NVIDIA N1X 48SM vs NVIDIA RTX 2000 Ada Generation Comparison

The NVIDIA N1X 48SM is an integrated graphics processor based on the Blackwell 2.0 architecture, built on TSMC’s 5 nm process. It uses the GB20B chip with a die size of 382 mm² and is configured with 6144 shading units, 384 texture mapping units, 48 ROPs, 48 ray tracing cores, and 192 tensor cores. The RTX 2000 Ada Generation is a discrete workstation card built on Ada Lovelace, using the AD107 chip on the same 5 nm process, with a die size of 159 mm², 18,900 million transistors, 2816 shading units, 88 TMUs, 48 ROPs, 22 RT cores, and 88 tensor cores. The N1X has no recorded benchmark scores, while the RTX 2000 Ada Generation has an average benchmark score of 18,954, placing it in the 63rd percentile of all GPUs in the database.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows no direct head-to-head benchmark comparisons between the NVIDIA N1X 48SM and the NVIDIA RTX 2000 Ada Generation. The N1X 48SM has no entries in the benchmark results section, meaning its measured performance is absent from the database. The RTX 2000 Ada Generation, however, has a complete set of ten benchmark scores across multiple test suites. Its average benchmark score of 18,954 sits in the 63rd percentile of all GPUs, which indicates that it outperforms the majority of recorded graphics processors in the database.

The RTX 2000 Ada Generation’s best single-score result comes from the Geekbench Vulkan test, where it achieves 83,360 points. Its Geekbench OpenCL score follows closely at 78,074 points. In the PassMark suite, the GPU reaches 16,927 points in the G3D test, 7,834 points in the GPU compute test, and 1,072 points in the G2D test. The DirectX-specific PassMark results are lower, with 216 points in DirectX 9, 138 points in DirectX 11, 82 points in DirectX 10, and 71 points in DirectX 12. The 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 test returns 1,767 points.

Since the N1X 48SM lacks any benchmark scores, the database cannot quantify its performance relative to the RTX 2000 Ada Generation. The nearest rivals for the RTX 2000 Ada Generation provide context for its standing: the NVIDIA Quadro K6000 averages 19,030 points, a delta of -0.4 percent relative to the RTX 2000 Ada Generation, meaning the RTX 2000 scores slightly lower. The AMD Radeon RX 6600 averages 19,036 points, also 0.4 percent lower. The NVIDIA Tesla K80 averages 18,866 points, which is 0.5 percent higher than the RTX 2000 Ada Generation’s average. The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4050 Mobile averages 19,049 points, 0.5 percent lower. These deltas are all within a single percentage point, indicating that the RTX 2000 Ada Generation performs in a tight cluster with these four cards.

The N1X 48SM’s percentile rank of 50 is based on its zero benchmark scores, which places it at the midpoint of the database distribution by default rather than by measured performance. This means the N1X 48SM has no verifiable competitive standing from recorded tests, whereas the RTX 2000 Ada Generation has clear, reproducible data. The absence of head-to-head results prevents any direct comparison of frame rates, compute throughput, or graphics scores between the two.

Where Each One Wins

Based on the available data, the RTX 2000 Ada Generation wins in every measurable category because the N1X 48SM has no recorded scores. The RTX 2000 Ada Generation’s compute capabilities are demonstrated by its PassMark GPU compute score of 7,834, which reflects general-purpose processing workloads. Its Geekbench OpenCL score of 78,074 and Vulkan score of 83,360 further establish its strength in compute and graphics APIs. For legacy DirectX workloads, the PassMark DirectX 9 score of 216 is the highest among its DirectX entries, while DirectX 12 scores 71 points, indicating that older API performance is stronger than newer API performance in that specific test.

The N1X 48SM’s theoretical specifications, however, suggest different strengths. It has 6144 shading units versus the RTX 2000 Ada Generation’s 2816, and 384 TMUs versus 88. Its FP32 compute is rated at 28.83 TFLOPS, compared to 12.00 TFLOPS for the RTX 2000 Ada Generation. The texture rate is 900.9 GTexel/s versus 187.4 GTexel/s, and the pixel rate is 112.6 GPixel/s versus 102.2 GPixel/s. These raw numbers indicate that the N1X 48SM should be substantially faster in shader-heavy workloads, texture fill, and pixel output, but without benchmark confirmation, this remains theoretical.

Memory capacity is a clear differentiator. The N1X 48SM has 128 GB of LPDDR5X memory on a 256-bit bus, yielding 273.2 GB/s of bandwidth. The RTX 2000 Ada Generation has 16 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 128-bit bus, yielding 256.0 GB/s. The N1X offers eight times the capacity and slightly higher bandwidth. Clock speeds favor the RTX 2000 Ada Generation in base frequency, 1620 MHz versus 741 MHz, but the N1X boosts higher at 2346 MHz versus 2130 MHz. The N1X also has a larger L2 cache advantage, though the exact cache size is not listed. The N1X’s 192 tensor cores outnumber the RTX 2000 Ada Generation’s 88, and its 48 RT cores outnumber 22.

The RTX 2000 Ada Generation wins in software compatibility. It supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, while the N1X 48SM lists N/A for all three APIs. The RTX 2000 also has four mini-DisplayPort 1.4a outputs versus the N1X’s single HDMI output. The RTX 2000 is a dual-slot card with a 70 W TDP and a suggested power supply of 250 W, while the N1X is an IGP with no power connectors and unknown power draw.

Architecture Differences

The two processors belong to different NVIDIA architectures. The N1X 48SM uses Blackwell 2.0, while the RTX 2000 Ada Generation uses Ada Lovelace. Both are fabricated on TSMC’s 5 nm process, but the chips differ significantly. The N1X’s GB20B die measures 382 mm², more than double the RTX 2000 Ada Generation’s AD107 die at 159 mm². The transistor count for the N1X is listed as unknown, while the RTX 2000 has 18,900 million transistors, giving it a transistor density of 118.9 million per mm².

Shading unit counts reflect the N1X’s larger design: 6144 versus 2816. Texture mapping units scale similarly, 384 versus 88. Both have 48 ROPs, which is a rare point of parity. Ray tracing cores differ, 48 on the N1X versus 22 on the RTX 2000 Ada Generation. Tensor cores also differ, 192 versus 88. The N1X’s FP32 and FP16 throughput are both rated at 28.83 TFLOPS with a 1:1 ratio, while the RTX 2000 Ada Generation delivers 12.00 TFLOPS in both FP32 and FP16, also at 1:1.

Memory architecture diverges sharply. The N1X uses LPDDR5X, a low-power memory type typically soldered onto a substrate, while the RTX 2000 uses GDDR6, a discrete memory standard. The N1X has a 256-bit memory bus, double the RTX 2000’s 128-bit bus. Memory bandwidth is close despite the bus difference: 273.2 GB/s for the N1X versus 256.0 GB/s for the RTX 2000, because the RTX 2000 runs its memory at an effective 16 Gbps versus the N1X’s 8.5 Gbps effective. Memory capacity is the largest gap: 128 GB versus 16 GB.

Clocks differ in base and boost. The N1X runs at 741 MHz base and 2346 MHz boost, while the RTX 2000 runs at 1620 MHz base and 2130 MHz boost. The N1X’s lower base clock suggests a power-constrained design, consistent with an IGP form factor, while the RTX 2000’s higher base clock reflects a dedicated card with a 70 W TDP. The N1X has no power connectors and occupies an IGP slot width, whereas the RTX 2000 is dual-slot with no power connectors either, drawing power from the PCIe slot.

Bus interfaces also differ. The N1X uses PCIe 5.0 x16, while the RTX 2000 uses PCIe 4.0 x8. The N1X’s interface offers more lanes and a newer standard, which can affect data transfer rates to the host system. Display outputs differ: the N1X has a single HDMI port, while the RTX 2000 has four mini-DisplayPort 1.4a connectors. The N1X lists no API support for DirectX, OpenGL, or Vulkan, while the RTX 2000 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4.

The production status for both is Active. The N1X has no release date in the database, while the RTX 2000 Ada Generation was released on February 11, 2024. The RTX 2000’s predecessor is listed as Workstation Ampere, and its successor is Blackwell PRO W. The N1X has no predecessor or successor listed. The N1X’s launch MSRP is absent from the data, while the RTX 2000 Ada Generation has a launch MSRP of 649 USD.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has more shading units?

A: The NVIDIA N1X 48SM has 6144 shading units, while the NVIDIA RTX 2000 Ada Generation has 2816 shading units.

Q: What is the memory capacity difference between the two?

A: The N1X 48SM has 128 GB of LPDDR5X memory, while the RTX 2000 Ada Generation has 16 GB of GDDR6 memory. The N1X has eight times the capacity.

Q: How do their FP32 compute performances compare?

A: The N1X 48SM is rated at 28.83 TFLOPS FP32, while the RTX 2000 Ada Generation is rated at 12.00 TFLOPS FP32. The N1X delivers more than double the theoretical FP32 throughput.

Q: Does the RTX 2000 Ada Generation support modern graphics APIs?

A: Yes, the RTX 2000 Ada Generation supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The N1X 48SM lists N/A for all three APIs in the database.

Q: What are the memory bandwidth figures for each card?

A: The N1X 48SM has 273.2 GB/s of memory bandwidth, and the RTX 2000 Ada Generation has 256.0 GB/s. The N1X has a 256-bit bus, while the RTX 2000 has a 128-bit bus.

Q: What is the RTX 2000 Ada Generation’s average benchmark score and percentile?

A: The RTX 2000 Ada Generation has an average benchmark score of 18,954, placing it in the 63rd percentile of all GPUs in the database. The N1X 48SM has no recorded benchmark scores and sits at the 50th percentile by default.

The Verdict

The data clearly favors the NVIDIA RTX 2000 Ada Generation in terms of verified performance. It has ten recorded benchmark scores, an average score of 18,954, and a 63rd percentile ranking. Its nearest rivals, including the NVIDIA Quadro K6000, AMD Radeon RX 6600, NVIDIA Tesla K80, and NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4050 Mobile, all fall within 0.5 percent of its average score, showing that the RTX 2000 Ada Generation is a consistent mid-range performer in the database. The N1X 48SM, by contrast, has no benchmark scores, so any claim about its real-world speed cannot be substantiated from the recorded data.

For users who rely on measured results, the RTX 2000 Ada Generation is the only option with evidence of graphical and compute performance. It also offers full API support for DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, plus four display outputs, which makes it suitable for workstation environments where software compatibility matters. Its 16 GB of GDDR6 memory and 256.0 GB/s bandwidth are sufficient for many professional workloads, and its 70 W TDP makes it a low-power discrete card.

The N1X 48SM presents a theoretical advantage in raw specifications. Its 6144 shading units, 28.83 TFLOPS FP32, 128 GB of memory, and 273.2 GB/s bandwidth suggest it could handle much larger datasets and heavier shader workloads than the RTX 2000 Ada Generation. The 48 RT cores and 192 tensor cores also point toward stronger ray tracing and AI acceleration on paper. However, the database records no tests to confirm these advantages. Its lack of DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan support in the listed data further limits its applicability for standard graphics software.

The choice depends on whether the user prioritizes measured, reproducible results or theoretical maximums. The RTX 2000 Ada Generation is the proven card, with benchmark data placing it in a competitive cluster with other mid-range GPUs. The N1X 48SM is an unverified IGP with superior specifications on paper but no recorded performance. For any workload that requires confirmed performance, the RTX 2000 Ada Generation is the clear pick from the database records. For a scenario where raw compute and memory capacity are the only criteria, and where no benchmark validation is required, the N1X 48SM’s specifications are numerically superior. The RTX 2000 Ada Generation also has a launch MSRP of 649 USD, while the N1X has no listed price. Given the absence of N1X benchmark scores, the verdict from the data is straightforward: the RTX 2000 Ada Generation is the only one of the two with evidence of performance, and its 63rd percentile standing confirms it as a functional, mid-tier graphics processor.