NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 SUPER vs NVIDIA N1 20SM Comparison

The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 SUPER and the NVIDIA N1 20SM occupy opposite ends of the hardware spectrum. The RTX 4080 SUPER is a discrete add-in board from the GeForce 40-series, built on the Ada Lovelace architecture with the AD103 chip. The N1 20SM is an integrated graphics processor from the Blackwell IGP family, using the GB20B chip and Blackwell 2.0 architecture. The database records no shared benchmark runs between these two parts, and the N1 20SM has an empty benchmark history. This analysis relies on the recorded specifications, the RTX 4080 SUPER’s measured scores, and its position among nearby rivals in the database.

FAQ

Q: What is the average benchmark score for the GeForce RTX 4080 SUPER?

A: The RTX 4080 SUPER has an average benchmark score of 54,209 across all recorded tests. This places it at the 86th percentile among all GPUs in the database.

Q: Does the N1 20SM have any recorded benchmark scores?

A: No. The N1 20SM has an empty benchmark array, an average score of 0, and no nearest rivals listed. Its percentile versus all GPUs is recorded as 50, but this reflects the absence of measured performance data rather than a tested result.

Q: What memory configurations do the two GPUs use?

A: The RTX 4080 SUPER uses 16 GB of GDDR6X memory on a 256-bit bus, delivering 736.3 GB/s of bandwidth. The N1 20SM uses 128 GB of LPDDR5X memory, also on a 256-bit bus, but with 273.2 GB/s of bandwidth.

Q: Which GPU has a higher boost clock?

A: The RTX 4080 SUPER has a boost clock of 2550 MHz, compared to the N1 20SM’s boost clock of 2346 MHz. The RTX 4080 SUPER also has a higher base clock at 2295 MHz versus 741 MHz.

Q: What is the production status of each GPU?

A: The RTX 4080 SUPER is listed as end-of-life, with a release date of January 30, 2024. The N1 20SM is listed as active, with a release date of May 31, 2026.

Q: What is the launch MSRP of the RTX 4080 SUPER?

A: The launch MSRP is 999 USD. The N1 20SM has no recorded launch MSRP in the database.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs diverge sharply in compute architecture, memory hierarchy, and feature support. The RTX 4080 SUPER uses the Ada Lovelace architecture on a 5 nm TSMC process, with 45,900 million transistors on a 379 mm² die. The N1 20SM uses the Blackwell 2.0 architecture, also fabricated by TSMC at 5 nm, but its transistor count is unknown. Its die size is 382 mm², slightly larger than the RTX 4080 SUPER’s.

Compute resources show a wide gap. The RTX 4080 SUPER has 10,240 shading units, 320 texture mapping units, and 112 render output units. The N1 20SM has 2,560 shading units, 160 TMUs, and only 24 ROPs. Ray tracing hardware differs similarly: the RTX 4080 SUPER carries 80 RT cores and 320 tensor cores, while the N1 20SM has 20 RT cores and 80 tensor cores. The FP32 throughput reflects this: 52.22 TFLOPS for the RTX 4080 SUPER versus 12.01 TFLOPS for the N1 20SM. Both deliver FP16 at a 1:1 ratio with their FP32 figures.

Memory architecture is a major differentiator. The RTX 4080 SUPER uses 16 GB of GDDR6X with a 256-bit bus and 736.3 GB/s bandwidth. The N1 20SM uses 128 GB of LPDDR5X on the same 256-bit bus, but bandwidth drops to 273.2 GB/s. Pixel fill rates tell the story of rasterization throughput: the RTX 4080 SUPER achieves 285.6 GPixel/s, while the N1 20SM manages 56.30 GPixel/s. Texture fill rates are 816.0 GTexel/s versus 375.4 GTexel/s.

API support also separates them. The RTX 4080 SUPER supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The N1 20SM records DirectX as N/A, OpenGL as N/A, and Vulkan as N/A, indicating no traditional desktop graphics API support in the database. The RTX 4080 SUPER has a PCIe 4.0 x16 interface, while the N1 20SM uses PCIe 5.0 x16. Power delivery differs completely: the RTX 4080 SUPER has a 320 W TDP, a 1x 16-pin power connector, and a suggested 700 W PSU, whereas the N1 20SM has an unknown TDP, no power connectors, and is classified as an IGP.

Where Each One Wins

The RTX 4080 SUPER wins in every measurable performance category with recorded data. Its FP32 throughput is over four times that of the N1 20SM, and its pixel rate is roughly five times higher. The memory bandwidth advantage is substantial: 736.3 GB/s versus 273.2 GB/s, a difference that directly impacts texture streaming and high-resolution rendering. The RTX 4080 SUPER’s 80 RT cores and 320 tensor cores provide dedicated hardware for ray tracing and AI workloads, while the N1 20SM’s smaller counts (20 and 80, respectively) limit those capabilities.

The N1 20SM wins in memory capacity. Its 128 GB of LPDDR5X is eight times the RTX 4080 SUPER’s 16 GB. This capacity suits large in-memory datasets, such as AI inference batches or data processing, where bandwidth is less critical than total storage. The N1 20SM also has a newer PCIe 5.0 x16 interface, doubling the per-lane bandwidth of the RTX 4080 SUPER’s PCIe 4.0 x16. Its integrated design requires no external power connectors, which simplifies system integration in compact or embedded contexts.

The production status favors the N1 20SM for forward-looking designs. It is active, while the RTX 4080 SUPER is end-of-life with a successor in the GeForce 50-series. For gaming and real-time graphics, the RTX 4080 SUPER’s higher clock speeds, larger shading unit count, and superior fill rates make it the clear choice. For memory-bound, non-graphics compute tasks, the N1 20SM’s 128 GB pool offers a unique advantage that the RTX 4080 SUPER cannot match.

Specification Differences

The following fields differ between the two GPUs:

• Series: GeForce 40-series for the RTX 4080 SUPER; none recorded for the N1 20SM
• Chip: AD103 versus GB20B
• Architecture: Ada Lovelace versus Blackwell 2.0
• Generation: GeForce 40 versus Blackwell IGP (N1x)
• Transistors: 45,900 million versus unknown
• Die Size: 379 mm² versus 382 mm²
• Transistor Density: 121.1M / mm² versus null
• Base Clock: 2295 MHz versus 741 MHz
• Boost Clock: 2550 MHz versus 2346 MHz
• Memory Clock: 1438 MHz (23 Gbps effective) versus 1067 MHz (8.5 Gbps effective)
• Memory Size: 16 GB versus 128 GB
• Memory Type: GDDR6X versus LPDDR5X
• Bandwidth: 736.3 GB/s versus 273.2 GB/s
• Shading Units: 10,240 versus 2,560
• TMUs: 320 versus 160
• ROPs: 112 versus 24
• RT Cores: 80 versus 20
• Tensor Cores: 320 versus 80
• Pixel Rate: 285.6 GPixel/s versus 56.30 GPixel/s
• Texture Rate: 816.0 GTexel/s versus 375.4 GTexel/s
• FP32: 52.22 TFLOPS versus 12.01 TFLOPS
• FP16: 52.22 TFLOPS (1:1) versus 12.01 TFLOPS (1:1)
• TDP: 320 W versus unknown
• Slot Width: Triple-slot versus IGP
• Power Connectors: 1x 16-pin versus None
• Suggested PSU: 700 W versus null
• Bus Interface: PCIe 4.0 x16 versus PCIe 5.0 x16
• Display Outputs: 1x HDMI 2.1, 3x DisplayPort 1.4a versus 1x HDMI
• APIs: DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, Vulkan 1.4 versus N/A for all
• Dimensions: 310 mm x 140 mm x 61 mm versus null
• Production Status: End-of-life versus Active
• Release Date: 2024-01-30 versus 2026-05-31
• Predecessor: GeForce 30 versus null
• Successor: GeForce 50 versus null
• Launch MSRP: 999 USD versus null
• Benchmarks: 10 recorded scores versus empty
• Percentile: 86 versus 50
• Average Score: 54,209 versus 0
• Nearest Rivals: 4 entries versus empty

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains no head-to-head benchmark entries that directly compare the RTX 4080 SUPER and the N1 20SM. The RTX 4080 SUPER has 10 recorded benchmark scores, while the N1 20SM has none. This means every performance comparison must rely on the RTX 4080 SUPER’s absolute scores and its position relative to other discrete GPUs.

The RTX 4080 SUPER’s strongest recorded result is in Geekbench Vulkan, where it scores 260,075. Its Geekbench OpenCL score is 219,065. In 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12, it records 6,600. PassMark scores are lower in raw numbers but still show consistent performance: 34,245 in G3D, 19,822 in GPU compute, 1,270 in G2D, 381 in DirectX 9, 301 in DirectX 11, 193 in DirectX 10, and 134 in DirectX 12.

The average benchmark score of 54,209 places the RTX 4080 SUPER at the 86th percentile among all GPUs. Its nearest rival is the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080, which has an average score of 54,247. The RTX 4080 SUPER trails that card by just 0.1%. The AMD Radeon Pro W5700X scores 54,828, putting the RTX 4080 SUPER 1.1% behind. The AMD Radeon RX 6750 GRE 12 GB scores 55,698, a 2.7% gap, and the AMD Radeon 8060S scores 55,757, a 2.8% gap. All four rivals sit within a narrow band, indicating the RTX 4080 SUPER’s performance is tightly clustered among high-end parts.

The N1 20SM has no such data. Its average score is 0, and it has no nearest rivals. The percentile field shows 50, but with no benchmarks, this cannot be interpreted as a measured ranking. The only quantitative comparisons available are from the specification sheet, which shows the RTX 4080 SUPER leading in every computational throughput metric. The N1 20SM leads only in memory capacity, die size by a marginal 3 mm², and PCIe generation.

The largest performance deltas in the specification data appear in FP32 throughput and pixel rate. The RTX 4080 SUPER’s 52.22 TFLOPS is 4.35 times the N1 20SM’s 12.01 TFLOPS. Pixel rate shows a 5.07x advantage for the RTX 4080 SUPER at 285.6 GPixel/s versus 56.30 GPixel/s. Memory bandwidth is 2.69x higher for the RTX 4080 SUPER. These ratios consistently show the discrete card operating at a fundamentally higher performance tier.

The RTX 4080 SUPER’s benchmark scores, when compared to its nearest rivals, confirm it sits at the top of its class. The 0.1% delta against the RTX 4080 shows near-identical performance, while the 2.8% gap to the AMD Radeon 8060S is the largest deficit recorded. No rival in the database exceeds the RTX 4080 SUPER’s average score by more than that margin. This positions the card as a high-end option with stable, predictable performance across DirectX, OpenCL, and Vulkan workloads.

The N1 20SM, lacking any benchmark data, cannot be ranked in the same manner. Its 128 GB memory capacity is its defining feature, but without measured scores, its practical performance in graphics or compute tasks remains unquantified in the database. The recorded specifications suggest it targets a different role, one where raw throughput matters less than memory footprint and integration simplicity.