NVIDIA N1 20SM vs NVIDIA N1X 40SM Comparison

The NVIDIA N1 20SM and NVIDIA N1X 40SM are both integrated graphics processors from the Blackwell IGP (N1x) generation, built on the same GB20B chip using a 5 nm process at TSMC. They share identical memory configurations, clock speeds, and interface details, yet they differ fundamentally in execution resource counts. The database shows no head-to-head benchmark results for either part, and both hold a percentile rank of 50 against all GPUs with an average benchmark score of 0. This means the recorded data cannot provide direct performance comparisons, but the specification differences allow for clear analytical inference.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains no recorded head-to-head benchmark entries for the NVIDIA N1 20SM versus the NVIDIA N1X 40SM. Both parts show zero wins in direct comparison fields, and neither has an average benchmark score above 0. This absence of measurement data does not indicate equivalence; it reflects that neither GPU has been subjected to the database’s standardized testing suite at the time of recording.

Without benchmark scores, the analysis must rely on the theoretical throughput metrics provided. The N1X 40SM doubles the shading units of the N1 20SM: 5120 versus 2560. This directly scales the FP32 compute rate from 12.01 TFLOPS on the N1 20SM to 24.02 TFLOPS on the N1X 40SM, representing a 100% increase. Similarly, FP16 performance follows the same exact 1:1 ratio, with the N1X 40SM delivering 24.02 TFLOPS compared to 12.01 TFLOPS on the smaller part.

Texture processing shows the same doubling pattern. The N1 20SM has 160 texture mapping units and a texture rate of 375.4 GTexel/s, while the N1X 40SM has 320 TMUs and a texture rate of 750.7 GTexel/s. Pixel throughput also scales proportionally: the N1 20SM outputs 56.30 GPixel/s with 24 ROPs, whereas the N1X 40SM outputs 93.84 GPixel/s with 40 ROPs. The pixel rate increase is 66.7%, not 100%, because ROP count rises from 24 to 40 (a 66.7% increase) while clock speeds remain constant at a boost of 2346 MHz.

Ray tracing hardware follows the doubling pattern as well. The N1 20SM includes 20 RT cores; the N1X 40SM includes 40 RT cores. Tensor core counts double from 80 to 160. These resource differences are the only recorded distinctions between the two parts, as every other specification in the database matches exactly, including base clock (741 MHz), boost clock (2346 MHz), memory clock (1067 MHz, 8.5 Gbps effective), memory size (128 GB), memory type (LPDDR5X), bus width (256 bit), and bandwidth (273.2 GB/s).

The database records no wins for either GPU in any benchmark category. Consequently, the only quantifiable comparison available is the theoretical compute and throughput scaling described above. The N1X 40SM offers exactly twice the shader, texture, tensor, and ray tracing resources, and 66.7% more ROPs, all at identical clock frequencies. This makes the N1X 40SM the superior part on paper for any workload that scales with those units, but the lack of measured data prevents confirmation of real-world scaling efficiency.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has more shading units?

A: The NVIDIA N1X 40SM has 5120 shading units, exactly double the 2560 shading units of the NVIDIA N1 20SM.

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).

Q: What is the difference in FP32 compute performance?

A: The N1X 40SM delivers 24.02 TFLOPS FP32, while the N1 20SM delivers 12.01 TFLOPS FP32, a 100% increase for the larger part.

Q: Are the clock speeds different between the two?

A: No. Both have a base clock of 741 MHz and a boost clock of 2346 MHz.

Q: Which GPU has more ray tracing cores?

A: The N1X 40SM has 40 RT cores, double the 20 RT cores found on the N1 20SM.

Q: Is there any benchmark score recorded for either GPU?

A: No. Both have an average benchmark score of 0, and no head-to-head benchmark results are present in the database.

Architecture Differences

Both GPUs share the same underlying chip, GB20B, fabricated on TSMC’s 5 nm process. The die size is identical at 382 mm² for both parts. The architecture is Blackwell 2.0 for both, and both belong to the Blackwell IGP (N1x) generation. The transistor count is listed as unknown for both, and no transistor density figure is provided.

The architectural differences are purely in execution resource counts, not in fundamental design. The N1 20SM contains 2560 shading units, 160 TMUs, 24 ROPs, 20 RT cores, and 80 tensor cores. The N1X 40SM contains 5120 shading units, 320 TMUs, 40 ROPs, 40 RT cores, and 160 tensor cores. Every other architectural element, including the memory subsystem, clock domain, and interface, is identical.

The doubling of resources suggests that the N1X 40SM uses a fully enabled configuration of the GB20B chip, while the N1 20SM likely represents a partially disabled or partitioned variant. The identical die size of 382 mm² supports this interpretation: both parts physically use the same silicon, but the N1 20SM has half the shading units, TMUs, RT cores, and tensor cores active, and 60% of the ROPs (24 out of 40). The database does not specify how these resources are disabled, but the equal die size indicates no physical difference in the chip itself.

The pixel rate difference (56.30 GPixel/s versus 93.84 GPixel/s) aligns with the ROP count difference of 24 versus 40, since both GPUs run at the same boost clock of 2346 MHz. The texture rate difference (375.4 GTexel/s versus 750.7 GTexel/s) aligns exactly with the TMU count doubling. FP32 and FP16 rates both double exactly in proportion to shading unit counts, confirming that the clock speed is the same for both and that the compute scaling is purely resource-driven.

The absence of any separate architecture feature for either part, such as different cache hierarchies or specialized units, means the database records no other architectural distinction. Both support the same bus interface (PCIe 5.0 x16), the same display output (1x HDMI), and the same API support (DirectX N/A, OpenGL N/A, Vulkan N/A). Neither has a listed power connector, and both are classified as IGP slot width.

Specification Differences

The database lists the following specification fields as identical between the two GPUs:

• Manufacturer: NVIDIA
• 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
• DirectX, OpenGL, Vulkan support: N/A
• Production status: Active
• Release date: 2026-05-31T17:00:00.000Z
• Launch MSRP: not provided for either

The only differing specification fields are:

• Shading units: 2560 (N1 20SM) versus 5120 (N1X 40SM)
• TMUs: 160 versus 320
• ROPs: 24 versus 40
• RT cores: 20 versus 40
• Tensor cores: 80 versus 160
• Pixel rate: 56.30 GPixel/s versus 93.84 GPixel/s
• Texture rate: 375.4 GTexel/s versus 750.7 GTexel/s
• FP32 performance: 12.01 TFLOPS versus 24.02 TFLOPS
• FP16 performance: 12.01 TFLOPS versus 24.02 TFLOPS (both 1:1)

No other specification differs. The N1X 40SM has exactly double the shading units, TMUs, RT cores, and tensor cores of the N1 20SM, and 1.667 times the ROPs. All performance rates scale accordingly. The N1 20SM has a percentile rank of 50 against all GPUs, as does the N1X 40SM, but this rank is based on no benchmark scores and therefore carries no comparative weight.

The Verdict

Based strictly on the recorded data, the NVIDIA N1X 40SM is the more capable part. It doubles the shading units, texture units, ray tracing cores, and tensor cores, and increases ROPs by 66.7%. This yields exactly twice the FP32 and FP16 throughput, exactly twice the texture fill rate, and 66.7% higher pixel fill rate, all at identical clock speeds and memory bandwidth. The N1 20SM cannot match these figures on any compute metric.

The N1 20SM, however, is not without purpose. It shares the same 128 GB memory capacity, 273.2 GB/s bandwidth, and identical clock speeds with the N1X 40SM. For workloads that are memory-bound or that do not scale with shading unit count, the N1 20SM may perform similarly to the N1X 40SM, since the memory subsystem is identical. The database provides no benchmark data to confirm this, but the specification parity in memory and clocks suggests that the primary differentiator is compute throughput.

The choice between the two depends entirely on whether the workload requires the additional execution resources. The N1X 40SM offers double the raw compute and texture processing, and substantially higher pixel throughput, making it the stronger option for any task that utilizes shaders, textures, ray tracing, or tensor operations. The N1 20SM offers the same memory and clock characteristics but with half the compute resources, which may be sufficient for lighter workloads that do not saturate the available units.

Both GPUs are listed as Active production status with the same release date of 2026-05-31T17:00:00.000Z. Neither has a recorded launch MSRP, so no cost-based comparison is possible from the data. The percentile rank of 50 for both, with an average benchmark score of 0 for both, indicates that the database has not yet measured either part in any standardized test.

Where Each One Wins

The N1X 40SM wins in every compute-oriented category that the database records. Its FP32 throughput of 24.02 TFLOPS is exactly double the N1 20SM’s 12.01 TFLOPS. FP16 performance follows the same 1:1 doubling, reaching 24.02 TFLOPS. Texture rate on the N1X 40SM is 750.7 GTexel/s, double the 375.4 GTexel/s of the N1 20SM. Pixel rate is 93.84 GPixel/s versus 56.30 GPixel/s, a 66.7% advantage. Ray tracing core count doubles from 20 to 40, and tensor cores double from 80 to 160. Any workload that scales with these units will see proportional gains on the N1X 40SM.

The N1 20SM wins in no recorded specification category. It does not exceed the N1X 40SM in any field. Its only potential advantage is indirect: because both parts have identical memory size, bandwidth, clock speeds, and bus interface, the N1 20SM may consume less power due to fewer active resources, but the database lists TDP as unknown for both, so no power efficiency comparison can be made. The N1 20SM also uses the same die size of 382 mm², so there is no physical size advantage.

The database records no benchmark wins for either part, so the use-case split must be inferred from specifications. The N1X 40SM is suited for compute-heavy tasks such as high-resolution texture processing, ray-traced rendering, or tensor-based workloads, given its double RT core and tensor core counts. The N1 20SM, with half the resources but identical memory, may be adequate for memory-bound tasks where the 273.2 GB/s bandwidth is the limiting factor rather than shader throughput. Both parts share the same 1x HDMI output and PCIe 5.0 x16 interface, so connectivity and integration characteristics are identical.

The data shows a clear resource hierarchy: the N1X 40SM is the fully provisioned variant, and the N1 20SM is the reduced-configuration variant. No measured performance data exists to validate real-world scaling, but the theoretical rates all point to the N1X 40SM as the superior performer for GPU-intensive work.