Intel Arc A310E vs NVIDIA N1X 40SM Comparison

Intel Arc A310E and NVIDIA N1X 40SM represent two fundamentally different approaches to GPU design, one a discrete entry-level graphics card and the other an integrated graphics processor for a forthcoming platform. The recorded data shows both occupy the 50th percentile in the database, yet their specifications diverge so sharply that direct comparison requires careful interpretation.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains no direct head-to-head benchmark results between the Intel Arc A310E and the NVIDIA N1X 40SM. The headToHeadBenchmarks array is empty, and both products have zero recorded benchmark scores. This absence of empirical data means all analysis must derive from the recorded specification fields and architectural characteristics.

What the data does show is a massive disparity in raw compute resources. The NVIDIA N1X 40SM delivers 24.02 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, which is 7.8 times the 3.072 TFLOPS offered by the Intel Arc A310E. In FP16 compute, the gap narrows slightly but remains substantial: the N1X 40SM provides 24.02 TFLOPS at a 1:1 ratio, while the A310E achieves 6.144 TFLOPS using a 2:1 ratio, meaning the NVIDIA part is 3.9 times faster.

Texture and pixel throughput follow similar patterns. The N1X 40SM processes 750.7 GTexel/s versus 64.00 GTexel/s on the A310E, a difference of 11.7 times. Pixel fill rates show the NVIDIA part generating 93.84 GPixel/s compared to 32.00 GPixel/s on the Intel card, a 2.9 times advantage. These ratios indicate the N1X 40SM is not merely faster but operates in a different performance class entirely.

Memory bandwidth tells another story. The N1X 40SM accesses its 128 GB LPDDR5X pool across a 256 bit bus, yielding 273.2 GB/s. The A310E uses 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 64 bit bus for 124.0 GB/s. The NVIDIA part delivers 2.2 times the bandwidth, though it must serve a much larger memory footprint.

Clock behavior also differs. The A310E runs at a flat 2000 MHz for both base and boost, with no dynamic range. The N1X 40SM has a 741 MHz base clock that boosts to 2346 MHz, a 3.2 times increase. This suggests the NVIDIA part relies heavily on thermal and power headroom to reach its peak performance, whereas the Intel card maintains a constant frequency.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Arc A310E wins in several categories that favor its discrete, low-power design. Its 75 W TDP makes it suitable for systems with modest power budgets, and the suggested 250 W PSU provides clear guidance for system builders. The A310E supports PCIe 4.0 x8, which is adequate for its bandwidth needs. Display output is a clear victory: the Intel card offers 4x mini-DisplayPort 2.0 connections, enabling multi-monitor setups with modern display standards.

Software API support also favors the A310E. It lists DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, making it compatible with contemporary gaming and compute applications. The N1X 40SM records N/A for DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan, indicating either incomplete driver support or a design targeting proprietary APIs only.

Physical dimensions favor the Intel card in terms of integration flexibility. At 168 mm length, 69 mm height, and 20 mm width, it fits standard slots. The N1X 40SM has no recorded dimensions because it is an IGP (integrated graphics processor), meaning it occupies no expansion slot and requires no separate cooling solution.

The NVIDIA N1X 40SM wins decisively in raw computational capability. Its 5120 shading units dwarf the A310E's 768, a 6.7 times difference. Texture mapping units number 320 versus 32, and ROPs stand at 40 versus 16. Ray tracing cores total 40 on the NVIDIA part versus 6 on the Intel, and the N1X 40SM adds 160 tensor cores that the A310E lacks entirely.

Memory capacity is another unambiguous win. The N1X 40SM's 128 GB unified LPDDR5X pool exceeds the A310E's 4 GB by 32 times. This makes the NVIDIA part suitable for large datasets or workloads that benefit from substantial memory residency, while the Intel card targets applications with modest memory requirements.

Process technology favors the NVIDIA part. The N1X 40SM uses a 5 nm process at TSMC versus 6 nm for the A310E. The NVIDIA die measures 382 mm², considerably larger than the Intel's 157 mm², though the N1X 40SM's transistor count is listed as unknown while the A310E contains 7,200 million transistors.

The Verdict

The data presents two products with entirely different intended use cases. The Intel Arc A310E is a finished, shipping discrete GPU with defined power characteristics, a single-slot form factor, and comprehensive display and API support. Its production status is end-of-life, meaning it represents a completed design cycle. The NVIDIA N1X 40SM is an active IGP with no standalone dimensions, no TDP figure, and no conventional display outputs beyond a single HDMI port.

For users requiring a drop-in graphics solution with multiple display outputs and standard API compatibility, the A310E is the only option with recorded support for those features. Its smaller memory footprint and lower compute throughput limit it to lighter workloads, but the data confirms it functions as a complete, self-contained GPU.

For workloads demanding maximum FP32 throughput, texture processing, or memory capacity, the N1X 40SM holds every numerical advantage. Its 24.02 TFLOPS FP32 and 273.2 GB/s bandwidth place it far ahead of the A310E in raw performance metrics. However, the N1X 40SM's lack of conventional API support and its IGP form factor mean it cannot serve as a standalone graphics card in the same manner.

The absence of benchmark scores in the database prevents a definitive performance ranking. Both products sit at the 50th percentile, indicating they are statistically average among all GPUs in the database, but this percentile is derived from identical average scores of zero, which offers no differentiation. The specification data alone suggests the N1X 40SM will outperform the A310E in compute-heavy scenarios, while the A310E provides broader compatibility and standalone operability.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher FP32 compute performance?

A: The NVIDIA N1X 40SM delivers 24.02 TFLOPS FP32, which is 7.8 times the 3.072 TFLOPS of the Intel Arc A310E.

Q: How much memory does each GPU offer?

A: The Intel Arc A310E has 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 64 bit bus, while the NVIDIA N1X 40SM has 128 GB of LPDDR5X on a 256 bit bus.

Q: What display outputs are available?

A: The Intel Arc A310E provides 4x mini-DisplayPort 2.0 connections. The NVIDIA N1X 40SM lists a single HDMI output.

Q: Which GPU supports standard graphics APIs?

A: The Intel Arc A310E supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The NVIDIA N1X 40SM records N/A for all three APIs.

Q: What is the physical form factor of each product?

A: The Intel Arc A310E is a single-slot card measuring 168 mm length, 69 mm height, and 20 mm width. The NVIDIA N1X 40SM is an IGP with no recorded dimensions.

Q: Which GPU has more ray tracing cores?

A: The NVIDIA N1X 40SM has 40 ray tracing cores, compared to 6 on the Intel Arc A310E.

Architecture Differences

The Intel Arc A310E uses the DG2-128 chip built on the Xe-HPG architecture, specifically the Alchemist generation for Arc 3. The NVIDIA N1X 40SM employs the GB20B chip on the Blackwell 2.0 architecture, classified as Blackwell IGP for the N1x generation. Both are manufactured by TSMC, but at different nodes: 6 nm for Intel and 5 nm for NVIDIA.

The Intel chip contains 7,200 million transistors on a 157 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 45.9 million per mm². The NVIDIA chip has no recorded transistor count but occupies a larger 382 mm² die, with transistor density left unspecified. The larger die area suggests a more complex design, consistent with the higher shading unit count.

Compute resources differ fundamentally. The A310E allocates 768 shading units, 32 TMUs, 16 ROPs, and 6 ray tracing cores. The N1X 40SM contains 5120 shading units, 320 TMUs, 40 ROPs, 40 ray tracing cores, and 160 tensor cores. The NVIDIA part includes tensor cores, which the Intel card lacks entirely, indicating support for AI-accelerated workloads.

Memory architecture diverges completely. The A310E uses discrete GDDR6 with a 64 bit interface, while the N1X 40SM integrates LPDDR5X across a 256 bit bus. The NVIDIA part's 128 GB capacity likely serves as unified memory for a system-on-chip design, whereas the Intel card operates as a traditional discrete GPU with dedicated VRAM.

Clock strategy differs. The A310E maintains a constant 2000 MHz base and boost clock. The N1X 40SM starts at 741 MHz and boosts to 2346 MHz, a wider dynamic range that suggests aggressive power management.

API support shows the Intel part conforms to standard graphics interfaces, while the NVIDIA part lists no DirectX, OpenGL, or Vulkan support in the database. This may indicate the N1X 40SM targets a proprietary software stack or is still in early driver development.

Specification Differences

Process node: Intel uses 6 nm, NVIDIA uses 5 nm, both at TSMC.

Die size: Intel measures 157 mm², NVIDIA measures 382 mm².

Transistors: Intel has 7,200 million, NVIDIA is unknown.

Transistor density: Intel achieves 45.9M per mm², NVIDIA has no recorded figure.

Base clock: Intel runs at 2000 MHz, NVIDIA at 741 MHz.

Boost clock: Intel stays at 2000 MHz, NVIDIA boosts to 2346 MHz.

Memory clock: Intel uses 1937 MHz (15.5 Gbps effective), NVIDIA uses 1067 MHz (8.5 Gbps effective).

Memory size: Intel has 4 GB, NVIDIA has 128 GB.

Memory type: Intel uses GDDR6, NVIDIA uses LPDDR5X.

Memory bus: Intel uses 64 bit, NVIDIA uses 256 bit.

Memory bandwidth: Intel provides 124.0 GB/s, NVIDIA provides 273.2 GB/s.

Shading units: Intel has 768, NVIDIA has 5120.

TMUs: Intel has 32, NVIDIA has 320.

ROPs: Intel has 16, NVIDIA has 40.

Ray tracing cores: Intel has 6, NVIDIA has 40.

Tensor cores: Intel has none, NVIDIA has 160.

Pixel rate: Intel achieves 32.00 GPixel/s, NVIDIA achieves 93.84 GPixel/s.

Texture rate: Intel achieves 64.00 GTexel/s, NVIDIA achieves 750.7 GTexel/s.

FP32: Intel delivers 3.072 TFLOPS, NVIDIA delivers 24.02 TFLOPS.

FP16: Intel delivers 6.144 TFLOPS (2:1), NVIDIA delivers 24.02 TFLOPS (1:1).

TDP: Intel is rated at 75 W, NVIDIA is unknown.

Slot width: Intel is single-slot, NVIDIA is IGP.

Power connectors: both use none.

Suggested PSU: Intel specifies 250 W, NVIDIA has no figure.

Bus interface: Intel uses PCIe 4.0 x8, NVIDIA uses PCIe 5.0 x16.

Display outputs: Intel offers 4x mini-DisplayPort 2.0, NVIDIA offers 1x HDMI.

DirectX: Intel supports 12 Ultimate (12_2), NVIDIA lists N/A.

OpenGL: Intel supports 4.6, NVIDIA lists N/A.

Vulkan: Intel supports 1.4, NVIDIA lists N/A.

Dimensions: Intel has 168 mm length, 69 mm height, 20 mm width; NVIDIA has no recorded dimensions.

Production status: Intel is end-of-life, NVIDIA is active.

Release date: Intel launched on 2024-03-31, NVIDIA is dated 2026-05-31.

Predecessor: Intel lists Xe Graphics, NVIDIA has none.

Successor: Intel lists Battlemage, NVIDIA has none.