Intel Arc A310E vs NVIDIA N1 20SM Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded database contains no direct head-to-head benchmark results for the Intel Arc A310E and the NVIDIA N1 20SM. Both entries show zero benchmark scores, zero wins for either side, and no nearest rivals. This makes a conventional performance comparison impossible from measured data alone. What the database does provide is a complete specification profile for each part, and from those specifications the relative positioning can be inferred.

The raw compute figures show a substantial gap. The NVIDIA N1 20SM delivers 12.01 TFLOPS of FP32 throughput, while the Intel Arc A310E delivers 3.072 TFLOPS. That places the NVIDIA part at roughly 3.9 times the raw shader output of the Intel part. The FP16 numbers tell a similar story: the N1 20SM achieves 12.01 TFLOPS with a 1:1 ratio, while the Arc A310E reaches 6.144 TFLOPS with a 2:1 ratio. In mixed-precision workloads the NVIDIA part still leads, but the gap narrows to approximately 2 times.

Texture and pixel rates reinforce the NVIDIA advantage. The N1 20SM records 375.4 GTexel/s against 64.00 GTexel/s for the Arc A310E, a lead of about 5.9 times. Pixel throughput favors the NVIDIA part as well: 56.30 GPixel/s versus 32.00 GPixel/s, a 1.8 times advantage. These are specification-derived rates, not measured benchmark outcomes, but they indicate where the hardware resources are concentrated.

Memory bandwidth is another clear differentiator. The NVIDIA N1 20SM uses a 256 bit LPDDR5X interface with 273.2 GB/s of bandwidth. The Intel Arc A310E uses a 64 bit GDDR6 interface with 124.0 GB/s. The NVIDIA part moves data at roughly 2.2 times the rate of the Intel part. Capacity differs even more dramatically: 128 GB on the NVIDIA side versus 4 GB on the Intel side. That is a 32 times difference in memory capacity, which fundamentally changes what workloads each part can address.

Clock behavior also differs. The Intel Arc A310E runs at a flat 2000 MHz for both base and boost. The NVIDIA N1 20SM has a base clock of 741 MHz and a boost clock of 2346 MHz. The NVIDIA part has a wider clock envelope, which suggests more aggressive power management and thermal scaling. The Intel part operates at a constant frequency, which simplifies cooling requirements but leaves no headroom for burst performance.

Neither part has any recorded benchmark scores, so percentile rankings are identical at 50 for both. The database does not place either part above the other in the overall distribution. This is an unusual situation: two parts with zero measured performance data, but with specification sheets that imply very different capabilities.

Where Each One Wins

Without benchmark data, the win analysis must be drawn from the specification differences. The NVIDIA N1 20SM wins in every compute-heavy category. Its shading unit count of 2560 versus 768 means 3.3 times more shader processors. Its texture mapping units number 160 versus 32, a 5 times advantage. Its render output units number 24 versus 16, a 1.5 times advantage. Its ray tracing cores number 20 versus 6, a 3.3 times advantage. Its tensor cores number 80, while the Intel Arc A310E has no tensor cores listed at all.

The NVIDIA part also wins in memory-related workloads. The 128 GB LPDDR5X pool dwarfs the 4 GB GDDR6 pool, and the 256 bit bus width allows for far larger data sets to be held on-device. The 273.2 GB/s bandwidth supports data-intensive operations that the 124.0 GB/s figure on the Intel part cannot match. The NVIDIA part also supports PCIe 5.0 x16, while the Intel part uses PCIe 4.0 x8, doubling the potential host interface bandwidth.

The Intel Arc A310E wins in areas related to physical integration and display flexibility. It is a single-slot card measuring 168 mm by 69 mm by 20 mm, with no power connectors required and a 250 W suggested power supply. The NVIDIA N1 20SM is an IGP, meaning it has no standalone dimensions listed and no power supply recommendation. The Intel part provides 4x mini-DisplayPort 2.0 outputs, while the NVIDIA part provides 1x HDMI. For multi-display setups, the Intel part offers more output options.

The Intel part also holds an advantage in API support. It lists DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The NVIDIA N1 20SM lists N/A for DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan, which likely reflects its IGP status and a different intended software stack. For traditional PC graphics workloads, the Intel part has explicit API coverage where the NVIDIA part has none recorded.

The NVIDIA part has a higher boost clock at 2346 MHz versus 2000 MHz, but its base clock is much lower at 741 MHz. The Intel part maintains a constant 2000 MHz across all states. In sustained workloads with limited cooling, the Intel part may hold its frequency more predictably, while the NVIDIA part depends on the host platform's thermal solution.

Architecture Differences

The two parts come from different architectural lineages. The Intel Arc A310E uses the DG2-128 chip built on the Xe-HPG architecture, belonging to the Alchemist (Arc 3) generation. It is fabricated on a 6 nm process at TSMC, with 7,200 million transistors on a 157 mm² die. That yields a transistor density of 45.9M per mm². The NVIDIA N1 20SM uses the GB20B chip built on the Blackwell 2.0 architecture, belonging to the Blackwell IGP (N1x) generation. It is fabricated on a 5 nm process at TSMC, with a die size of 382 mm². Transistor count and density are not recorded for the NVIDIA part.

The process node difference is small: 6 nm versus 5 nm, both at TSMC. The die size difference is substantial: 382 mm² for the NVIDIA part versus 157 mm² for the Intel part, a 2.4 times larger die. That larger die area accommodates more shader units, more TMUs, more ROPs, more RT cores, and the tensor core array.

Memory technology differs fundamentally. The Intel part uses 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 64 bit bus, with memory clocked at 1937 MHz and 15.5 Gbps effective. The NVIDIA part uses 128 GB of LPDDR5X on a 256 bit bus, with memory clocked at 1067 MHz and 8.5 Gbps effective. The NVIDIA part has a wider bus and slower memory clock, but the wider bus produces higher total bandwidth. The Intel part has a narrower bus and faster memory clock, but the total bandwidth is lower.

The shading architecture differs in scale and ratio. The Intel part has 768 shading units, 32 TMUs, 16 ROPs, 6 RT cores, and no tensor cores. The NVIDIA part has 2560 shading units, 160 TMUs, 24 ROPs, 20 RT cores, and 80 tensor cores. The FP16 ratio also differs: the Intel part uses a 2:1 ratio, meaning FP16 throughput is double FP32 throughput. The NVIDIA part uses a 1:1 ratio, meaning FP16 throughput equals FP32 throughput.

Physical packaging differs as well. The Intel Arc A310E is a discrete single-slot card with dimensions of 168 mm by 69 mm by 20 mm. The NVIDIA N1 20SM is listed as an IGP, with no dimensions recorded. The Intel part has no power connectors and a 75 W TDP, while the NVIDIA part has an unknown TDP and no power connectors. The bus interfaces differ: PCIe 4.0 x8 for Intel, PCIe 5.0 x16 for NVIDIA.

Production status separates the two. The Intel Arc A310E is end-of-life, released on 2024-03-31, with a predecessor of Xe Graphics and a successor of Battlemage. The NVIDIA N1 20SM is active, with a release date of 2026-05-31 and no predecessor or successor listed. The Intel part is a finished product at the end of its lifecycle, while the NVIDIA part is current and ongoing.

The Verdict

The data shows two parts with different purposes. The Intel Arc A310E is a low-power discrete graphics card with a 75 W TDP, constant 2000 MHz clocks, 4 GB of GDDR6, and four display outputs. The NVIDIA N1 20SM is an integrated graphics processor with 128 GB of LPDDR5X, a 256 bit bus, tensor cores, and a much larger shader array.

For raw compute, the NVIDIA N1 20SM leads across every measured specification category: FP32, FP16, texture rate, pixel rate, shading units, TMUs, ROPs, RT cores, and memory bandwidth. The FP32 gap of 12.01 TFLOPS versus 3.072 TFLOPS is the clearest single indicator of performance class. The texture rate gap of 375.4 GTexel/s versus 64.00 GTexel/s is even larger in relative terms.

For display output and API compatibility, the Intel Arc A310E is the more conventional graphics solution. It supports DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, and it provides four mini-DisplayPort 2.0 outputs. The NVIDIA N1 20SM has no recorded API support and a single HDMI output.

The memory capacity difference of 128 GB versus 4 GB cannot be overstated in its practical implications. The NVIDIA part can hold entire large datasets on-device, while the Intel part is limited to small working sets. The 32 times capacity difference is the largest specification gap between the two parts.

The production status difference matters for adoption. The Intel part is end-of-life, meaning no further development is planned. The NVIDIA part is active, meaning it is currently supported and likely to receive ongoing attention. The release dates confirm this: the Intel part appeared in 2024, the NVIDIA part is dated 2026.

From the recorded data, the NVIDIA N1 20SM is the higher-performance part by every computational metric, while the Intel Arc A310E is the more complete discrete graphics product in terms of outputs and API coverage. The choice depends entirely on which specification set matters more for the target workload.

FAQ

Q: Which part has higher FP32 performance?

A: The NVIDIA N1 20SM delivers 12.01 TFLOPS of FP32 throughput, while the Intel Arc A310E delivers 3.072 TFLOPS. The NVIDIA part has approximately 3.9 times the FP32 compute.

Q: How much memory does each part have?

A: The Intel Arc A310E has 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 64 bit bus with 124.0 GB/s bandwidth. The NVIDIA N1 20SM has 128 GB of LPDDR5X on a 256 bit bus with 273.2 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Does the NVIDIA N1 20SM support DirectX?

A: The database lists DirectX as N/A for the NVIDIA N1 20SM. The Intel Arc A310E lists DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4.

Q: What is the release status of each part?

A: The Intel Arc A310E is end-of-life with a release date of 2024-03-31. The NVIDIA N1 20SM is active with a release date of 2026-05-31.

Q: How many ray tracing cores does each part have?

A: The Intel Arc A310E has 6 ray tracing cores. The NVIDIA N1 20SM has 20 ray tracing cores, roughly 3.3 times more.

Q: What are the clock speeds?

A: The Intel Arc A310E runs at a constant 2000 MHz for both base and boost. The NVIDIA N1 20SM has a base clock of 741 MHz and a boost clock of 2346 MHz.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Arc A310E | NVIDIA N1 20SM |

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

| Chip | DG2-128 | GB20B |

| Architecture | Xe-HPG | Blackwell 2.0 |

| Generation | Alchemist (Arc 3) | Blackwell IGP (N1x) |

| Process node | 6 nm | 5 nm |

| Transistors | 7,200 million | unknown |

| Die size | 157 mm² | 382 mm² |

| Transistor density | 45.9M / mm² | not listed |

| Base clock | 2000 MHz | 741 MHz |

| Boost clock | 2000 MHz | 2346 MHz |

| Memory clock | 1937 MHz, 15.5 Gbps effective | 1067 MHz, 8.5 Gbps effective |

| Memory size | 4 GB | 128 GB |

| Memory type | GDDR6 | LPDDR5X |

| Memory bus | 64 bit | 256 bit |

| Memory bandwidth | 124.0 GB/s | 273.2 GB/s |

| Shading units | 768 | 2560 |

| TMUs | 32 | 160 |

| ROPs | 16 | 24 |

| RT cores | 6 | 20 |

| Tensor cores | not listed | 80 |

| Pixel rate | 32.00 GPixel/s | 56.30 GPixel/s |

| Texture rate | 64.00 GTexel/s | 375.4 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 3.072 TFLOPS | 12.01 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | 6.144 TFLOPS (2:1) | 12.01 TFLOPS (1:1) |

| TDP | 75 W | unknown |

| Slot width | Single-slot | IGP |

| Power connectors | None | None |

| Suggested PSU | 250 W | not listed |

| Bus interface | PCIe 4.0 x8 | PCIe 5.0 x16 |

| Display outputs | 4x mini-DisplayPort 2.0 | 1x HDMI |

| DirectX | 12 Ultimate (12_2) | N/A |

| OpenGL | 4.6 | N/A |

| Vulkan | 1.4 | N/A |

| Dimensions | 168 mm x 69 mm x 20 mm | not listed |

| Production status | End-of-life | Active |

| Release date | 2024-03-31 | 2026-05-31 |

| Predecessor | Xe Graphics | not listed |

| Successor | Battlemage | not listed |