NVIDIA N1X 40SM vs NVIDIA Rubin GPU Comparison

NVIDIA N1X 40SM and NVIDIA Rubin GPU occupy opposite ends of the hardware spectrum, yet both are active products in the database with identical overall percentiles. The N1X 40SM is an integrated graphics processor built for the Blackwell IGP generation, while the Rubin GPU is a massive server accelerator built on the Rubin architecture. The recorded data shows no direct head-to-head benchmark scores between the two, but the specification sheets reveal a clear performance hierarchy that favors the Rubin GPU in nearly every measurable compute category.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains no direct benchmark comparisons between the NVIDIA N1X 40SM and the NVIDIA Rubin GPU. However, the theoretical peak performance figures provide a quantitative basis for comparison. The Rubin GPU delivers 130.0 TFLOPS of FP32 compute, which is approximately 5.4 times the 24.02 TFLOPS offered by the N1X 40SM. This gap widens significantly in FP16 workloads: the Rubin GPU reaches 260.0 TFLOPS with a 2:1 ratio, while the N1X 40SM produces 24.02 TFLOPS at a 1:1 ratio. The Rubin GPU therefore delivers roughly 10.8 times the FP16 throughput of the N1X 40SM.

Texture processing follows a similar pattern. The Rubin GPU outputs 2,031.2 GTexel/s against the N1X 40SM's 750.7 GTexel/s, a 2.7 times advantage. The pixel rate tells a different story, with the N1X 40SM achieving 93.84 GPixel/s compared to the Rubin GPU's 54.41 GPixel/s. This 1.7 times lead for the N1X 40SM in pixel throughput stems from its 40 ROPs versus the Rubin GPU's 24 ROPs, despite the Rubin GPU's much larger overall die.

Memory bandwidth presents the most dramatic divergence. The Rubin GPU accesses 22.1 TB/s through its 16384-bit HBM4 interface, a figure that dwarfs the N1X 40SM's 273.2 GB/s over a 256-bit LPDDR5X bus. The Rubin GPU holds an 80.9 times bandwidth advantage, which is consistent with its server-oriented role handling massive datasets. The N1X 40SM compensates with a higher boost clock of 2346 MHz versus the Rubin GPU's 2267 MHz, and a faster base clock of 741 MHz versus 700 MHz, though these clock advantages do little to close the compute gap.

The Verdict

The data positions the NVIDIA Rubin GPU as the dominant compute device, with a 5.4 times FP32 advantage, a 10.8 times FP16 advantage, an 80.9 times memory bandwidth advantage, and a 2.7 times texture rate advantage over the NVIDIA N1X 40SM. The Rubin GPU also carries 28672 shading units, 896 TMUs, and 896 tensor cores, compared to the N1X 40SM's 5120 shading units, 320 TMUs, and 160 tensor cores. The Rubin GPU's 336,000 million transistors on a 1456 mm² die at 3 nm gives it a transistor density of 230.8M per mm², while the N1X 40SM uses a 382 mm² die at 5 nm with an unknown transistor count.

The N1X 40SM wins in two specific areas: pixel fill rate and power efficiency. Its 93.84 GPixel/s exceeds the Rubin GPU's 54.41 GPixel/s, and its unspecified TDP (likely low for an integrated part) contrasts with the Rubin GPU's 2300 W TDP and 2700 W suggested PSU. The N1X 40SM also offers a display output (1x HDMI) and a PCIe 5.0 x16 interface, whereas the Rubin GPU has no display outputs and uses PCIe 6.0 x16. For workloads requiring rasterization throughput per watt, the N1X 40SM appears superior, but for raw compute, memory capacity, and bandwidth, the Rubin GPU is the clear choice.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs stem from different architectural lineages. The N1X 40SM uses the GB20B chip based on Blackwell 2.0 architecture, part of the Blackwell IGP (N1x) generation. The Rubin GPU uses the GR100 chip based on Rubin architecture, belonging to the Server Rubin (Rxx) generation. The manufacturing processes differ accordingly: the N1X 40SM is built on a 5 nm node at TSMC, while the Rubin GPU uses a 3 nm node at the same foundry. The Rubin GPU's die size of 1456 mm² is 3.8 times larger than the N1X 40SM's 382 mm², and its transistor count of 336,000 million is orders of magnitude higher, though the N1X 40SM's transistor count is listed as unknown.

Memory architecture separates the two entirely. The N1X 40SM uses 128 GB of LPDDR5X memory with a 256-bit bus, running at 1067 MHz with 8.5 Gbps effective speed. The Rubin GPU uses 288 GB of HBM4 memory with a 16384-bit bus, running at 2695 MHz with 10.8 Gbps effective speed. The bandwidth difference of 22.1 TB/s versus 273.2 GB/s reflects their distinct purposes: the Rubin GPU is built for high-bandwidth server workloads, while the N1X 40SM targets integrated graphics scenarios with modest memory demands.

Ray tracing hardware also differs. The N1X 40SM includes 40 RT cores, while the Rubin GPU's RT core count is not recorded in the database. Tensor core counts show a 896-to-160 ratio in favor of the Rubin GPU, matching its compute-heavy server role. The N1X 40SM's FP16 to FP32 ratio is 1:1, indicating equal throughput for both precisions, whereas the Rubin GPU's FP16 to FP32 ratio is 2:1, doubling FP16 performance for AI and deep learning tasks.

The power delivery systems reflect the scale gap. The N1X 40SM uses no power connectors and fits an IGP slot width, while the Rubin GPU requires an SXM Module slot width and a 2300 W TDP with a 2700 W suggested PSU. The N1X 40SM's production status is Active with a release date of 2026-05-31, while the Rubin GPU's release date is 2025-12-31, making the Rubin GPU the earlier product. The Rubin GPU lists Server Blackwell as its predecessor, while the N1X 40SM has no predecessor recorded.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher FP32 compute performance?

A: The NVIDIA Rubin GPU delivers 130.0 TFLOPS of FP32 compute, which is 5.4 times the 24.02 TFLOPS of the NVIDIA N1X 40SM.

Q: How does memory bandwidth compare between the two?

A: The Rubin GPU offers 22.1 TB/s of bandwidth through its 16384-bit HBM4 interface, while the N1X 40SM provides 273.2 GB/s through a 256-bit LPDDR5X bus. The Rubin GPU leads by a factor of 80.9.

Q: Which GPU has a higher pixel fill rate?

A: The N1X 40SM achieves 93.84 GPixel/s, exceeding the Rubin GPU's 54.41 GPixel/s. This is due to the N1X 40SM's 40 ROPs versus the Rubin GPU's 24 ROPs.

Q: What are the process nodes and die sizes?

A: The N1X 40SM uses a 5 nm TSMC process with a 382 mm² die, while the Rubin GPU uses a 3 nm TSMC process with a 1456 mm² die. The Rubin GPU has a transistor density of 230.8M per mm².

Q: Does either GPU support display outputs?

A: The N1X 40SM includes 1x HDMI output, while the Rubin GPU has no display outputs, consistent with its server accelerator role.

Q: What is the release timing for each product?

A: The Rubin GPU has a release date of 2025-12-31, while the N1X 40SM has a release date of 2026-05-31. Both are listed as Active in production status.

Where Each One Wins

The Rubin GPU wins decisively in compute-heavy server workloads. Its 130.0 TFLOPS FP32 and 260.0 TFLOPS FP16 performance, combined with 896 tensor cores, make it suitable for AI training, scientific simulation, and large-scale data processing. The 288 GB HBM4 memory with 22.1 TB/s bandwidth supports massive model residency and high-throughput data movement. The 896 TMUs and 2,031.2 GTexel/s texture rate handle complex shader and texture operations at scale. The PCIe 6.0 x16 interface provides a modern interconnect for system integration.

The N1X 40SM wins in rasterization throughput per ROP and in integrated graphics scenarios. Its 93.84 GPixel/s pixel rate exceeds the Rubin GPU's, and its 40 ROPs provide proportionally higher pixel output for the shading unit count. The 1x HDMI output enables direct display connectivity, which the Rubin GPU lacks. The 5 nm process and unspecified TDP suggest lower power draw, making it viable for compact or power-constrained environments. The PCIe 5.0 x16 interface remains capable for its class, and the 128 GB LPDDR5X memory offers substantial capacity for an integrated part.

For FP16 workloads, the Rubin GPU's 2:1 ratio doubles its FP16 throughput relative to FP32, reaching 260.0 TFLOPS, while the N1X 40SM's 1:1 ratio keeps FP16 performance equal to FP32 at 24.02 TFLOPS. The Rubin GPU's 336,000 million transistors enable this scale of compute, while the N1X 40SM's smaller die and unknown transistor count limit its ceiling.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ across nearly every recorded specification. The process node shifts from 5 nm to 3 nm, and the die size grows from 382 mm² to 1456 mm². The transistor count goes from unknown to 336,000 million, with a density of 230.8M per mm² on the Rubin GPU. Clock speeds favor the N1X 40SM: 741 MHz base and 2346 MHz boost versus 700 MHz base and 2267 MHz boost. Memory clocks also differ, with the N1X 40SM at 1067 MHz (8.5 Gbps effective) and the Rubin GPU at 2695 MHz (10.8 Gbps effective).

Memory capacity rises from 128 GB LPDDR5X to 288 GB HBM4, with bus width expanding from 256 bit to 16384 bit. Bandwidth jumps from 273.2 GB/s to 22.1 TB/s. Shading units increase from 5120 to 28672, TMUs from 320 to 896, and tensor cores from 160 to 896. ROPs decrease from 40 to 24. RT cores appear only on the N1X 40SM with 40 units; the Rubin GPU's RT core count is not recorded.

Pixel rate falls from 93.84 GPixel/s to 54.41 GPixel/s, while texture rate rises from 750.7 GTexel/s to 2,031.2 GTexel/s. FP32 scales from 24.02 TFLOPS to 130.0 TFLOPS, and FP16 scales from 24.02 TFLOPS to 260.0 TFLOPS, with the ratio changing from 1:1 to 2:1. TDP goes from unknown to 2300 W, with the suggested PSU at 2700 W. Slot width changes from IGP to SXM Module, power connectors from None to unlisted, and bus interface from PCIe 5.0 x16 to PCIe 6.0 x16. Display outputs shift from 1x HDMI to No outputs. The release dates differ by five months, and the Rubin GPU has a predecessor (Server Blackwell) while the N1X 40SM does not.