NVIDIA N1X 40SM vs NVIDIA N1X 48SM Comparison

FAQ

Q: What are the core specifications of the NVIDIA N1X 40SM and NVIDIA N1X 48SM?

A: Both chips are built on the GB20B die using TSMC's 5 nm process, with a die size of 382 mm². The 40SM model uses 5120 shading units, 320 texture mapping units, 40 render output units, 40 ray tracing cores, and 160 tensor cores. The 48SM model increases those counts to 6144 shading units, 384 TMUs, 48 ROPs, 48 RT cores, and 192 tensor cores.

Q: How do the clock speeds compare between the two models?

A: They are identical. Both run at a 741 MHz base clock and a 2346 MHz boost clock. Memory clocks are also the same at 1067 MHz, which translates to 8.5 Gbps effective.

Q: Is there any difference in memory capacity or bandwidth?

A: No. Both models feature 128 GB of LPDDR5X memory on a 256-bit bus, delivering 273.2 GB/s of bandwidth. The memory subsystem is unchanged between the two parts.

Q: What are the pixel and texture fillrate differences?

A: The 48SM model delivers 112.6 GPixel/s and 900.9 GTexel/s, while the 40SM model provides 93.84 GPixel/s and 750.7 GTexel/s. The 48SM part is approximately 20% ahead in both fillrate metrics.

Q: Do the two chips differ in FP32 or FP16 compute throughput?

A: Yes. The 40SM model achieves 24.02 TFLOPS in both FP32 and FP16 (1:1 ratio). The 48SM model reaches 28.83 TFLOPS in both formats, which is about 20% higher.

Q: Are there any differences in the API support or display outputs?

A: No. Both parts report DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan as N/A, and both have a single HDMI output. Both use PCIe 5.0 x16 and are integrated graphics processors (IGP) with no power connectors.

Architecture Differences

The NVIDIA N1X 40SM and NVIDIA N1X 48SM share the same fundamental architecture: Blackwell 2.0 on the GB20B chip. Both are classified under the Blackwell IGP (N1x) generation, use TSMC's 5 nm process, and have a 382 mm² die. The transistor count is listed as unknown for both. Architecturally, the two parts are identical in design philosophy, differing only in the number of active execution resources.

The 48SM model enables 6 additional streaming multiprocessors worth of resources compared to the 40SM part. This is reflected in the shading unit count, which increases from 5120 to 6144, a gain of 1024 units. Texture mapping units rise from 320 to 384, an increase of 64. Render output units climb from 40 to 48, adding 8 units. Ray tracing cores scale from 40 to 48, and tensor cores from 160 to 192.

Clock behavior remains constant across both models. The base clock of 741 MHz and boost clock of 2346 MHz are unchanged. This means the performance gap is purely a function of the additional execution hardware, not any frequency advantage. The memory subsystem is also identical: 128 GB of LPDDR5X on a 256-bit bus with 273.2 GB/s bandwidth. Memory clock stays at 1067 MHz (8.5 Gbps effective).

Both parts share the same IGP slot width, have no power connectors, and use a PCIe 5.0 x16 bus interface. Display output is a single HDMI port for both. The API support is listed as N/A for DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan, indicating these are compute or specialized parts rather than general-purpose graphics accelerators. Production status is Active for both, with the same release date of 2026-05-31.

The die size being identical at 382 mm² suggests that the 48SM model may be a fully enabled GB20B die, while the 40SM part could have some execution units disabled. The process node and foundry (TSMC, 5 nm) are shared, so the architectural difference is strictly in the number of active streaming multiprocessors and their associated units.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows no benchmark entries in the head-to-head comparison, and both parts have an average benchmark score of 0. This means there are no measured performance numbers to directly compare in the database. However, the specification-derived metrics provide a clear picture of the performance relationship between the two models.

The FP32 compute throughput is the most direct indicator of raw processing capability. The 40SM model delivers 24.02 TFLOPS, while the 48SM model reaches 28.83 TFLOPS. The difference is 4.81 TFLOPS, which represents a 20.0% advantage for the 48SM part. FP16 throughput matches FP32 exactly for both, at 24.02 TFLOPS and 28.83 TFLOPS respectively, since both operate at a 1:1 ratio.

Texture fillrate shows a similar scaling. The 40SM model achieves 750.7 GTexel/s, while the 48SM model produces 900.9 GTexel/s. This is a difference of 150.2 GTexel/s, again approximately 20% higher for the 48SM part. The pixel fillrate follows suit: 93.84 GPixel/s for the 40SM versus 112.6 GPixel/s for the 48SM, a 18.76 GPixel/s gap.

The consistency of these ratios is expected, given that all the scaling factors are proportional to the increase in shading units, TMUs, and ROPs. The 48SM model has exactly 1.2 times the shading units, TMUs, ROPs, RT cores, and tensor cores of the 40SM model. The clock speeds are identical, so the theoretical peak rates scale by the same 1.2 factor.

With no actual benchmark scores recorded, the percentile ranking for both parts is 50, indicating they sit at the midpoint of the database distribution. This is a default value rather than a measured result, given the zero average benchmark score. The nearest rivals lists are empty for both, so there are no direct competitor comparisons available in the database.

The practical implication is that any workload bound by shader execution, texturing, or pixel output will see roughly a 20% improvement when moving from the 40SM to the 48SM configuration. Ray tracing and tensor operations should scale similarly, as the RT core count and tensor core count both increase by 20%. Memory-bound workloads will not benefit, since the memory capacity, bus width, and bandwidth are identical.

Specification Differences

The two GPU models differ in the following specification fields:

• Shading Units: 5120 (40SM) vs 6144 (48SM)
• Texture Mapping Units: 320 (40SM) vs 384 (48SM)
• Render Output Units: 40 (40SM) vs 48 (48SM)
• Ray Tracing Cores: 40 (40SM) vs 48 (48SM)
• Tensor Cores: 160 (40SM) vs 192 (48SM)
• Pixel Rate: 93.84 GPixel/s (40SM) vs 112.6 GPixel/s (48SM)
• Texture Rate: 750.7 GTexel/s (40SM) vs 900.9 GTexel/s (48SM)
• FP32 Compute: 24.02 TFLOPS (40SM) vs 28.83 TFLOPS (48SM)
• FP16 Compute: 24.02 TFLOPS (40SM) vs 28.83 TFLOPS (48SM)

All other recorded fields are identical between the two parts. This includes 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, 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), API support (DirectX N/A, OpenGL N/A, Vulkan N/A), production status (Active), and release date (2026-05-31).

Neither part has a launch MSRP recorded in the database. The transistor count is unknown for both. The dimensions (length, height, width) are not specified for either model. The suggested PSU is also absent for both.

The Verdict

The data indicates that the NVIDIA N1X 48SM is the higher-performing part of the two, with a consistent 20% advantage across all compute and fillrate metrics. This advantage comes from having 20% more shading units, TMUs, ROPs, RT cores, and tensor cores, all operating at the same clock speeds. The 48SM model delivers 28.83 TFLOPS FP32 performance compared to 24.02 TFLOPS for the 40SM, and its pixel rate of 112.6 GPixel/s exceeds the 40SM's 93.84 GPixel/s.

The 40SM model is not without merit. It shares the same memory configuration, the same 128 GB LPDDR5X capacity, and the same 273.2 GB/s bandwidth. For workloads that are constrained by memory capacity or bandwidth rather than compute throughput, the two parts would perform identically. The 40SM also shares the same power connector requirement (none), the same IGP form factor, and the same PCIe 5.0 x16 interface.

Both parts are listed with an identical percentile rank of 50 and an average benchmark score of 0, indicating no measured performance data is available to separate them empirically. The theoretical specifications, however, clearly favor the 48SM model for any task that scales with execution unit count.

Users or systems requiring maximum shader throughput, texture processing, pixel output, ray tracing, or tensor operations should select the 48SM configuration. The 40SM configuration provides a lower-specification alternative that maintains the same memory subsystem and clock behavior, which may be sufficient for workloads dominated by memory access patterns.

Since neither part has a launch MSRP, there is no pricing information to factor into the selection. Both parts are currently in production with the same release date. The choice between them comes down to whether the additional execution resources of the 48SM model are necessary for the target workload.

The 48SM is the straightforward choice for maximum theoretical performance. The 40SM remains a valid option when the full complement of execution units is not required, and its identical memory configuration ensures no penalty in memory-bound scenarios. The database records no benchmark wins for either part, so the specification-derived advantages stand as the only quantitative basis for differentiation.