NVIDIA N1 16SM vs NVIDIA N1X 48SM Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded database contains no benchmark scores for either the NVIDIA N1 16SM or the NVIDIA N1X 48SM. Both parts show an average benchmark score of 0, and the head-to-head benchmark table is empty. With zero wins recorded for each side, the numerical comparison must rely entirely on the specification data provided.

What the data does show is a clear scaling relationship between the two parts. The N1X 48SM delivers 28.83 TFLOPS of FP32 throughput, exactly three times the 9.609 TFLOPS of the N1 16SM. That is a 200% increase in raw compute throughput, and it follows directly from the shading unit counts: 6144 versus 2048, also exactly triple. Texture rate scales identically, with the N1X 48SM producing 900.9 GTexel/s against 300.3 GTexel/s on the N1 16SM. Pixel rate doubles rather than triples, however, with 112.6 GPixel/s on the N1X 48SM versus 56.30 GPixel/s on the N1 16SM, because the ROP count rises from 24 to 48.

The FP16 figures mirror FP32 exactly on both parts, with 9.609 TFLOPS (1:1) on the N1 16SM and 28.83 TFLOPS (1:1) on the N1X 48SM. This 1:1 ratio indicates no FP16 acceleration advantage for either chip; both process half-precision at the same throughput as full precision.

Ray tracing and tensor workloads show the same triple scaling. The N1 16SM carries 16 RT cores and 64 tensor cores, while the N1X 48SM carries 48 RT cores and 192 tensor cores. Every computational block that scales with the SM count grows by a factor of three, confirming the naming convention: 16 SM units versus 48 SM units.

Since both parts are classified as IGP (integrated graphics processor) with slot width IGP and no power connectors, the performance envelope is constrained by the host system rather than discrete card design. The absence of benchmark data means the percentile ranking of 50 for both parts is provisional, not a measured result.

Architecture Differences

Both the NVIDIA N1 16SM and NVIDIA N1X 48SM are built on the same GB20B chip, use the Blackwell 2.0 architecture, and belong to the Blackwell IGP (N1x) generation. The process node is identical at 5 nm, fabricated by TSMC, with the same die size of 382 mm². Transistor counts are listed as unknown for both parts.

Clock behavior is indistinguishable between the two. Base clock sits at 741 MHz, boost clock at 2346 MHz, and memory clock at 1067 MHz with 8.5 Gbps effective data rate. Memory configuration is also identical: 128 GB of LPDDR5X on a 256-bit bus, delivering 273.2 GB/s of bandwidth. The memory subsystem does not differentiate the two parts.

The architectural differences are purely in execution resource counts. The N1 16SM has 2048 shading units, 128 texture mapping units, 24 ROPs, 16 RT cores, and 64 tensor cores. The N1X 48SM triples the shading units to 6144, triples TMUs to 384, doubles ROPs to 48, triples RT cores to 48, and triples tensor cores to 192. The ROP scaling is the notable exception: it grows by 2x rather than 3x, which explains why pixel rate scales by 2x while texture and compute rates scale by 3x.

Both parts use a PCIe 5.0 x16 bus interface and provide a single HDMI display output. DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan API support are all listed as N/A for both, which is consistent with their IGP classification. Neither part has a listed TDP, suggesting power consumption is managed by the host platform. Production status is Active for both, and the release date is the same: 2026-05-31.

Feature-level differences beyond resource counts are absent from the data. No difference appears in process node, foundry, die size, memory type, memory bus width, memory bandwidth, clock speeds, bus interface, display outputs, or API support. The two parts are architecturally identical except for the number of compute and rasterization units.

FAQ

Q: How much faster is the N1X 48SM in FP32 compute than the N1 16SM?

A: The N1X 48SM delivers 28.83 TFLOPS of FP32 throughput, exactly three times the 9.609 TFLOPS of the N1 16SM. This corresponds to a 200% increase in raw compute throughput.

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

A: Yes. Both use 128 GB of LPDDR5X memory on a 256-bit bus, with 273.2 GB/s bandwidth and a memory clock of 1067 MHz (8.5 Gbps effective). Memory is identical between the two parts.

Q: Why does the pixel rate not triple like compute and texture rates?

A: The pixel rate scales by 2x because the ROP count doubles from 24 to 48, whereas shading units, TMUs, RT cores, and tensor cores all triple. The N1 16SM produces 56.30 GPixel/s, while the N1X 48SM produces 112.6 GPixel/s.

Q: Are both GPUs based on the same physical chip?

A: Yes, both use the GB20B chip with the Blackwell 2.0 architecture, fabricated on a 5 nm process by TSMC. The die size is 382 mm² for both, and transistor counts are not disclosed for either.

Q: What is the boost clock on each GPU?

A: Both the N1 16SM and the N1X 48SM have a boost clock of 2346 MHz and a base clock of 741 MHz. Clock speeds are identical across both parts.

Q: Do the two GPUs differ in ray tracing capability?

A: Yes. The N1 16SM has 16 RT cores, while the N1X 48SM has 48 RT cores, a threefold increase. The tensor core count also triples from 64 to 192.

Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA N1 16SM | NVIDIA N1X 48SM |

|---|---|---|

| Shading Units | 2048 | 6144 |

| TMUs | 128 | 384 |

| ROPs | 24 | 48 |

| RT Cores | 16 | 48 |

| Tensor Cores | 64 | 192 |

| Pixel Rate | 56.30 GPixel/s | 112.6 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 300.3 GTexel/s | 900.9 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 9.609 TFLOPS | 28.83 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | 9.609 TFLOPS (1:1) | 28.83 TFLOPS (1:1) |

All other recorded fields are identical between the two parts: 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), bus interface (PCIe 5.0 x16), display outputs (1x HDMI), API support (all N/A), slot width (IGP), power connectors (None), production status (Active), and release date (2026-05-31).

The launch MSRP is not recorded for either part, and neither has a listed TDP. Transistor density is also unlisted. The only meaningful specification differences are in execution resource counts and the resulting throughput figures.

The Verdict

The data supports a straightforward conclusion: the N1X 48SM is the substantially more capable part in every compute and rasterization metric where the two differ. It delivers 3x the FP32 throughput, 3x the texture rate, 2x the pixel rate, 3x the RT cores, and 3x the tensor cores. There is no metric in the recorded specifications where the N1 16SM outperforms the N1X 48SM.

That said, the identical memory subsystem, identical clock speeds, identical die size, and identical process node mean the N1X 48SM is not a different architecture; it is the same GB20B silicon with more execution units enabled. The N1 16SM represents a resource-limited configuration of the same chip, likely for power-constrained or cost-constrained integration scenarios, though no TDP or pricing data is available to confirm that interpretation.

Both parts share the same IGP classification, the same 128 GB memory capacity, and the same 273.2 GB/s bandwidth. For workloads that are memory-bandwidth bound rather than compute bound, the two parts may perform more similarly than the compute figures suggest, since the memory system does not change. However, for any workload that scales with shading units, texture units, RT cores, or tensor cores, the N1X 48SM holds a decisive 3x advantage.

The absence of benchmark scores and the identical percentile ranking of 50 for both parts mean the database cannot currently confirm real-world performance separation. The specification data, however, is unambiguous about the relative compute capacity.

Where Each One Wins

The N1X 48SM wins in every category where the two parts can be compared from the recorded data. Its 28.83 TFLOPS FP32 throughput positions it for heavy compute workloads such as large-batch tensor operations, with 192 tensor cores available. The 48 RT cores provide three times the ray tracing geometry processing capacity. The 900.9 GTexel/s texture rate indicates strong texture fetch throughput for complex shading scenarios. The 112.6 GPixel/s pixel rate, while only double that of the N1 16SM, still represents a clear fill-rate advantage.

The N1 16SM does not win any recorded specification comparison. Its only potential use case advantage comes from what is not measured: identical memory bandwidth (273.2 GB/s), identical memory capacity (128 GB), and identical clock speeds. In memory-limited workloads where the execution units are not the bottleneck, the N1 16SM could deliver similar effective throughput, but the data does not quantify this, and no benchmark scores exist to confirm it.

For ray tracing, the N1X 48SM is the clear pick with 48 RT cores versus 16. For tensor and AI-style workloads, the N1X 48SM again leads with 192 tensor cores versus 64. For pure rasterization throughput, the N1X 48SM leads in both texture and pixel rates. The N1 16SM offers the same memory subsystem and the same architecture, but with one third of the compute resources.

The practical selection between the two depends on whether the host platform can support the N1X 48SM's resource configuration. The data does not include power figures, so the trade-off in system integration remains unquantified. From a pure performance standpoint, the N1X 48SM is superior in every measured dimension, and the N1 16SM is the appropriate choice only when the reduced execution resources are acceptable for the intended workload.