Intel Arc A310E vs NVIDIA N1 16SM Comparison

Architecture Differences

The Intel Arc A310E and NVIDIA N1 16SM represent fundamentally different design philosophies. The Arc A310E is built on Intel's Xe-HPG architecture, specifically the DG2-128 chip, and belongs to the Alchemist (Arc 3) generation. It is manufactured on a 6 nm process at TSMC, with a die size of 157 mm² and a transistor count of 7,200 million, yielding a transistor density of 45.9M per mm². The NVIDIA N1 16SM, by contrast, uses the Blackwell 2.0 architecture with the GB20B chip, belongs to the Blackwell IGP (N1x) generation, and is fabricated on a 5 nm process at the same foundry. Its die size is substantially larger at 382 mm², though its transistor count remains undisclosed in the database.

The compute configurations diverge sharply. The Arc A310E deploys 768 shading units, 32 texture mapping units, and 16 raster operation units, with 6 dedicated ray tracing cores. The N1 16SM scales far higher with 2,048 shading units, 128 TMUs, and 24 ROPs, alongside 16 ray tracing cores and 64 tensor cores. This difference in scale explains the raw throughput gap: the Arc A310E delivers 3.072 TFLOPS of FP32 and 6.144 TFLOPS of FP16 at a 2:1 ratio, while the N1 16SM reaches 9.609 TFLOPS in both FP32 and FP16 at a 1:1 ratio. The N1's FP16 performance is therefore equal to its FP32, a notable architectural choice.

Memory subsystems are equally divergent. The Arc A310E uses 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus, producing 124.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The N1 16SM integrates 128 GB of LPDDR5X on a 256-bit bus, delivering 273.2 GB/s. The N1 is an integrated graphics processor (IGP), as its slot width designation states, while the Arc A310E is a discrete single-slot card with a 168 mm length, 69 mm height, and 20 mm width. Clock behavior also differs: the Arc holds a flat 2000 MHz base and boost, whereas the N1 runs at 741 MHz base and boosts to 2346 MHz, a much wider dynamic range. The N1's memory clock is 1067 MHz (8.5 Gbps effective) versus the Arc's 1937 MHz (15.5 Gbps effective), though the N1's wider bus compensates.

API support separates them further. The Arc A310E supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The N1 16SM lists N/A for DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan, indicating it is not positioned for conventional desktop graphics APIs. The Arc uses PCIe 4.0 x8, while the N1 uses PCIe 5.0 x16. Display outputs also differ: the Arc provides four mini-DisplayPort 2.0 connectors, while the N1 provides a single HDMI port. The Arc's production status is end-of-life with a release date of 2024, and its predecessor is Xe Graphics with a successor of Battlemage. The N1 remains active with a release date of 2026 and no listed predecessor or successor.

The Verdict

The data indicates these are not direct competitors. The Intel Arc A310E is a low-profile discrete graphics card aimed at embedded or multi-display workloads, with four display outputs and a 75 W TDP. The NVIDIA N1 16SM is an integrated processor with 128 GB of unified memory, 64 tensor cores, and no conventional graphics API support, suggesting a compute-oriented or AI-focused role. Benchmark results show no head-to-head wins for either side, and both share a 50th percentile ranking among all GPUs in the database, with average benchmark scores of zero for each.

For users requiring a compact, single-slot discrete GPU with modern graphics API support and multiple DisplayPort outputs, the Arc A310E is the only viable choice in this pairing. It provides DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4 support, and its 75 W TDP requires no auxiliary power connectors, with a suggested PSU of 250 W. For workloads that demand massive memory capacity, high FP32 throughput, and tensor core acceleration, the N1 16SM dominates: it offers 128 GB of memory, 9.609 TFLOPS of FP32, and 64 tensor cores. The N1's lack of DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan support means it cannot serve as a traditional gaming or workstation graphics card in the same sense as the Arc.

The Arc is end-of-life, while the N1 is active. The Arc has a defined predecessor and successor lineage; the N1 has neither. The choice depends entirely on whether the application needs discrete graphics outputs and API compatibility (Arc) or raw compute scale and memory capacity (N1).

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more shading units?

A: The NVIDIA N1 16SM has 2,048 shading units, compared to 768 for the Intel Arc A310E.

Q: What is the memory capacity difference?

A: The NVIDIA N1 16SM has 128 GB of LPDDR5X, while the Intel Arc A310E has 4 GB of GDDR6.

Q: Does the NVIDIA N1 16SM support DirectX 12 Ultimate?

A: No. The database lists DirectX as N/A for the N1 16SM. The Intel Arc A310E supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2).

Q: What is the FP32 throughput of each?

A: The NVIDIA N1 16SM achieves 9.609 TFLOPS, while the Intel Arc A310E achieves 3.072 TFLOPS.

Q: Which has more ray tracing cores?

A: The NVIDIA N1 16SM has 16 ray tracing cores; the Intel Arc A310E has 6.

Q: What are the physical form factors?

A: The Intel Arc A310E is a single-slot discrete card measuring 168 mm in length, 69 mm in height, and 20 mm in width. The NVIDIA N1 16SM is an IGP with no listed dimensions.

Specification Differences

The recorded data shows the following differences between the Intel Arc A310E and the NVIDIA N1 16SM:

• Chip: DG2-128 versus GB20B
• Architecture: Xe-HPG versus Blackwell 2.0
• Generation: Alchemist (Arc 3) versus Blackwell IGP (N1x)
• Process node: 6 nm versus 5 nm
• Transistors: 7,200 million versus unknown
• Die size: 157 mm² versus 382 mm²
• Transistor density: 45.9M per mm² versus null
• Base clock: 2000 MHz versus 741 MHz
• Boost clock: 2000 MHz versus 2346 MHz
• Memory clock: 1937 MHz (15.5 Gbps effective) versus 1067 MHz (8.5 Gbps effective)
• Memory size: 4 GB versus 128 GB
• Memory type: GDDR6 versus LPDDR5X
• Memory bus: 64 bit versus 256 bit
• Memory bandwidth: 124.0 GB/s versus 273.2 GB/s
• Shading units: 768 versus 2,048
• TMUs: 32 versus 128
• ROPs: 16 versus 24
• Ray tracing cores: 6 versus 16
• Tensor cores: null versus 64
• Pixel rate: 32.00 GPixel/s versus 56.30 GPixel/s
• Texture rate: 64.00 GTexel/s versus 300.3 GTexel/s
• FP32: 3.072 TFLOPS versus 9.609 TFLOPS
• FP16: 6.144 TFLOPS (2:1) versus 9.609 TFLOPS (1:1)
• TDP: 75 W versus unknown
• Slot width: Single-slot versus IGP
• Power connectors: None versus None
• Suggested PSU: 250 W versus null
• Bus interface: PCIe 4.0 x8 versus PCIe 5.0 x16
• Display outputs: 4x mini-DisplayPort 2.0 versus 1x HDMI
• DirectX: 12 Ultimate (12_2) versus N/A
• OpenGL: 4.6 versus N/A
• Vulkan: 1.4 versus N/A
• Dimensions: 168 mm x 69 mm x 20 mm versus null
• Production status: End-of-life versus Active
• Release date: 2024 versus 2026
• Predecessor: Xe Graphics versus null
• Successor: Battlemage versus null

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head benchmark table is empty, with zero wins recorded for each side and no average benchmark scores populated. Consequently, the comparison must rely on the recorded specification data and derived performance metrics.

The largest single advantage for the NVIDIA N1 16SM is memory capacity. Its 128 GB of LPDDR5X is 32 times the 4 GB available to the Intel Arc A310E. This is not an incremental difference; it changes the class of workloads the N1 can address. Bandwidth follows the same direction: 273.2 GB/s versus 124.0 GB/s, a 2.2x advantage for the N1.

Compute throughput heavily favors the N1. The FP32 figure of 9.609 TFLOPS is 3.13x the Arc's 3.072 TFLOPS. FP16 performance is 9.609 TFLOPS versus 6.144 TFLOPS, a 1.56x lead for the N1, though the Arc's 2:1 ratio means it achieves that figure with fewer shading units operating at a higher clock. The N1 also holds the advantage in pixel rate (56.30 GPixel/s versus 32.00 GPixel/s, a 1.76x lead) and texture rate (300.3 GTexel/s versus 64.00 GTexel/s, a 4.69x lead). The texture rate gap is the most pronounced computational difference in the recorded data.

Clock speeds tell a more nuanced story. The Arc's base clock of 2000 MHz is 2.7x higher than the N1's 741 MHz, and its boost clock of 2000 MHz is below the N1's 2346 MHz. The N1 therefore relies on a much lower idle state and a much higher peak state. The Arc's memory clock of 1937 MHz is nearly double the N1's 1067 MHz, but the N1's 256-bit bus versus the Arc's 64-bit bus reverses the effective bandwidth outcome.

The Arc counters with its API stack. DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4 are all present on the Arc, while the N1 lists N/A for all three. For any application that requires these APIs, the N1 is not a candidate regardless of its compute lead. The Arc's four mini-DisplayPort 2.0 outputs versus the N1's single HDMI port further reinforces its role in multi-display configurations.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Arc A310E wins in scenarios that require standard graphics APIs, multiple display outputs, and a discrete, low-power form factor. Its DirectX 12 Ultimate support enables modern graphics features, while OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4 cover legacy and cross-platform workloads. The four mini-DisplayPort 2.0 connections are suited for multi-monitor setups. The 75 W TDP with no external power connectors and a 250 W suggested PSU makes integration straightforward. Its 2000 MHz sustained clock, even at boost, indicates stable operation without dynamic frequency swings. The 6.144 TFLOPS FP16 output, achieved at a 2:1 ratio, provides half-precision throughput above its FP32 baseline, which can benefit compute tasks that tolerate reduced precision.

The NVIDIA N1 16SM wins in memory-bound and high-throughput compute scenarios. The 128 GB unified memory pool dwarfs the Arc's 4 GB, enabling datasets that would never fit in the Arc's frame buffer. The 273.2 GB/s bandwidth is more than double the Arc's 124.0 GB/s. The 64 tensor cores are a capability the Arc lacks entirely, pointing to AI or machine learning workloads. The 9.609 TFLOPS FP32 and matching 9.609 TFLOPS FP16 (1:1 ratio) mean the N1 does not sacrifice half-precision throughput, a characteristic that suits mixed-precision computation. Its 56.30 GPixel/s pixel rate and 300.3 GTexel/s texture rate indicate strong fill-rate headroom. The PCIe 5.0 x16 interface provides higher host bandwidth than the Arc's PCIe 4.0 x8. The N1's active production status and 2026 release date suggest ongoing availability.

Neither side records benchmark wins, and both sit at the 50th percentile among all GPUs. The Arc is end-of-life; the N1 is active. The data does not support a single winner. The Arc is the only option for graphics API compatibility and multi-display output. The N1 is the only option for memory capacity, tensor core acceleration, and raw FP32 throughput. Applications that need both sets of features would require a different solution entirely, as no single component in this pairing offers both.