NVIDIA N1 16SM vs NVIDIA N1X 40SM Comparison

The Verdict

The database comparison shows two NVIDIA integrated graphics parts built on the same GB20B chip, the Blackwell 2.0 architecture, and the 5 nm TSMC process. Both are listed as Active production parts with a release date of 2026-05-31. The critical difference is the execution resource count: the N1 16SM uses 16 streaming multiprocessors, while the N1X 40SM uses 40. This 2.5x multiplier in SM count drives nearly every performance metric. The N1X 40SM is the clear compute leader, delivering 24.02 TFLOPS FP32 versus 9.609 TFLOPS for the N1 16SM, a 2.5x advantage. The N1 16SM, with half the pixel rate and a third of the texture rate, remains a capable IGP for lighter workloads, but the data indicates the N1X 40SM is the part to choose when raw throughput matters. Both share identical memory configurations, clock speeds, and physical constraints, so the decision rests entirely on whether the workload demands the extra shading units, tensor cores, and RT cores.

Architecture Differences

Both GPUs are fabricated on the same GB20B chip using TSMC's 5 nm process, with a die size of 382 mm². The architecture is Blackwell 2.0, and both belong to the Blackwell IGP (N1x) generation. The transistor count is listed as unknown, and the transistor density is not recorded. The fundamental architectural split is the number of streaming multiprocessors: 16 on the N1 16SM versus 40 on the N1X 40SM. This directly scales the shading units from 2048 to 5120, the texture mapping units from 128 to 320, and the render output units from 24 to 40. The RT cores increase from 16 to 40, and the tensor cores from 64 to 160. Clock behavior is identical: both run at a base clock of 741 MHz and a boost clock of 2346 MHz. The memory subsystem is also unchanged: 128 GB of LPDDR5X on a 256-bit bus, with a memory clock of 1067 MHz (8.5 Gbps effective) and a bandwidth of 273.2 GB/s. Both use a PCIe 5.0 x16 bus interface and a single HDMI display output. Neither part has a defined TDP, power connector, or suggested PSU, as both are integrated graphics (slot width IGP). The API support is listed as N/A for DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan, which is consistent with their IGP classification. Neither part has a predecessor or successor recorded in the database.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head benchmark table is empty in the database, meaning no direct benchmark scores have been recorded for these two parts against each other. The winsA and winsB fields both show 0. However, the specification-level metrics provide a clear quantitative comparison. The N1X 40SM delivers 24.02 TFLOPS FP32, which is exactly 2.5 times the 9.609 TFLOPS of the N1 16SM. The FP16 throughput is identical to FP32 for both parts, listed as 1:1, so the ratio holds at 24.02 TFLOPS versus 9.609 TFLOPS. The texture rate shows a similar 2.5x scaling: 750.7 GTexel/s for the N1X 40SM versus 300.3 GTexel/s for the N1 16SM. The pixel rate difference is smaller in relative terms: 93.84 GPixel/s for the N1X 40SM versus 56.30 GPixel/s for the N1 16SM, a 1.67x increase. This is because the ROP count only rises from 24 to 40, a 1.67x multiplier, while the shading units and TMUs scale by the full 2.5x. The memory bandwidth is identical at 273.2 GB/s, so any workload that is memory-bound will see no difference between the two. The average benchmark score is 0 for both, and the percentile versus all GPUs is 50 for both, indicating the database has not yet placed them relative to other products. Without benchmark scores, the specification deltas are the only recorded evidence.

FAQ

Q: What is the difference in FP32 compute performance between the N1 16SM and the N1X 40SM?

A: The N1X 40SM delivers 24.02 TFLOPS FP32, which is exactly 2.5 times the 9.609 TFLOPS of the N1 16SM. The FP16 performance is identical to FP32 for both parts (listed as 1:1), so the same 2.5x ratio applies.

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

A: Yes. Both have 128 GB of LPDDR5X memory on a 256-bit bus, with a memory clock of 1067 MHz (8.5 Gbps effective) and a bandwidth of 273.2 GB/s. There is no difference in memory capacity, type, bus width, or bandwidth.

Q: Are the clock speeds the same for both parts?

A: Yes. Both have a base clock of 741 MHz and a boost clock of 2346 MHz. The memory clock is also identical at 1067 MHz (8.5 Gbps effective). No clock speed differs between the two.

Q: Which part has more RT cores and tensor cores?

A: The N1X 40SM has 40 RT cores and 160 tensor cores. The N1 16SM has 16 RT cores and 64 tensor cores. The N1X 40SM has 2.5 times the RT cores and 2.5 times the tensor cores.

Q: What is the difference in texture and pixel fill rates?

A: The N1X 40SM has a texture rate of 750.7 GTexel/s versus 300.3 GTexel/s for the N1 16SM, a 2.5x difference. The pixel rate is 93.84 GPixel/s for the N1X 40SM versus 56.30 GPixel/s for the N1 16SM, a 1.67x difference.

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

A: No. The database shows an empty head-to-head benchmark table, no individual benchmark scores, and an average benchmark score of 0 for both parts. The percentile versus all GPUs is 50 for both, indicating no measured placement yet.

Where Each One Wins

The N1X 40SM wins decisively in every compute-heavy category. Its 5120 shading units provide 24.02 TFLOPS FP32, which is 2.5 times the N1 16SM's 9.609 TFLOPS. This makes the N1X 40SM the clear choice for workloads that rely on raw shader throughput, such as general-purpose GPU compute, large matrix operations, or any FP32-heavy rendering. The tensor core count of 160 versus 64 gives the N1X 40SM a 2.5x advantage in AI inference and training tasks that use tensor operations. The RT core count of 40 versus 16 provides a similar 2.5x scaling for ray tracing workloads. The texture rate of 750.7 GTexel/s versus 300.3 GTexel/s means the N1X 40SM can feed texture-heavy scenes significantly faster. The pixel rate of 93.84 GPixel/s versus 56.30 GPixel/s, while a smaller 1.67x margin, still favors the N1X 40SM for fill-rate-bound scenarios.

The N1 16SM wins in no recorded metric, but it is not without merit. It shares the identical memory bandwidth of 273.2 GB/s, so memory-bound workloads that do not exceed the 16 SM execution capacity will run at the same speed as the N1X 40SM. The N1 16SM also uses the same 741 MHz base and 2346 MHz boost clocks, so per-clock efficiency is identical; the difference is purely in the number of execution units. For tasks that are limited by memory bandwidth rather than compute throughput, the N1 16SM will match the N1X 40SM. The lower shading unit count (2048 versus 5120) means the N1 16SM may also have a lower power draw, although the TDP is listed as unknown for both, so this cannot be confirmed from the data. The N1 16SM is the part to pick when the workload is light enough that the extra SMs of the N1X 40SM would sit idle, and when memory bandwidth is the primary constraint.

Specification Differences

The following fields differ between the NVIDIA N1 16SM and the NVIDIA N1X 40SM:

• Shading Units: 2048 (N1 16SM) versus 5120 (N1X 40SM)
• TMUs: 128 (N1 16SM) versus 320 (N1X 40SM)
• ROPs: 24 (N1 16SM) versus 40 (N1X 40SM)
• RT Cores: 16 (N1 16SM) versus 40 (N1X 40SM)
• Tensor Cores: 64 (N1 16SM) versus 160 (N1X 40SM)
• Pixel Rate: 56.30 GPixel/s (N1 16SM) versus 93.84 GPixel/s (N1X 40SM)
• Texture Rate: 300.3 GTexel/s (N1 16SM) versus 750.7 GTexel/s (N1X 40SM)
• FP32 Compute: 9.609 TFLOPS (N1 16SM) versus 24.02 TFLOPS (N1X 40SM)
• FP16 Compute: 9.609 TFLOPS (N1 16SM) versus 24.02 TFLOPS (N1X 40SM)

All other recorded specification fields are identical: chip (GB20B), architecture (Blackwell 2.0), generation (Blackwell IGP N1x), process node (5 nm), foundry (TSMC), die size (382 mm²), base clock (741 MHz), boost clock (2346 MHz), memory clock (1067 MHz 8.5 Gbps effective), memory size (128 GB), memory type (LPDDR5X), memory bus width (256 bit), memory bandwidth (273.2 GB/s), slot width (IGP), power connectors (None), bus interface (PCIe 5.0 x16), display outputs (1x HDMI), API support (N/A for DirectX, OpenGL, Vulkan), production status (Active), release date (2026-05-31), and launch MSRP (none recorded). The transistor count is unknown for both, and the transistor density is not recorded. Both have no predecessor or successor listed.