NVIDIA N1X 48SM vs NVIDIA RTX 2000 Max-Q Ada Generation Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data contains no benchmark scores for either GPU. Both the NVIDIA N1X 48SM and the NVIDIA RTX 2000 Max-Q Ada Generation return an average benchmark score of zero, and the head-to-head benchmark table is empty. This absence of measured performance data means direct comparisons must rely entirely on architectural and specification differences rather than empirical results.

What the database does reveal is a dramatic disparity in raw compute potential. The N1X 48SM delivers 28.83 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, while the RTX 2000 Max-Q Ada Generation delivers 8.940 TFLOPS. That places the N1X at roughly 3.2 times the FP32 throughput of the RTX 2000 Max-Q, a substantial margin that suggests very different performance classes despite both being integrated graphics processors (IGP).

Texture and pixel throughput tell a similar story. The N1X 48SM achieves 900.9 GTexel/s and 112.6 GPixel/s, whereas the RTX 2000 Max-Q manages 139.7 GTexel/s and 69.84 GPixel/s. The texture rate gap is especially wide, with the N1X exceeding the RTX 2000 Max-Q by a factor of more than six. Pixel rate differences are narrower but still favor the N1X by roughly 61 percent.

Memory bandwidth is nearly identical between the two. The N1X 48SM uses LPDDR5X across a 256-bit bus to reach 273.2 GB/s, while the RTX 2000 Max-Q uses GDDR6 across a 128-bit bus to reach 256.0 GB/s. The N1X holds a modest 6.7 percent bandwidth advantage, which is small compared with the compute gaps but relevant for memory-bound workloads.

The FP16 figures mirror FP32 exactly for both parts: 28.83 TFLOPS for the N1X and 8.940 TFLOPS for the RTX 2000 Max-Q, both at a 1:1 ratio. This indicates neither GPU uses accelerated FP16 paths that depart from their FP32 rates, so half-precision compute scales proportionally with single-precision output.

Clock speeds present an interesting inversion. The RTX 2000 Max-Q has a higher base clock at 930 MHz versus 741 MHz for the N1X, yet the N1X boosts much higher at 2346 MHz versus 1455 MHz. The N1X therefore relies on a wider chip and a more aggressive boost strategy to achieve its performance targets, while the RTX 2000 Max-Q operates within a tighter clock envelope.

The absence of benchmark data means the database cannot confirm whether the N1X's theoretical advantages translate into real-world wins. The percentile rankings for both GPUs sit at 50, which indicates median placement among all GPUs in the database, but with zero measured scores this ranking carries no evidentiary weight.

Where Each One Wins

Without benchmark results, the only defensible win categories come from specification analysis. The N1X 48SM wins decisively in raw compute metrics. Its 6144 shading units double the 3072 found on the RTX 2000 Max-Q. Its 384 texture mapping units quadruple the 96 on the RTX 2000 Max-Q. Ray tracing cores number 48 versus 24, and tensor cores number 192 versus 96. Every processing unit count favors the N1X, often by exact multiples.

Memory capacity is another clear N1X advantage. The N1X carries 128 GB of LPDDR5X, while the RTX 2000 Max-Q carries 8 GB of GDDR6. That is a 16-fold difference in capacity, which would matter substantially for large datasets, in-memory workloads, or multi-application scenarios. The N1X also uses a 256-bit memory bus versus 128-bit, though the bandwidth difference remains modest due to the RTX 2000 Max-Q's faster 16 Gbps effective memory speed compared with 8.5 Gbps effective on the N1X.

The RTX 2000 Max-Q wins in areas tied to its established feature set and power envelope. It carries a 35 W TDP, while the N1X's power consumption is listed as unknown, so no direct efficiency comparison is possible. However, the RTX 2000 Max-Q's lower clocks and smaller die suggest it operates within a constrained power budget. Its API support is complete: DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The N1X lists N/A for all three APIs, which creates a significant compatibility question for software that depends on these graphics interfaces.

The RTX 2000 Max-Q also has a defined transistor count of 18,900 million on a 159 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 118.9M per mm². The N1X's transistor count is unknown, but its die size is 382 mm², more than double the RTX 2000 Max-Q's area. The N1X's larger die likely accommodates its higher core counts and memory capacity, but without transistor data the density comparison remains incomplete.

Release timing favors the RTX 2000 Max-Q for maturity. It launched in March 2023 and has an established predecessor (Ampere-MW) and successor (Blackwell-MW). The N1X launched in May 2026 and lists no predecessor or successor, positioning it as a newer, standalone design in the Blackwell IGP (N1x) generation.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from entirely different architectural lineages. The N1X 48SM uses the GB20B chip built on Blackwell 2.0 architecture, belonging to the Blackwell IGP (N1x) generation. The RTX 2000 Max-Q uses the AD107 chip built on Ada Lovelace architecture, belonging to the Ada-MW generation.

Both are fabricated by TSMC on a 5 nm process, so the manufacturing node is identical. The foundry and process node therefore do not explain the performance gap. The architectural differences instead stem from design goals and component organization.

The N1X integrates 6144 shading units, 384 TMUs, 48 ROPs, 48 RT cores, and 192 tensor cores. The RTX 2000 Max-Q integrates 3072 shading units, 96 TMUs, 48 ROPs, 24 RT cores, and 96 tensor cores. Both share the same ROP count at 48, which means pixel output capabilities diverge only through clock speeds rather than ROP hardware. The N1X's higher boost clock of 2346 MHz drives its 112.6 GPixel/s pixel rate, while the RTX 2000 Max-Q's 1455 MHz boost yields 69.84 GPixel/s.

The RT core and tensor core ratios differ notably. The N1X has twice the RT cores and twice the tensor cores of the RTX 2000 Max-Q, matching the shading unit ratio. This suggests the N1X scales its compute and specialized cores uniformly, whereas the RTX 2000 Max-Q was designed with a smaller overall footprint.

Memory architecture represents a fundamental split. The N1X uses LPDDR5X, a low-power DRAM variant typically found in integrated or mobile contexts, while the RTX 2000 Max-Q uses GDDR6, a dedicated graphics memory standard. The N1X's 256-bit bus width is double the RTX 2000 Max-Q's 128-bit bus, but the RTX 2000 Max-Q compensates with a nearly double effective memory clock: 16 Gbps versus 8.5 Gbps. The resulting bandwidth gap is small, favoring the N1X by 17.2 GB/s.

The N1X lists DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan support as N/A, which likely reflects its IGP classification and possibly a compute-focused or proprietary rendering path. The RTX 2000 Max-Q supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, making it compatible with standard graphics software stacks. This difference could determine software compatibility more than any compute metric.

Die size differences are large: 382 mm² for the N1X versus 159 mm² for the RTX 2000 Max-Q. With transistor counts unknown for the N1X, the density cannot be compared directly, but the area difference alone indicates a much larger silicon footprint for the N1X.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ across nearly every measurable specification. Process node and foundry are identical: 5 nm and TSMC. Both use an IGP slot width and have no power connectors. Both list null dimensions and null suggested PSU requirements. Their production status is Active for both.

Clock specifications diverge. The N1X runs a 741 MHz base clock and 2346 MHz boost clock. The RTX 2000 Max-Q runs a 930 MHz base clock and 1455 MHz boost clock. Memory clocks differ as well: the N1X uses 1067 MHz with 8.5 Gbps effective, while the RTX 2000 Max-Q uses 2000 MHz with 16 Gbps effective.

Memory capacity and type differ completely. The N1X has 128 GB of LPDDR5X on a 256-bit bus. The RTX 2000 Max-Q has 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus. Bandwidth is close: 273.2 GB/s versus 256.0 GB/s.

Compute resources differ by multiples. Shading units: 6144 versus 3072. TMUs: 384 versus 96. ROPs: 48 versus 48. RT cores: 48 versus 24. Tensor cores: 192 versus 96. Pixel rate: 112.6 GPixel/s versus 69.84 GPixel/s. Texture rate: 900.9 GTexel/s versus 139.7 GTexel/s. FP32 and FP16: 28.83 TFLOPS versus 8.940 TFLOPS, both at 1:1.

Power specifications differ in documentation. The N1X lists TDP as unknown, while the RTX 2000 Max-Q lists 35 W. This is the only power figure available, and it applies only to the RTX 2000 Max-Q.

Bus interfaces differ. The N1X uses PCIe 5.0 x16, while the RTX 2000 Max-Q uses PCIe 4.0 x16. Display outputs differ: the N1X has 1x HDMI, while the RTX 2000 Max-Q has Portable Device Dependent outputs.

Release dates differ by roughly three years. The RTX 2000 Max-Q launched in March 2023. The N1X launched in May 2026. The RTX 2000 Max-Q has a predecessor (Ampere-MW) and successor (Blackwell-MW), while the N1X has neither.

Transistor information differs. The RTX 2000 Max-Q lists 18,900 million transistors with a density of 118.9M per mm². The N1X lists unknown transistor count, with a die size of 382 mm². The RTX 2000 Max-Q lists a die size of 159 mm².

API support differs sharply. The N1X lists N/A for DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan. The RTX 2000 Max-Q lists DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4.

Series and generation classifications differ. The N1X has no series designation and belongs to the Blackwell IGP (N1x) generation. The RTX 2000 Max-Q belongs to the GeForce 20-series and the Ada-MW generation.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher FP32 compute performance?

A: The NVIDIA N1X 48SM delivers 28.83 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, which is more than three times the 8.940 TFLOPS provided by the NVIDIA RTX 2000 Max-Q Ada Generation.

Q: How do the memory capacities compare?

A: The N1X 48SM carries 128 GB of LPDDR5X memory, while the RTX 2000 Max-Q carries 8 GB of GDDR6. The N1X has 16 times the memory capacity.

Q: Do both GPUs support the same graphics APIs?

A: No. The RTX 2000 Max-Q supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The N1X 48SM lists N/A for DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan.

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

A: The N1X 48SM reaches 273.2 GB/s using LPDDR5X on a 256-bit bus. The RTX 2000 Max-Q reaches 256.0 GB/s using GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus. The N1X holds a 17.2 GB/s advantage.

Q: Which GPU has more ray tracing cores?

A: The N1X 48SM has 48 ray tracing cores, double the 24 ray tracing cores found on the RTX 2000 Max-Q.

Q: When did each GPU launch?

A: The RTX 2000 Max-Q launched in March 2023. The N1X 48SM launched in May 2026.

The Verdict

The data points toward two very different products. The NVIDIA N1X 48SM is a newer, larger, and dramatically more powerful integrated GPU on paper. Its 28.83 TFLOPS FP32, 6144 shading units, 128 GB memory capacity, and PCIe 5.0 interface place it in a class far above the RTX 2000 Max-Q. The RTX 2000 Max-Q delivers 8.940 TFLOPS, 3072 shading units, and 8 GB memory, making it a smaller and older design from the Ada Lovelace generation.

For compute-heavy workloads that rely on raw shader throughput, texture processing, or large in-memory datasets, the N1X 48SM is the clear choice based on specifications. Its texture rate of 900.9 GTexel/s exceeds the RTX 2000 Max-Q by a factor of 6.4, and its FP32 output is 3.2 times higher. Memory capacity alone could decide the matter for applications that need more than 8 GB.

For software compatibility, the RTX 2000 Max-Q holds a decisive advantage. It supports DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, while the N1X lists no API support. Any application that requires standard graphics APIs would favor the RTX 2000 Max-Q. The N1X also lacks a documented TDP, whereas the RTX 2000 Max-Q is rated at 35 W, giving the latter a known power profile.

The RTX 2000 Max-Q benefits from an established ecosystem with a predecessor and successor, while the N1X stands alone with no lineage. Its PCIe 4.0 interface is older but widely supported, and its 159 mm² die is much smaller than the N1X's 382 mm² die, which could matter in space-constrained designs.

The verdict hinges on use case. Users who prioritize compute throughput, memory capacity, and newer PCIe connectivity should favor the N1X 48SM. Users who require standard graphics API support, a defined power envelope, or a mature product generation should favor the RTX 2000 Max-Q. The lack of benchmark data prevents any empirical confirmation, so these conclusions rest entirely on the recorded specifications.