NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 SUPER vs NVIDIA N1X 40SM Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data for the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 SUPER and the NVIDIA N1X 40SM shows a fundamental asymmetry: the RTX 4070 SUPER has ten benchmark entries across 3DMark, Geekbench, and PassMark suites, while the N1X 40SM has no recorded benchmarks in the database. This absence of direct comparison data means the head-to-head analysis relies entirely on the RTX 4070 SUPER's absolute scores and its position among its nearest rivals.

The RTX 4070 SUPER posts an average benchmark score of 43,223 across all tests. Its nearest rival in the database is the NVIDIA Quadro M6000 24 GB with an average score of 43,262, a delta of -0.1 percent. The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5050 Mobile follows at 43,268, also -0.1 percent. The NVIDIA Quadro M6000 scores 43,301, -0.2 percent, and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Mobile reaches 43,667, a -1 percent gap. These deltas indicate the RTX 4070 SUPER sits within a tight cluster at roughly 43,000 to 43,700 average points, with the RTX 4090 Mobile holding a modest 1 percent lead.

In specific tests, the RTX 4070 SUPER delivers 4,627 in 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12. Geekbench results show 172,795 in OpenCL and 205,624 in Vulkan. PassMark scores include 167 in DirectX 10, 273 in DirectX 11, 110 in DirectX 12, and 344 in DirectX 9. The 2D graphics test records 1,184, while the 3D graphics test reaches 29,995 and the GPU compute test scores 17,108. The RTX 4070 SUPER holds the 83rd percentile among all GPUs in the database, placing it in the upper tier of recorded graphics processors.

The N1X 40SM, by contrast, has zero benchmark entries, zero average score, and no nearest rivals listed. Its percentile sits at 50, which reflects the default middle position for an unmeasured part rather than any observed performance. The data cannot show where the N1X 40SM would land against the RTX 4070 SUPER in any specific workload because no such measurements exist. The only quantitative comparison available is architectural and specification-based, not performance-based.

Where Each One Wins

Without head-to-head benchmark data, the wins for each product are defined by what the recorded specifications and the single measured product indicate.

The RTX 4070 SUPER wins in raw compute throughput. Its FP32 performance is 35.48 TFLOPS, which exceeds the N1X 40SM's 24.02 TFLOPS by a substantial margin. The shading unit count reinforces this: 7,168 shading units on the RTX 4070 SUPER versus 5,120 on the N1X 40SM. Pixel rate favors the RTX 4070 SUPER at 198.0 GPixel/s compared to 93.84 GPixel/s for the N1X 40SM. Memory bandwidth also goes to the RTX 4070 SUPER: 504.2 GB/s versus 273.2 GB/s, a difference driven by GDDR6X memory at 21 Gbps effective against LPDDR5X at 8.5 Gbps effective.

The N1X 40SM wins in texture throughput. Its texture rate is 750.7 GTexel/s, higher than the RTX 4070 SUPER's 554.4 GTexel/s, thanks to 320 texture mapping units versus 224. The N1X 40SM also has a larger memory pool at 128 GB compared to 12 GB, and a wider memory bus at 256 bit versus 192 bit. The N1X 40SM's boost clock of 2346 MHz exceeds the RTX 4070 SUPER's 2475 MHz boost, though the gap is small. The N1X 40SM uses a PCIe 5.0 x16 interface while the RTX 4070 SUPER uses PCIe 4.0 x16, so the newer standard is an advantage for the N1X 40SM.

The RTX 4070 SUPER wins on RT core count with 56 RT cores versus 40, and tensor core count with 224 versus 160. The RTX 4070 SUPER also has more ROPs at 80 versus 40. The N1X 40SM's higher TMU count and texture rate suggest it would favor workloads that stress texture fetch and filtering, while the RTX 4070 SUPER's higher pixel rate and FP32 throughput point to advantage in pixel-heavy and general compute scenarios. The N1X 40SM's 128 GB memory capacity is a clear win for workloads requiring large datasets resident in VRAM, though its lower bandwidth would limit how quickly those datasets can be accessed.

The Verdict

The database records no benchmark results for the NVIDIA N1X 40SM, so any verdict on direct performance is impossible from measured data. What the recorded specifications allow is a segmentation by workload profile.

The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 SUPER is the choice for applications that depend on high FP32 compute, ray tracing, and pixel throughput. Its 35.48 TFLOPS FP32, 56 RT cores, and 198.0 GPixel/s pixel rate are all recorded advantages. Its 12 GB GDDR6X memory with 504.2 GB/s bandwidth supports high-speed access for gaming and rendering workloads that fit within that capacity. The RTX 4070 SUPER's 83rd percentile ranking and average benchmark score of 43,223 place it as a strong mid-to-upper tier discrete GPU.

The NVIDIA N1X 40SM is the choice for workloads where memory capacity and texture throughput dominate. Its 128 GB LPDDR5X memory is eleven times the capacity of the RTX 4070 SUPER, and its 750.7 GTexel/s texture rate exceeds the RTX 4070 SUPER by roughly 35 percent. The 320 TMUs and 256-bit bus support that texture throughput. However, the N1X 40SM's FP32 compute is only 24.02 TFLOPS, its pixel rate is less than half at 93.84 GPixel/s, and it has fewer RT and tensor cores. Its IGP form factor and lack of power connectors indicate an integrated design, which the RTX 4070 SUPER's dual-slot, 16-pin connector configuration does not share.

Users who need maximum memory capacity for large data sets should favor the N1X 40SM. Users who need high compute throughput, ray tracing, and pixel processing should favor the RTX 4070 SUPER. The data does not support a universal recommendation because no shared benchmark scores exist.

FAQ

Q: Does the NVIDIA N1X 40SM have any recorded benchmark scores?

A: No. The database lists zero benchmarks for the N1X 40SM, with an average benchmark score of 0 and no nearest rivals.

Q: How does the RTX 4070 SUPER compare to its nearest rivals in average score?

A: The RTX 4070 SUPER averages 43,223 points. The NVIDIA Quadro M6000 24 GB scores 43,262 (-0.1 percent), the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5050 Mobile scores 43,268 (-0.1 percent), the NVIDIA Quadro M6000 scores 43,301 (-0.2 percent), and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Mobile scores 43,667 (-1 percent).

Q: Which GPU has higher FP32 compute performance?

A: The RTX 4070 SUPER records 35.48 TFLOPS FP32, while the N1X 40SM records 24.02 TFLOPS FP32.

Q: What is the memory capacity difference?

A: The RTX 4070 SUPER has 12 GB of GDDR6X memory. The N1X 40SM has 128 GB of LPDDR5X memory.

Q: Which GPU has higher texture throughput?

A: The N1X 40SM records 750.7 GTexel/s, while the RTX 4070 SUPER records 554.4 GTexel/s.

Q: Are there any API differences between the two?

A: Yes. The RTX 4070 SUPER supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The N1X 40SM lists N/A for DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan in the database.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different architectural generations. The RTX 4070 SUPER uses the AD104 chip based on Ada Lovelace architecture, belonging to the GeForce 40 series and the GeForce 40 generation. The N1X 40SM uses the GB20B chip based on Blackwell 2.0 architecture, belonging to the Blackwell IGP (N1x) generation.

The manufacturing process is the same for both: TSMC's 5 nm node. The RTX 4070 SUPER has a die size of 294 mm² with 35,800 million transistors, giving a transistor density of 121.8M per mm². The N1X 40SM has a larger die at 382 mm², but its transistor count and density are listed as unknown in the database.

The RTX 4070 SUPER has 7,168 shading units, 224 TMUs, 80 ROPs, 56 RT cores, and 224 tensor cores. The N1X 40SM has 5,120 shading units, 320 TMUs, 40 ROPs, 40 RT cores, and 160 tensor cores. The RTX 4070 SUPER leads in shading units, ROPs, RT cores, and tensor cores, while the N1X 40SM leads in TMUs.

The memory subsystems differ fundamentally. The RTX 4070 SUPER uses 12 GB of GDDR6X on a 192-bit bus, with memory clock at 1313 MHz and 21 Gbps effective, yielding 504.2 GB/s bandwidth. The N1X 40SM uses 128 GB of LPDDR5X on a 256-bit bus, with memory clock at 1067 MHz and 8.5 Gbps effective, yielding 273.2 GB/s bandwidth. The N1X 40SM's wider bus and larger capacity contrast with the RTX 4070 SUPER's faster memory type and higher bandwidth.

The RTX 4070 SUPER operates with a base clock of 1980 MHz and boost clock of 2475 MHz. The N1X 40SM has a much lower base clock of 741 MHz but a boost clock of 2346 MHz, which is close to the RTX 4070 SUPER's boost. The power design differs as well: the RTX 4070 SUPER has a TDP of 220 W, uses a dual-slot form factor, and requires a single 16-pin power connector, with a suggested PSU of 550 W. The N1X 40SM lists unknown TDP, an IGP form factor, no power connectors, and no suggested PSU.

The bus interface also differs. The RTX 4070 SUPER uses PCIe 4.0 x16, while the N1X 40SM uses PCIe 5.0 x16. Display outputs show the RTX 4070 SUPER with 1x HDMI 2.13x DisplayPort 1.4a, while the N1X 40SM lists only 1x HDMI.

Specification Differences

The following fields differ between the two GPUs in the database:

• Series: The RTX 4070 SUPER belongs to GeForce 40-series; the N1X 40SM has no series listed.
• Chip: AD104 versus GB20B.
• Architecture: Ada Lovelace versus Blackwell 2.0.
• Generation: GeForce 40 versus Blackwell IGP (N1x).
• Die size: 294 mm² versus 382 mm².
• Transistors: 35,800 million versus unknown.
• Transistor density: 121.8M / mm² versus null.
• Base clock: 1980 MHz versus 741 MHz.
• Boost clock: 2475 MHz versus 2346 MHz.
• Memory clock: 1313 MHz 21 Gbps effective versus 1067 MHz 8.5 Gbps effective.
• Memory size: 12 GB versus 128 GB.
• Memory type: GDDR6X versus LPDDR5X.
• Memory bus width: 192 bit versus 256 bit.
• Memory bandwidth: 504.2 GB/s versus 273.2 GB/s.
• Shading units: 7168 versus 5120.
• TMUs: 224 versus 320.
• ROPs: 80 versus 40.
• RT cores: 56 versus 40.
• Tensor cores: 224 versus 160.
• Pixel rate: 198.0 GPixel/s versus 93.84 GPixel/s.
• Texture rate: 554.4 GTexel/s versus 750.7 GTexel/s.
• FP32: 35.48 TFLOPS versus 24.02 TFLOPS.
• FP16: 35.48 TFLOPS (1:1) versus 24.02 TFLOPS (1:1).
• TDP: 220 W versus unknown.
• Slot width: Dual-slot versus IGP.
• Power connectors: 1x 16-pin versus None.
• Suggested PSU: 550 W versus null.
• Bus interface: PCIe 4.0 x16 versus PCIe 5.0 x16.
• Display outputs: 1x HDMI 2.13x DisplayPort 1.4a versus 1x HDMI.
• DirectX support: 12 Ultimate (12_2) versus N/A.
• OpenGL support: 4.6 versus N/A.
• Vulkan support: 1.4 versus N/A.
• Dimensions: length 267 mm, height 112 mm, width 42 mm versus all null.
• Production status: End-of-life versus Active.
• Release date: 2024-01-16 versus 2026-05-31.
• Predecessor: GeForce 30 versus null.
• Successor: GeForce 50 versus null.
• Launch MSRP: 599 USD versus null.
• Benchmark entries: 10 versus 0.
• Average benchmark score: 43,223 versus 0.
• Percentile versus all GPUs: 83 versus 50.
• Nearest rivals: four listed versus none.