NVIDIA N1 20SM vs NVIDIA Rubin GPU Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains no recorded benchmark scores for either the NVIDIA N1 20SM or the NVIDIA Rubin GPU. Both entries show an avgBenchmarkScore of 0 and an empty headToHeadBenchmarks array. Consequently, there are no head-to-head benchmark deltas to report, no percentile rankings among rivals, and no wins recorded for either part. The absence of measured performance data means any direct numerical comparison of application speed, frame rates, or compute throughput cannot be substantiated from the recorded facts.

What can be compared directly are the raw specification-derived throughput figures, which are recorded in the database. In FP32 compute, the Rubin GPU delivers 130.0 TFLOPS, which is 10.8 times the 12.01 TFLOPS of the N1 20SM. In FP16, the gap widens further: Rubin reaches 260.0 TFLOPS with a 2:1 ratio, while the N1 20SM provides 12.01 TFLOPS with a 1:1 ratio. That is a 21.6-fold difference in FP16 throughput. The texture rate tells a similar story, Rubin produces 2,031.2 GTexel/s versus 375.4 GTexel/s for the N1 20SM, a 5.4x advantage. Pixel rates are nearly identical, with Rubin at 54.41 GPixel/s and the N1 20SM at 56.30 GPixel/s, the smaller chip actually leading by 3.5 percent.

Memory bandwidth is another decisive differentiator. The Rubin GPU records 22.1 TB/s from its HBM4 memory, while the N1 20SM manages 273.2 GB/s from LPDDR5X. That is an 80.9x bandwidth advantage for Rubin. The N1 20SM does hold a modest clock speed edge, with a boost of 2346 MHz versus 2267 MHz for Rubin, a 3.5 percent higher boost clock. The N1 20SM also has a slightly higher base clock at 741 MHz versus 700 MHz.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher FP32 compute throughput?

A: The NVIDIA Rubin GPU records 130.0 TFLOPS FP32, compared to 12.01 TFLOPS for the NVIDIA N1 20SM. Rubin is therefore 10.8x faster in FP32 according to the specification data.

Q: How do the two compare in memory bandwidth?

A: The Rubin GPU has 22.1 TB/s of bandwidth from its HBM4 memory, while the N1 20SM has 273.2 GB/s from LPDDR5X. Rubin's bandwidth is 80.9x higher.

Q: What are the boost clock speeds of each GPU?

A: The N1 20SM has a boost clock of 2346 MHz and a base clock of 741 MHz. The Rubin GPU has a boost clock of 2267 MHz and a base clock of 700 MHz. The N1 20SM boosts 3.5 percent higher and bases 5.9 percent higher.

Q: Which GPU has more shading units?

A: The Rubin GPU has 28,672 shading units. The N1 20SM has 2,560 shading units. Rubin has 11.2x more shading units.

Q: What is the pixel fillrate for each?

A: The N1 20SM records 56.30 GPixel/s, and the Rubin GPU records 54.41 GPixel/s. The N1 20SM is 3.5 percent ahead in pixel rate.

Q: Do either of these GPUs support DirectX, OpenGL, or Vulkan?

A: No, the database lists all three APIs as N/A for both the N1 20SM and the Rubin GPU.

Where Each One Wins

Based on the recorded specification data, the NVIDIA Rubin GPU wins decisively in every throughput category except one. Its 130.0 TFLOPS FP32 and 260.0 TFLOPS FP16 make it the clear choice for compute-heavy workloads, including large-scale training, scientific simulation, and high-performance inference. The 22.1 TB/s memory bandwidth, delivered over a 16,384-bit HBM4 interface with 288 GB capacity, positions it for data-intensive tasks where memory access speed is the bottleneck. The texture rate of 2,031.2 GTexel/s, supported by 896 TMUs and 896 tensor cores, reinforces its dominance in rendering and matrix operations. The 2300 W TDP and 2700 W suggested PSU indicate the infrastructure required for such throughput.

The NVIDIA N1 20SM wins on pixel fillrate, recording 56.30 GPixel/s versus 54.41 GPixel/s for Rubin, a small but real advantage. It also has higher clock speeds, with a 2346 MHz boost versus 2267 MHz for Rubin, and a 741 MHz base versus 700 MHz. As an IGP with no power connectors and a PCIe 5.0 x16 interface, it is designed for integration into a host system rather than standalone installation. Its 128 GB of LPDDR5X memory on a 256-bit bus delivers 273.2 GB/s, which is substantial for an integrated part but far below Rubin's capability. The N1 20SM has a 5 nm process node versus 3 nm for Rubin, yet its die size of 382 mm² is far smaller than Rubin's 1456 mm².

The Rubin GPU also leads in raw resource counts: 28,672 shading units versus 2,560, 896 TMUs versus 160, and 896 tensor cores versus 80. The N1 20SM has 20 RT cores, while the Rubin GPU's RT core count is not recorded in the database. Both parts have 24 ROPs. The Rubin GPU supports PCIe 6.0 x16, while the N1 20SM uses PCIe 5.0 x16.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ across nearly every recorded specification field. The N1 20SM uses chip GB20B with a 5 nm process at TSMC, while the Rubin GPU uses chip GR100 with a 3 nm process at TSMC. The N1 20SM has no recorded transistor count, while Rubin has 336,000 million transistors. The N1 20SM's die size is 382 mm², compared to 1456 mm² for the Rubin GPU. The transistor density for the N1 20SM is not recorded, while Rubin lists 230.8M per mm².

Clock speeds differ, with the N1 20SM at 741 MHz base and 2346 MHz boost, versus 700 MHz base and 2267 MHz boost for Rubin. Memory configurations are entirely different: the N1 20SM has 128 GB of LPDDR5X on a 256-bit bus with 273.2 GB/s bandwidth and a memory clock of 1067 MHz (8.5 Gbps effective), while the Rubin GPU has 288 GB of HBM4 on a 16,384-bit bus with 22.1 TB/s bandwidth and a memory clock of 2695 MHz (10.8 Gbps effective).

Compute resources differ substantially. The N1 20SM has 2,560 shading units, 160 TMUs, 24 ROPs, 20 RT cores, and 80 tensor cores. The Rubin GPU has 28,672 shading units, 896 TMUs, 24 ROPs, no recorded RT core count, and 896 tensor cores. The N1 20SM delivers 12.01 TFLOPS FP32 and 12.01 TFLOPS FP16 (1:1), while the Rubin GPU delivers 130.0 TFLOPS FP32 and 260.0 TFLOPS FP16 (2:1).

Power and physical specifications also diverge. The N1 20SM has an unknown TDP, an IGP slot width, no power connectors, and no suggested PSU. The Rubin GPU has a 2300 W TDP, an SXM Module slot width, no recorded power connectors, and a 2700 W suggested PSU. The N1 20SM uses PCIe 5.0 x16, while the Rubin GPU uses PCIe 6.0 x16. Display outputs differ as well: the N1 20SM has 1x HDMI, while the Rubin GPU has no outputs.

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide is fundamental. The N1 20SM belongs to the Blackwell 2.0 architecture and is part of the Blackwell IGP (N1x) generation. The Rubin GPU uses the newer Rubin architecture and belongs to the Server Rubin (Rxx) generation. The N1 20SM's predecessor and successor are both unrecorded, while the Rubin GPU lists its predecessor as Server Blackwell.

The process nodes reflect different manufacturing generations: 5 nm for the N1 20SM versus 3 nm for the Rubin GPU, both at TSMC. The transistor count is a stark contrast, with Rubin's 336,000 million transistors against an unknown figure for the N1 20SM. The die size difference, 382 mm² versus 1456 mm², indicates that Rubin is a monolithic design nearly 4x larger.

Memory architecture differs in both type and scale. The N1 20SM uses LPDDR5X, which is typically integrated onto a package or motherboard, consistent with its IGP classification. The Rubin GPU uses HBM4, a stacked high-bandwidth memory design optimized for server workloads. The bus width difference, 256-bit versus 16,384-bit, explains the 80.9x bandwidth gap.

The FP16 ratio also reveals different design priorities. The N1 20SM provides FP16 at a 1:1 ratio with FP32, meaning it does not dedicate extra hardware to half-precision. The Rubin GPU offers FP16 at a 2:1 ratio, doubling throughput for half-precision operations. This indicates that the Rubin architecture is tuned for AI and machine learning workloads that rely heavily on FP16.

The tensor core counts, 80 for the N1 20SM and 896 for the Rubin GPU, reinforce this interpretation. The Rubin GPU's 896 tensor cores represent an 11.2x increase over the N1 20SM. The RT core count is recorded only for the N1 20SM at 20 cores, with no equivalent figure for the Rubin GPU in the database.

The N1 20SM is a Blackwell IGP, designed to be integrated into a system with no power connectors and a single HDMI output. The Rubin GPU is a server module with a 2300 W TDP, an SXM form factor, and no display outputs. The bus interfaces also differ by generation: PCIe 5.0 x16 for the N1 20SM versus PCIe 6.0 x16 for the Rubin GPU.

The Verdict

The data defines two distinct products with no overlap in intended use. The NVIDIA Rubin GPU is a server-class compute accelerator with 130.0 TFLOPS FP32, 260.0 TFLOPS FP16, 22.1 TB/s memory bandwidth, 288 GB of HBM4, and 28,672 shading units. It has a 2300 W TDP, an SXM Module slot width, a 2700 W suggested PSU, and no display outputs. It is built on a 3 nm process with 336,000 million transistors on a 1456 mm² die. It is designed for data center workloads where raw compute, memory bandwidth, and tensor throughput are paramount.

The NVIDIA N1 20SM is an integrated GPU with 12.01 TFLOPS FP32 and FP16, 273.2 GB/s memory bandwidth, 128 GB of LPDDR5X, and 2,560 shading units. It has a 5 nm process, a 382 mm² die, an IGP slot width, no power connectors, and a single HDMI output. It uses PCIe 5.0 x16 and boosts to 2346 MHz, which is higher than the Rubin GPU's 2267 MHz. Its pixel rate of 56.30 GPixel/s slightly exceeds Rubin's 54.41 GPixel/s.

The choice between these two comes down to form factor and scale. The Rubin GPU is the only option for server deployment, given its SXM module design, 2300 W TDP, and 22.1 TB/s HBM4 bandwidth. The N1 20SM is the only option for an integrated, low-power, no-connector design with a display output. The N1 20SM wins on pixel fillrate and clock speed, while the Rubin GPU wins by an order of magnitude or more in every other compute and memory metric. Neither part supports DirectX, OpenGL, or Vulkan, making both unsuitable for conventional consumer gaming APIs. The release dates show the Rubin GPU came first, with the N1 20SM following about five months later. Each part serves its segment without direct competition from the other.