NVIDIA N1 16SM vs NVIDIA N1 20SM Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains no recorded benchmark scores for either the NVIDIA N1 16SM or the NVIDIA N1 20SM. Both entries show an average benchmark score of zero, and the head-to-head benchmark list is empty. Consequently, there are no measured wins for either part in any workload category. The wins count stands at zero for both the N1 16SM and the N1 20SM.

The absence of benchmark data does not mean the two chips are identical in capability. The recorded specifications show the N1 20SM carries 512 more shading units than the N1 16SM (2560 versus 2048), which is a 25% increase in raw shader count. Texture mapping units scale similarly, with the N1 20SM at 160 TMUs against 128 TMUs on the N1 16SM, also a 25% difference. These architectural differences would logically produce measurable performance gaps in compute-bound workloads, but the database has not yet captured any such results.

The FP32 compute figures reflect the shader count difference. The N1 16SM delivers 9.609 TFLOPS, while the N1 20SM delivers 12.01 TFLOPS, a nominal 25% advantage for the larger chip. FP16 performance matches FP32 at a 1:1 ratio on both parts, meaning the N1 20SM again holds the same 25% lead in half-precision throughput. Texture fill rate shows a similar pattern: the N1 16SM achieves 300.3 GTexel/s, while the N1 20SM reaches 375.4 GTexel/s, which is a 25% uplift.

Pixel rate, however, is identical between the two. Both parts record 56.30 GPixel/s, because both have 24 ROPs. This means any workload that is purely pixel-bound, such as certain rasterization stages, would see no difference between the two chips according to the specification data. The N1 20SM's extra shading units and TMUs do not affect pixel throughput, as that is governed by the ROP count.

The percentile ranking places both parts at the 50th percentile against all GPUs in the database. This is a neutral position, indicating that the database currently treats them as mid-pack performers, though this ranking is based on the same empty benchmark set rather than measured results.

The Verdict

Based strictly on recorded data, the NVIDIA N1 20SM is the stronger part on paper. It matches the N1 16SM in every base specification except for the execution resources: shading units, TMUs, RT cores, tensor cores, and the derived compute and texture rates. The N1 20SM has 20 RT cores versus 16 on the N1 16SM, and 80 tensor cores versus 64. These are the only meaningful differences between the two products.

The N1 16SM is not a slower chip in every respect. Both parts share the same 5 nm process node, the same GB20B chip, the same 382 mm² die size, and the same memory subsystem: 128 GB of LPDDR5X on a 256-bit bus delivering 273.2 GB/s of bandwidth. Both run at a 741 MHz base clock and a 2346 MHz boost clock. Both have 24 ROPs, so pixel throughput is identical. The N1 16SM also consumes no additional power connectors, just like the N1 20SM, and both are IGP slot-width parts.

For a builder choosing between these two, the data indicates the N1 20SM should be selected when compute throughput matters most. The 25% advantage in FP32, FP16, and texture rate is the only measurable performance delta in the record. For workloads that are limited by memory bandwidth or pixel output, there is no recorded difference, so the N1 16SM would perform identically in those scenarios. The N1 16SM is the appropriate pick only when the extra execution resources of the N1 20SM are unnecessary, since no price or power data exists to justify one over the other on cost or efficiency grounds.

Architecture Differences

Both the NVIDIA N1 16SM and the NVIDIA N1 20SM are built on the Blackwell 2.0 architecture, using the GB20B chip. They belong to the same generation, listed as Blackwell IGP (N1x), and are fabricated by TSMC on a 5 nm process. The die size is identical at 382 mm². The transistor count is listed as unknown for both, so no comparison can be made on that front.

The core configuration is where the two diverge. The N1 16SM contains 2048 shading units, 128 TMUs, 16 RT cores, and 64 tensor cores. The N1 20SM contains 2560 shading units, 160 TMUs, 20 RT cores, and 80 tensor cores. Both parts have 24 ROPs. The N1 20SM's extra 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, 4 RT cores, and 16 tensor cores represent a uniform 25% expansion of the compute and texture pipeline, while the ROP count stays fixed.

Clock behavior is identical. Both parts run at a 741 MHz base clock and boost to 2346 MHz. The memory clock is also the same: 1067 MHz, with 8.5 Gbps effective data rate. There is no game clock listed for either part. The bus interface is PCIe 5.0 x16 on both. Display output is a single HDMI port on both.

The API support is marked as N/A for DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan on both parts. This indicates these are not general-purpose gaming or graphics APIs as recorded in the database, which aligns with their IGP classification. The power connectors are listed as "None" for both, and the slot width is "IGP" for both, confirming they are integrated graphics processors rather than discrete add-in cards.

FAQ

Q: What is the main difference between the NVIDIA N1 16SM and the NVIDIA N1 20SM?

A: The N1 20SM has 2560 shading units, 160 TMUs, 20 RT cores, and 80 tensor cores, while the N1 16SM has 2048 shading units, 128 TMUs, 16 RT cores, and 64 tensor cores. All other recorded specifications are identical.

Q: Do the two GPUs have the same memory configuration?

A: Yes. Both have 128 GB of LPDDR5X memory on a 256-bit bus, with a bandwidth of 273.2 GB/s and a memory clock of 1067 MHz (8.5 Gbps effective).

Q: Which GPU has a higher boost clock?

A: Neither. Both the N1 16SM and the N1 20SM have a 741 MHz base clock and a 2346 MHz boost clock.

Q: Are there any benchmark scores available for these GPUs?

A: No. The database lists an average benchmark score of zero for both parts, and the head-to-head benchmark list is empty. The percentile rank for both is 50 against all GPUs.

Q: Do the GPUs require external power connectors?

A: No. Both are listed with "None" for power connectors, and both have an IGP slot width, indicating they are integrated parts rather than discrete cards.

Q: What is the pixel fill rate of the N1 20SM?

A: The N1 20SM has a pixel rate of 56.30 GPixel/s, which is identical to the N1 16SM's pixel rate of 56.30 GPixel/s, because both have 24 ROPs.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA N1 20SM wins in every compute category where the two differ. The FP32 throughput of 12.01 TFLOPS versus 9.609 TFLOPS gives it a 25% advantage in single-precision workloads. The FP16 figure of 12.01 TFLOPS versus 9.609 TFLOPS provides the same margin for half-precision tasks. Texture rate is 375.4 GTexel/s versus 300.3 GTexel/s, again a 25% lead for the N1 20SM. The additional RT cores (20 versus 16) and tensor cores (80 versus 64) suggest the N1 20SM would handle ray tracing and AI inference workloads with more parallelism, though no benchmark data confirms this.

The NVIDIA N1 16SM does not win in any recorded specification category. Its only equal standing is in areas where the two chips are identical: pixel rate at 56.30 GPixel/s, memory bandwidth at 273.2 GB/s, memory size at 128 GB, and clock speeds at 741 MHz base and 2346 MHz boost. In those respects, the N1 16SM matches the N1 20SM, but it never exceeds it.

For use-case planning, the N1 20SM is the appropriate choice for any workload that scales with shader count, texture units, or tensor cores. This includes general compute, machine learning inference, and any graphics work that is not purely pixel-limited. The N1 16SM is suitable for scenarios where the bottleneck is memory bandwidth or pixel output, since those figures are identical between the two parts. The N1 16SM also suffices for any application that does not require the full execution resource pool of the N1 20SM, though the database provides no efficiency or power data to suggest a trade-off.

Specification Differences

The following fields differ between the NVIDIA N1 16SM and the NVIDIA N1 20SM:

• Shading Units: 2048 versus 2560
• TMUs: 128 versus 160
• RT Cores: 16 versus 20
• Tensor Cores: 64 versus 80
• Texture Rate: 300.3 GTexel/s versus 375.4 GTexel/s
• FP32 Performance: 9.609 TFLOPS versus 12.01 TFLOPS
• FP16 Performance: 9.609 TFLOPS versus 12.01 TFLOPS

All other recorded specifications are identical between the two parts:

• Chip: GB20B on both
• Architecture: Blackwell 2.0 on both
• Process Node: 5 nm on both
• Foundry: TSMC on both
• Die Size: 382 mm² on both
• Base Clock: 741 MHz on both
• Boost Clock: 2346 MHz on both
• Memory Clock: 1067 MHz (8.5 Gbps effective) on both
• Memory Size: 128 GB on both
• Memory Type: LPDDR5X on both
• Memory Bus Width: 256 bit on both
• Memory Bandwidth: 273.2 GB/s on both
• ROPs: 24 on both
• Pixel Rate: 56.30 GPixel/s on both
• Slot Width: IGP on both
• Power Connectors: None on both
• Bus Interface: PCIe 5.0 x16 on both
• Display Outputs: 1x HDMI on both
• APIs: DirectX N/A, OpenGL N/A, Vulkan N/A on both
• Production Status: Active on both
• Release Date: 2026-05-31 on both
• Percentile vs All GPUs: 50 on both
• Average Benchmark Score: 0 on both

The N1 20SM is effectively an N1 16SM with a larger execution resource pool and identical everything else. The 25% scaling across shaders, TMUs, RT cores, tensor cores, texture rate, and FP32/FP16 compute is uniform, which indicates a straightforward die configuration difference rather than a clock or memory change. The ROP count staying at 24 on both parts means pixel throughput is not affected by the larger configuration.