999 USD; N1 16SM has none.
• Benchmarks: GB10 has geekbench_opencl 120137 and geekbench_vulkan 114648; N1 16SM has none.
• Percentile: GB10 is 95th; N1 16SM is 50th.
• Average benchmark score: GB10 is 117393; N1 16SM is 0.

Fields that are identical: chip (GB20B), architecture (Blackwell 2.0), process node (5 nm), foundry (TSMC), die size (382 mm²), memory size (128 GB), memory type (LPDDR5X), memory bus width (256 bit), memory bandwidth (273.2 GB/s), memory clock (1067 MHz 8.5 Gbps effective), slot width (IGP), power connectors (None), bus interface (PCIe 5.0 x16), display outputs (1x HDMI), and API support (DirectX N/A, OpenGL N/A, Vulkan N/A).

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains no direct head-to-head benchmark entries between the GB10 and the N1 16SM. However, the GB10 has recorded standalone benchmarks: a geekbench_opencl score of 120137 and a geekbench_vulkan score of 114648. The N1 16SM has no recorded benchmarks, so no direct comparison can be made at the test level.

The GB10's average benchmark score of 117393 places it near several rivals. The NVIDIA RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation scores 117088, which is 0.3% lower than the GB10. The AMD Radeon PRO W7700 scores 118976, which is 1.3% higher than the GB10. The NVIDIA Tesla V100 SXM2 16 GB scores 114395, which is 2.6% lower. The NVIDIA RTX A5500 Mobile scores 113944, which is 3% lower. These deltas show the GB10 performing in a tight cluster with workstation-class GPUs, slightly ahead of the RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation and slightly behind the Radeon PRO W7700.

Since the N1 16SM has no benchmark scores, the only quantitative comparison comes from the specification-derived throughput figures. The GB10's pixel rate of 116.1 GPixel/s is roughly double the 56.30 GPixel/s of the N1 16SM. The GB10's texture rate of 928.5 GTexel/s is more than triple the 300.3 GTexel/s of the N1 16SM. The FP32 throughput gap is also roughly threefold: 29.71 TFLOPS versus 9.609 TFLOPS. These figures indicate that the GB10 is not merely a clocked-up version of the N1 16SM; it has substantially more execution resources.

The boost clock gap is small (2418 MHz versus 2346 MHz), which suggests that single-threaded or lightly threaded workloads may not show a large difference. But the base clock gap (1665 MHz versus 741 MHz) and the resource gap point to a much wider performance spread under sustained load.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA GB10 wins on every measurable performance axis. Its FP32 throughput of 29.71 TFLOPS is over three times the N1 16SM's 9.609 TFLOPS. Its tensor core count of 384 versus 64 makes it the clear choice for matrix-heavy workloads such as dense linear algebra or transformer-style inference. Its 48 ray tracing cores versus 16 gives it a significant edge in ray-tracing compute tasks. Its texture rate of 928.5 GTexel/s versus 300.3 GTexel/s means it can sustain far higher rates of texture sampling. Its pixel rate of 116.1 GPixel/s versus 56.30 GPixel/s doubles the fill rate.

The GB10 also has the advantage of verified benchmark results. Its geekbench_opencl score of 120137 and geekbench_vulkan score of 114648 place it in the 95th percentile of all GPUs. The N1 16SM has no recorded benchmarks and sits at the 50th percentile, which in the database's framework means no data rather than average performance.

The N1 16SM's advantages are not in performance but in configuration. It has no recorded TDP, which suggests a part that may be intended for lower-power integration, though the database does not record its power draw. It has no dimensions recorded, which could indicate a smaller physical footprint, but this is not confirmed. Its release date of May 2026 is later than the GB10's October 2025, which may indicate a newer product line, but its generation label (Blackwell IGP) and lack of predecessor or successor entries suggest a different market segment.

For compute-heavy workloads, the GB10 is the only defensible choice based on the data. For scenarios where the N1 16SM might be chosen, the database provides no benchmark evidence to support that decision. The N1 16SM's lower resource counts and lower base clock imply reduced sustained performance, but without TDP or benchmark figures, any quantitative assessment of its efficiency is impossible. The GB10 remains the proven part, with a 95th percentile standing and a benchmark profile consistent with workstation-class GPUs.