Intel Arc A380M vs NVIDIA N1X 40SM Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The recorded data separates these two parts cleanly by workload type. The Intel Arc A380M is built for conventional graphics rendering with full DirectX 12 Ultimate support, Vulkan 1.4, and OpenGL 4.6. Its fixed-function pipeline includes 8 ray tracing units and 32 ROPs, making it a functional option for rasterized and ray-traced gaming workloads in a mobile MXM form factor. The NVIDIA N1X 40SM, by contrast, is an integrated graphics processor with 160 tensor cores and 40 ray tracing cores, oriented toward compute-heavy tasks such as AI inference, tensor math, and high-bandwidth memory access. Benchmark results show the Intel part wins in compatibility scenarios where standard graphics APIs are required, while the NVIDIA part wins in raw throughput and memory capacity.

The Arc A380M also holds an advantage in power discipline. Its thermal design power is recorded at 35 W, which suits constrained mobile chassis. The NVIDIA part lists no TDP, so the database cannot confirm its power envelope, but its form factor is IGP, meaning it resides on the host processor package rather than as a discrete module. The Intel GPU uses an MXM-A 3.1 interface and MXM Module slot width, which allows it to be replaced or upgraded in compatible systems. The NVIDIA part connects through PCIe 5.0 x16, a standard interface with no replaceable graphics module.

For memory-sensitive workloads, the NVIDIA N1X 40SM is the clear winner. It carries 128 GB of LPDDR5X on a 256 bit bus, delivering 273.2 GB/s of bandwidth. The Intel Arc A380M has 6 GB of GDDR6 on a 96 bit bus, delivering 186.0 GB/s. That difference means the NVIDIA part can hold far larger datasets in local memory, which matters for AI model weights and large buffer compute tasks. The Intel part cannot match that capacity or bandwidth.

Architecture Differences

The two parts come from different foundries and process nodes. Intel uses TSMC's 6 nm process for the DG2-128 chip, with 7,200 million transistors on a 157 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 45.9 million per square millimeter. The architecture is Xe-HPG from the Alchemist generation, specifically Arc 3 Mobile. NVIDIA's GB20B chip uses TSMC's 5 nm process, but the die size is 382 mm² and transistor count is listed as unknown, so density cannot be computed. The architecture is Blackwell 2.0 from the Blackwell IGP generation. The Intel die is smaller and has fewer transistors, while the NVIDIA die is more than twice as large.

Shading resources differ substantially. Intel provides 1024 shading units, 64 texture mapping units, and 32 ROPs. NVIDIA provides 5120 shading units, 320 TMUs, and 40 ROPs. That is a 5x difference in shading units and TMUs, and a smaller but still meaningful lead in ROPs. Ray tracing hardware also favors NVIDIA: 40 RT cores versus 8. Tensor hardware exists only on the NVIDIA side with 160 tensor cores; Intel lists none.

Clock behavior differs by design philosophy. Intel runs a base clock of 1550 MHz with a boost of 2000 MHz. NVIDIA runs a much lower base clock of 741 MHz but boosts to 2346 MHz. The memory clocks also contrast: Intel runs at 1937 MHz with 15.5 Gbps effective, while NVIDIA runs at 1067 MHz with 8.5 Gbps effective. Despite the lower memory clock, NVIDIA's wider 256 bit bus produces more bandwidth. FP16 throughput tells the same story: Intel reaches 8.192 TFLOPS using a 2:1 ratio, while NVIDIA reaches 24.02 TFLOPS with a 1:1 ratio, meaning its FP16 rate matches its FP32 rate.

API support is a defining difference. Intel exposes DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. NVIDIA lists N/A for DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan, which indicates the database records no standard graphics API support for this IGP. That makes the Intel part the only one of the two that can run conventional PC games and graphics applications through established APIs. The NVIDIA part appears oriented toward compute and AI workloads rather than traditional rendering.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains no direct benchmark scores for either part, so the comparison relies on recorded specifications and computed rates. Pixel throughput favors NVIDIA. The N1X 40SM delivers 93.84 GPixel/s against Intel's 64.00 GPixel/s, a 46.6% advantage in fill rate. Texture throughput is even more lopsided: NVIDIA records 750.7 GTexel/s versus Intel's 128.0 GTexel/s, a 5.86x difference. This indicates NVIDIA can sustain far heavier texturing workloads, provided the software can use its compute-style pipeline.

FP32 compute is the largest measurable gap. NVIDIA lists 24.02 TFLOPS while Intel lists 4.096 TFLOPS. That is a 5.86x advantage, identical to the texture rate ratio, which makes sense because both scale with the number of shading units and clock speed. For FP16, NVIDIA again leads with 24.02 TFLOPS versus Intel's 8.192 TFLOPS, a 2.93x difference. The ratio difference matters: Intel halves its FP16 rate compared to FP32, while NVIDIA maintains full rate.

Memory bandwidth favors NVIDIA at 273.2 GB/s versus 186.0 GB/s, a 46.9% lead. Capacity is the most extreme difference: 128 GB versus 6 GB, a 21.3x gap. The bus width difference explains part of this: 256 bit versus 96 bit. The NVIDIA part also uses LPDDR5X, while Intel uses GDDR6. For workloads that stream large data sets, the NVIDIA part has a structural advantage.

Release timing differs as well. Intel launched on January 23, 2023. NVIDIA's release date is recorded as May 31, 2026. That means the NVIDIA part is a newer design by over three years, which aligns with its larger die, newer architecture, and higher compute throughput. Both parts are listed as Active in production status.

The percentile ranking is identical at 50 for both parts against all GPUs in the database. This indicates that, despite the massive specification differences, neither part is an outlier in the overall distribution. The average benchmark score for both is 0, which reflects the absence of recorded benchmark runs rather than actual performance parity.

The Verdict

The data points to different buyers for each part. The Intel Arc A380M suits systems that need a compact, replaceable discrete GPU with standard graphics API support, modest 35 W power draw, and enough capability for DirectX 12 Ultimate titles. Its 6 GB of GDDR6 and 186.0 GB/s bandwidth are adequate for mainstream gaming at its intended mobile form factor, and its MXM-A 3.1 interface makes it serviceable in modular laptops.

The NVIDIA N1X 40SM suits compute platforms that prioritize memory capacity, tensor throughput, and raw FP32/FP16 performance. Its 128 GB unified LPDDR5X pool, 160 tensor cores, and 24.02 TFLOPS FP32 rate place it in a different performance class. However, the lack of standard graphics API support means it cannot be treated as a drop-in gaming GPU. Users who need traditional rendering should look at the Intel part. Users who need AI inference, large memory buffers, or high-throughput compute should look at the NVIDIA part.

The specification sheet alone makes the NVIDIA part look dominant, but the API gap is decisive for gaming. The Intel part is the only one with recorded DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan support. The NVIDIA part lists N/A for all three. That means software compatibility, not raw throughput, is the limiting factor for the NVIDIA IGP in graphics workloads. The database shows no benchmark results for either part, so real-world application testing would be required to confirm how the specifications translate into frame rates or inference times.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher FP32 compute performance?

A: The NVIDIA N1X 40SM records 24.02 TFLOPS FP32, while the Intel Arc A380M records 4.096 TFLOPS FP32. That is a 5.86x advantage for NVIDIA.

Q: Can the NVIDIA N1X 40SM run DirectX 12 games?

A: The database lists DirectX as N/A for the NVIDIA part. The Intel Arc A380M supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4.

Q: How much memory does each GPU have?

A: The Intel Arc A380M has 6 GB of GDDR6 on a 96 bit bus with 186.0 GB/s bandwidth. The NVIDIA N1X 40SM has 128 GB of LPDDR5X on a 256 bit bus with 273.2 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Which GPU has more ray tracing cores?

A: The NVIDIA N1X 40SM has 40 ray tracing cores. The Intel Arc A380M has 8 ray tracing cores.

Q: What is the power draw of the Intel Arc A380M?

A: The Intel Arc A380M has a TDP of 35 W. The NVIDIA N1X 40SM lists TDP as unknown.

Q: When was each GPU released?

A: The Intel Arc A380M was released on January 23, 2023. The NVIDIA N1X 40SM has a release date of May 31, 2026.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Arc A380M | NVIDIA N1X 40SM |

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

| Architecture | Xe-HPG | Blackwell 2.0 |

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

| Process Node | 6 nm | 5 nm |

| Foundry | TSMC | TSMC |

| Transistors | 7,200 million | unknown |

| Die Size | 157 mm² | 382 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 45.9M / mm² | null |

| Base Clock | 1550 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 | 6 GB | 128 GB |

| Memory Type | GDDR6 | LPDDR5X |

| Memory Bus Width | 96 bit | 256 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 186.0 GB/s | 273.2 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 1024 | 5120 |

| TMUs | 64 | 320 |

| ROPs | 32 | 40 |

| RT Cores | 8 | 40 |

| Tensor Cores | null | 160 |

| Pixel Rate | 64.00 GPixel/s | 93.84 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 128.0 GTexel/s | 750.7 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 4.096 TFLOPS | 24.02 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | 8.192 TFLOPS (2:1) | 24.02 TFLOPS (1:1) |

| TDP | 35 W | unknown |

| Slot Width | MXM Module | IGP |

| Power Connectors | null | None |

| Bus Interface | MXM-A (3.1) | PCIe 5.0 x16 |

| Display Outputs | Portable Device Dependent | 1x HDMI |

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

| OpenGL | 4.6 | N/A |

| Vulkan | 1.4 | N/A |

| Release Date | 2023-01-23 | 2026-05-31 |

| Production Status | Active | Active |