NVIDIA Jetson T4000 vs NVIDIA N1 20SM Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded database contains no benchmark scores for either the NVIDIA Jetson T4000 or the NVIDIA N1 20SM. Both entries show an average benchmark score of zero, and the head-to-head benchmark table is empty. The percentile versus all GPUs is identical for both parts at 50, placing them at the median of the recorded GPU population despite the absence of measured performance data.

Without direct benchmark results, the comparison must rely on the theoretical compute specifications drawn from the architecture and clock data. The raw FP32 throughput tells the primary story: the N1 20SM delivers 12.01 TFLOPS, while the Jetson T4000 delivers 4.700 TFLOPS. This represents a 155.5% advantage for the N1 20SM in raw single-precision compute, a substantial gap that would likely translate into significant performance differences in any compute-bound workload.

The pixel rate shows a similar pattern. The N1 20SM achieves 56.30 GPixel/s versus 24.48 GPixel/s for the Jetson T4000, a 130.0% lead. The texture rate gap is even larger: 375.4 GTexel/s versus 73.44 GTexel/s, meaning the N1 20SM has a 411.2% advantage in texture fill rate. These figures indicate that the N1 20SM would dominate in rasterization-heavy tasks, assuming the absence of other bottlenecks.

The boost clock difference is notable. The N1 20SM boosts to 2346 MHz, while the Jetson T4000 runs at a fixed 1530 MHz with no boost headroom. The N1 20SM's base clock is much lower at 741 MHz, but the boost clock is 816 MHz higher than the T4000's fixed clock. This suggests the N1 20SM has a wide dynamic range, potentially allowing it to scale power consumption with workload intensity, whereas the T4000 operates at a constant rate.

Memory capacity favors the N1 20SM substantially. It carries 128 GB of LPDDR5X, double the 64 GB found on the Jetson T4000. Both use the same memory type, bus width of 256 bit, and effective speed of 8.5 Gbps, resulting in identical bandwidth of 273.2 GB/s. The bandwidth per gigabyte is therefore much higher on the T4000, but total capacity is the differentiator for large datasets.

The wins counter in the database shows zero wins for each part, reflecting the absence of measured head-to-head results. The analysis must therefore be framed as a specification-level comparison, with clear expectations about relative performance based on the compute resources each chip brings to the table.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher FP32 compute throughput?

A: The NVIDIA N1 20SM delivers 12.01 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, which is 155.5% higher than the 4.700 TFLOPS of the Jetson T4000.

Q: Do the two GPUs share the same memory bandwidth?

A: Yes, both use LPDDR5X memory on a 256-bit bus at 8.5 Gbps effective, yielding exactly 273.2 GB/s of bandwidth for each.

Q: How much more memory does the N1 20SM have?

A: The N1 20SM has 128 GB of LPDDR5X, exactly double the 64 GB of the Jetson T4000.

Q: What is the boost clock difference between them?

A: The N1 20SM has a boost clock of 2346 MHz, while the Jetson T4000 has a fixed clock of 1530 MHz with no boost. The N1 20SM's boost is 816 MHz higher.

Q: Are these GPUs compatible with standard graphics APIs?

A: Neither GPU lists support for DirectX, OpenGL, or Vulkan; both show N/A for all three APIs, indicating they are not intended for conventional graphics application interfaces.

Q: Which GPU has more texture mapping units?

A: The N1 20SM has 160 TMUs, compared to 48 TMUs on the Jetson T4000, a 233.3% advantage in texture unit count.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different generations of NVIDIA's Blackwell architecture. The Jetson T4000 uses the GB10B chip built on the original Blackwell architecture, classified under the Server Blackwell (Bxx) generation. The N1 20SM uses the GB20B chip with the Blackwell 2.0 architecture, belonging to the Blackwell IGP (N1x) generation. Both are manufactured on a 5 nm process at TSMC, and both have unknown transistor counts.

Die size differs modestly: the Jetson T4000 measures 391 mm², while the N1 20SM measures 382 mm², a 9 mm² difference that is small relative to the total area. The N1 20SM packs more compute resources into a slightly smaller die, indicating a denser design in the Blackwell 2.0 revision.

The shading unit count reveals the core scaling. The N1 20SM has 2560 shading units versus 1536 on the T4000, a 66.7% increase. Texture mapping units scale even more dramatically: 160 versus 48, a 233.3% increase. Raster operation units go from 16 to 24, a 50% increase. Ray tracing cores increase from 12 to 20, and tensor cores from 64 to 80, representing 66.7% and 25% increases respectively.

The boost clock strategy differs fundamentally. The T4000 runs at a constant 1530 MHz, while the N1 20SM has a base clock of 741 MHz and a boost clock of 2346 MHz. This 1605 MHz range between base and boost on the N1 20SM suggests aggressive power management, with the chip able to idle low and spike high under load.

Both GPUs are IGP (integrated graphics processor) form factors with no power connectors and no external power requirements. The N1 20SM includes display outputs with 1x HDMI, while the T4000 has no display outputs at all. The bus interface differs: the T4000 uses PCIe 5.0 x8, while the N1 20SM uses PCIe 5.0 x16, doubling the available host interface bandwidth.

The T4000's power envelope is stated at 90 W with a suggested PSU of 250 W. The N1 20SM lists unknown TDP and no suggested PSU, preventing a direct power comparison. The release dates differ by months, with the T4000 appearing earlier and the N1 20SM later, though no specific dates are recorded in the database beyond their presence.

The Verdict

The data indicates a clear compute hierarchy between these two parts. The N1 20SM leads in every measurable compute resource except fixed clock rate and the memory bandwidth per capacity ratio. Its FP32 throughput of 12.01 TFLOPS more than doubles the T4000's 4.700 TFLOPS, and its texture rate of 375.4 GTexel/s is more than five times the T4000's 73.44 GTexel/s.

For workloads that fit within 64 GB of memory, the T4000 offers the same memory bandwidth of 273.2 GB/s as the N1 20SM, meaning per-gigabyte bandwidth is higher on the smaller memory part. This could benefit latency-sensitive applications where data access patterns are localized within a smaller working set.

The N1 20SM is the appropriate choice when memory capacity or raw compute throughput dominates. Its 128 GB capacity supports larger models and datasets, while its 2560 shading units, 160 TMUs, and 20 ray tracing cores provide the resources for heavy parallel workloads. The PCIe 5.0 x16 interface also doubles the host connection bandwidth versus the T4000's x8 link.

The T4000 suits constrained power environments. Its 90 W TDP is explicitly stated, and the fixed 1530 MHz clock suggests predictable power draw. The N1 20SM's unknown TDP and wide clock range from 741 MHz to 2346 MHz introduces uncertainty in power behavior that the T4000 does not have.

The absence of display outputs on the T4000 makes it a pure compute device. The N1 20SM's 1x HDMI output adds basic display capability, though the N/A API support on both parts limits their use in conventional graphics stacks.

Neither part has any recorded benchmark data, so the verdict rests entirely on specification analysis. The N1 20SM is the higher-performance part across compute metrics, while the T4000 offers a defined power budget and the same memory bandwidth at a smaller capacity. Users needing maximum throughput should select the N1 20SM; users needing a fixed low-power compute module with moderate memory should consider the T4000.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ in several key specification fields. Clock speeds show the most contrast: the T4000 has a base and boost both at 1530 MHz, while the N1 20SM has a base of 741 MHz and a boost of 2346 MHz. Memory capacity is 64 GB on the T4000 versus 128 GB on the N1 20SM.

Shading units are 1536 on the T4000 and 2560 on the N1 20SM. Texture mapping units are 48 versus 160. Raster operation units are 16 versus 24. Ray tracing cores are 12 versus 20. Tensor cores are 64 versus 80.

Pixel rate is 24.48 GPixel/s on the T4000 and 56.30 GPixel/s on the N1 20SM. Texture rate is 73.44 GTexel/s versus 375.4 GTexel/s. FP32 compute is 4.700 TFLOPS versus 12.01 TFLOPS. FP16 compute matches the FP32 ratio on both at 1:1.

The T4000 has a stated TDP of 90 W and a suggested PSU of 250 W. The N1 20SM has unknown TDP and no suggested PSU. Dimensions are recorded for the T4000 at 87 mm length, 100 mm height, and 15 mm width; the N1 20SM has no recorded dimensions.

The bus interface differs from PCIe 5.0 x8 on the T4000 to PCIe 5.0 x16 on the N1 20SM. Display outputs are absent on the T4000 and present as 1x HDMI on the N1 20SM. The chip designations differ: GB10B for the T4000, GB20B for the N1 20SM.

Architecture generation differs, with the T4000 classified under Server Blackwell (Bxx) and the N1 20SM under Blackwell IGP (N1x). The release dates are recorded for both, with the T4000 appearing earlier. The T4000 has a listed predecessor and successor, while the N1 20SM has neither. The launch MSRP for the T4000 is 1,999 USD, while the N1 20SM has no launch MSRP recorded.

Die size differs by 9 mm², with the T4000 at 391 mm² and the N1 20SM at 382 mm². Both use 5 nm TSMC fabrication and LPDDR5X memory on a 256-bit bus at 8.5 Gbps effective. Both list N/A for DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan support. Both are IGP slot width with no power connectors.

Where Each One Wins

The N1 20SM wins in raw compute throughput across every measured metric. Its FP32 of 12.01 TFLOPS and FP16 of 12.01 TFLOPS dwarf the T4000's 4.700 TFLOPS in both precisions. For any workload that scales with shading units, texture operations, or ray tracing cores, the N1 20SM holds a decisive advantage. The 160 TMUs versus 48 TMUs and 20 ray tracing cores versus 12 make the N1 20SM the stronger choice for texture-heavy rendering or ray-traced workloads, provided the software can use these resources.

The N1 20SM also wins on memory capacity with 128 GB versus 64 GB. Applications that need to hold large models, massive datasets, or multiple working sets in memory will benefit from the doubled capacity, even at the same 273.2 GB/s bandwidth. The higher boost clock of 2346 MHz versus 1530 MHz gives the N1 20SM additional headroom for burst workloads that can take advantage of short-duration high-frequency operation.

The N1 20SM wins on host connectivity with PCIe 5.0 x16 versus x8. This doubles the potential data transfer rate to and from the host system, which matters for workloads that stream data frequently. The presence of a display output, 1x HDMI, gives the N1 20SM a basic display capability that the T4000 completely lacks.

The Jetson T4000 wins in power predictability. Its TDP is stated at 90 W, and its fixed clock of 1530 MHz means power draw remains constant under load. The N1 20SM has an unknown TDP and a clock that swings from 741 MHz to 2346 MHz, introducing variability that could complicate power budgeting in constrained systems. The T4000's suggested PSU of 250 W provides a clear power supply guideline, while the N1 20SM offers no such reference.

The T4000 wins on memory bandwidth efficiency. With half the memory capacity but the same 273.2 GB/s bandwidth, each gigabyte on the T4000 receives twice the bandwidth per capacity unit. For workloads with working sets that fit within 64 GB, the T4000 can move data through its memory system at the same aggregate rate as the N1 20SM while using a smaller memory footprint.

The T4000 also has the advantage of a defined physical footprint. Its dimensions of 87 mm by 100 mm by 15 mm are recorded, while the N1 20SM has no dimension data. For system integration where board space is critical, the T4000 offers a known form factor. The T4000 also has a launch MSRP of 1,999 USD, providing a reference point for procurement, while the N1 20SM has no recorded launch price.

The N1 20SM wins on total compute density. Despite a slightly smaller die at 382 mm² versus 391 mm², it delivers 12.01 TFLOPS versus 4.700 TFLOPS, meaning it achieves more than double the compute per square millimeter. The Blackwell 2.0 architecture with its higher shading unit count and TMU count accomplishes more within nearly the same silicon area.