NVIDIA N1 20SM vs NVIDIA N1X 48SM Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The database record for both NVIDIA N1 20SM and NVIDIA N1X 48SM shows identical benchmark arrays, with no head-to-head benchmark entries recorded. Both parts share the same percentileVsAllGpus value of 50, placing them at the median of all tracked GPUs. The winsA and winsB fields both read zero, indicating that neither part has secured a single direct benchmark victory over the other in the recorded data.

The use-case split therefore rests entirely on architectural capability rather than measured performance deltas. The N1 20SM offers 2560 shading units, 160 texture mapping units, and 24 raster output pipelines. The N1X 48SM doubles the shading units to 6144, raises TMUs to 384, and doubles ROPs to 48. This structural difference points to the N1X 48SM handling workloads that scale with raw compute throughput, such as large-batch matrix operations or high-resolution texture filtering, while the N1 20SM remains suited to tasks that do not demand the full parallel width.

Both chips share the GB20B die, a 382 mm² piece of silicon built on TSMC's 5 nm process. The identical die size and process node mean the differentiation is purely in how many of the available execution resources are activated. The N1 20SM effectively disables a large portion of the compute fabric, while the N1X 48SM enables the full set. This is a classic binning strategy, and the data suggests the N1X 48SM is the part to choose when the workload can saturate more than 2560 shading units.

Memory configuration does not differentiate the two. Both carry 128 GB of LPDDR5X on a 256-bit bus, delivering 273.2 GB/s of bandwidth. The memory clock is identical at 1067 MHz with 8.5 Gbps effective transfer. For memory-bound tasks, the two parts are indistinguishable. The difference emerges only when the compute pipeline becomes the bottleneck.

The pixel rate tells a clear story: the N1 20SM delivers 56.30 GPixel/s, while the N1X 48SM reaches 112.6 GPixel/s, exactly double. Texture rate follows the same pattern, with 375.4 GTexel/s against 900.9 GTexel/s. The N1X 48SM is the clear winner for rasterization-heavy scenes and texture-intensive rendering. The N1 20SM, with half the pixel throughput, will show its limits in high-resolution framebuffer fills or complex overdraw scenarios.

The Verdict

The recorded data points to the N1X 48SM as the superior part for every compute-bound and graphics-bound workload, strictly by virtue of its doubled execution resources. The FP32 throughput is 28.83 TFLOPS versus 12.01 TFLOPS, a 140% advantage. FP16 follows the same ratio at 28.83 TFLOPS versus 12.01 TFLOPS, both operating in a 1:1 ratio. Tensor core count doubles from 80 to 192, and RT cores double from 20 to 48. Any task that leverages tensor operations, ray tracing, or general FP32 math will see a substantial uplift on the N1X 48SM.

The N1 20SM does not win a single benchmark in the database, nor does it hold any architectural advantage. The only scenario where the N1 20SM might be preferable is if the workload is entirely memory-bound, where both parts are equal. But even then, the N1X 48SM does not lose, it simply ties. There is no recorded metric where the N1 20SM exceeds the N1X 48SM.

For a buyer constrained by power or thermal limits, the N1 20SM might draw less power due to fewer active units, but the TDP is listed as unknown for both parts, so the data cannot confirm this. The slot width is IGP for both, and neither requires external power connectors. The N1X 48SM is the choice for anyone who needs maximum compute density in an integrated form factor. The N1 20SM is the baseline part, sufficient for lighter workloads but clearly outmatched on paper.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The headToHeadBenchmarks array in the database is empty, so there are no measured deltas to report. The winsA and winsB counters are both zero. This absence of direct comparison data forces an analysis based on the specification-level differences, which are substantial.

The FP32 compute gap is the most striking. The N1X 48SM delivers 28.83 TFLOPS, which is 2.4 times the N1 20SM's 12.01 TFLOPS. In percentage terms, the N1X 48SM leads by 140%. This is not a marginal improvement; it is a fundamental step up in processing capability. Any FP32 workload, from physics simulation to image processing, will complete in less than half the time on the N1X 48SM.

Texture rate shows an even larger relative gap. The N1X 48SM achieves 900.9 GTexel/s versus 375.4 GTexel/s, a 140% advantage again. The TMU count of 384 versus 160 explains this directly. For anisotropic filtering, mipmapping, or any texture-heavy rendering pass, the N1X 48SM will sustain much higher throughput before becoming the bottleneck.

Pixel rate doubles exactly, from 56.30 GPixel/s to 112.6 GPixel/s. The ROP count of 48 versus 24 drives this. Fill-rate-bound scenarios, such as rendering to multiple render targets or high-depth-complexity scenes, will see a direct 2x improvement.

Ray tracing resources follow the same doubling pattern. The N1X 48SM has 48 RT cores versus 20 on the N1 20SM. Tensor cores scale from 80 to 192, a 140% increase. These resources feed the FP16 and FP32 pipelines, respectively, and their doubled presence suggests the N1X 48SM is designed for AI inference and real-time ray tracing workloads.

The memory subsystem offers no differentiator. Both parts use 128 GB of LPDDR5X, a 256-bit bus, and 273.2 GB/s bandwidth. The memory clock is identical at 1067 MHz. For any test where the working set exceeds the compute capacity of the N1 20SM but fits within the memory bandwidth, the N1X 48SM will still win because it can process the data faster once it is in the registers.

FAQ

Q: Which part has higher FP32 compute throughput?

A: The N1X 48SM delivers 28.83 TFLOPS, while the N1 20SM delivers 12.01 TFLOPS. The N1X 48SM leads by 140%.

Q: Do the two parts share the same memory configuration?

A: Yes, both have 128 GB of LPDDR5X on a 256-bit bus with 273.2 GB/s bandwidth and a memory clock of 1067 MHz.

Q: What is the pixel rate difference?

A: The N1 20SM achieves 56.30 GPixel/s, while the N1X 48SM reaches 112.6 GPixel/s, exactly double.

Q: Are there any direct benchmark results comparing these two GPUs?

A: The database records no head-to-head benchmarks between them. The winsA and winsB counters are both zero, and the benchmark arrays are empty.

Q: How do the tensor core counts compare?

A: The N1 20SM has 80 tensor cores, while the N1X 48SM has 192, a 140% increase.

Q: Do both parts use the same chip and process node?

A: Yes, both use the GB20B chip on TSMC's 5 nm process, with a die size of 382 mm².

Architecture Differences

Both parts are built on the Blackwell 2.0 architecture and belong to the Blackwell IGP (N1x) generation. The chip is the same GB20B for both. The process node is TSMC's 5 nm, and the die size is 382 mm². There is no difference in the underlying silicon design; the differentiation is in the enabled execution resources.

The shading unit count is the primary architectural differentiator. The N1 20SM has 2560 shading units, while the N1X 48SM has 6144. This is a 2.4x difference. Texture mapping units scale from 160 to 384, and raster output pipelines double from 24 to 48. The RT core count doubles from 20 to 48, and the tensor core count increases from 80 to 192.

The FP32 and FP16 throughput figures scale exactly with the shading unit count. Both parts maintain a 1:1 FP16 to FP32 ratio, which is unusual and indicates the architecture treats both precisions with equal priority. The N1 20SM has 12.01 TFLOPS in both, and the N1X 48SM has 28.83 TFLOPS in both.

The memory architecture is identical, with no differences in size, type, bus width, or bandwidth. The clock speeds for base and boost are also identical at 741 MHz and 2346 MHz. The memory clock is the same at 1067 MHz. This suggests the memory controller and clock distribution are unaffected by the compute resource scaling.

The production status is Active for both, and the release date is the same. Neither part has a predecessor or successor listed. The bus interface is PCIe 5.0 x16 for both, and the display output is a single HDMI port. The slot width is IGP for both, and neither requires external power connectors.

Specification Differences

The two parts differ in the following fields: shadingUnits, tmus, rops, rtCores, tensorCores, pixelRate, textureRate, fp32, and fp16. All other specifications are identical.

The shading units are 2560 on the N1 20SM and 6144 on the N1X 48SM. Texture mapping units are 160 versus 384. Raster output pipelines are 24 versus 48. Ray tracing cores are 20 versus 48. Tensor cores are 80 versus 192.

The pixel rate is 56.30 GPixel/s on the N1 20SM and 112.6 GPixel/s on the N1X 48SM. The texture rate is 375.4 GTexel/s versus 900.9 GTexel/s. FP32 compute is 12.01 TFLOPS versus 28.83 TFLOPS. FP16 compute is 12.01 TFLOPS versus 28.83 TFLOPS, both at a 1:1 ratio.

The identical fields include the 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), memory size (128 GB), memory type (LPDDR5X), memory bus width (256 bit), memory bandwidth (273.2 GB/s), TDP (unknown), slot width (IGP), power connectors (None), bus interface (PCIe 5.0 x16), display outputs (1x HDMI), API support (all N/A), production status (Active), and release date (2026-05-31).

The transistors field is listed as unknown for both, and the transistor density is null. There are no dimensions recorded for either part. The launch MSRP is null for both, so no pricing information is available in the database. The average benchmark score is zero for both, reflecting the absence of recorded benchmark data.