NVIDIA N1X 48SM vs NVIDIA RTX A400 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The comparative analysis between the NVIDIA N1X 48SM and the NVIDIA RTX A400 requires careful interpretation, as the two products occupy entirely different segments of the market. The database contains benchmark results for the RTX A400, while the N1X 48SM has no recorded benchmark scores, making direct performance comparisons impossible based on measured data alone.

The RTX A400 delivers a Geekbench OpenCL score of 22,844 and a Geekbench Vulkan score of 22,237. These are the strongest recorded results for this workstation card. In Passmark testing, the A400 produces a G3D score of 5,983, with a GPU Compute score of 2,557. Legacy DirectX tests show scores of 87 in DirectX 9, 37 in DirectX 11, 32 in DirectX 10, and 27 in DirectX 12. The 2D graphics score reaches 899.

The N1X 48SM, being an integrated graphics processor (IGP) with no standalone benchmark entries in the database, cannot be ranked against the A400 through measured performance data. Its average benchmark score is recorded as zero, and it has no nearest rivals listed. The RTX A400, in contrast, holds an average benchmark score of 6,078 and sits at the 35th percentile among all GPUs in the database.

When the A400 is compared to its nearest rivals, the data shows a tight cluster of results. The A400 scores identically to the NVIDIA GeForce MX230, with a delta percentage of 0 percent. Against the NVIDIA Quadro P2000, the A400 leads by 0.5 percent. The Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200 sits 0.6 percent ahead of the A400, while the AMD Radeon 760M trails by 1 percent. These margins are small, indicating that the A400 performs within a narrow band around its direct competitors.

For the N1X 48SM, the absence of benchmark data means no wins can be attributed to it in head-to-head testing. The recorded wins count stands at zero for both products, reflecting the lack of directly comparable measurements. The N1X 48SM occupies the 50th percentile in the database by classification, but this percentile is based on its architectural positioning rather than on actual test results.

FAQ

Q: What is the average benchmark score for the RTX A400?

A: The RTX A400 records an average benchmark score of 6,078 across its listed tests, with a percentile rank of 35 among all GPUs in the database.

Q: Does the N1X 48SM have any recorded benchmark results?

A: No. The N1X 48SM has an empty benchmark array, an average benchmark score of zero, and no nearest rivals listed in the database.

Q: How does the RTX A400 compare to its closest competitor, the GeForce MX230?

A: The RTX A400 and the GeForce MX230 have identical average scores of 6,078 and 6,077 respectively, resulting in a delta percentage of 0 percent between them.

Q: What memory configurations do the two GPUs use?

A: The N1X 48SM uses 128 GB of LPDDR5X memory on a 256-bit bus, while the RTX A400 uses 4 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 64-bit bus.

Q: What is the production status of each GPU?

A: Both the N1X 48SM and the RTX A400 are listed as Active in production status.

Q: What API support does each GPU offer?

A: The N1X 48SM has no API support listed (DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan are all marked as N/A), while the RTX A400 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4.

Where Each One Wins

Based strictly on the recorded data, the RTX A400 wins in every measurable category because the N1X 48SM has no benchmark entries. The A400 delivers verified scores across nine tests, including strong results in Geekbench OpenCL (22,844) and Geekbench Vulkan (22,237). These numbers indicate a functional graphics solution capable of running compute and rendering workloads through standard graphics APIs.

The N1X 48SM wins in specifications that are not tied to measured performance. It offers a significantly larger memory pool of 128 GB compared to the A400's 4 GB, and its memory bandwidth of 273.2 GB/s exceeds the A400's 96.00 GB/s. The N1X 48SM also has a higher pixel rate (112.6 GPixel/s versus 28.19 GPixel/s), a higher texture rate (900.9 GTexel/s versus 42.29 GTexel/s), and a higher FP32 throughput (28.83 TFLOPS versus 2.706 TFLOPS).

In terms of raw compute resources, the N1X 48SM carries 6,144 shading units, 384 texture mapping units, 48 raster output units, 48 ray tracing cores, and 192 tensor cores. The RTX A400 has 768 shading units, 24 TMUs, 16 ROPs, 6 ray tracing cores, and 24 tensor cores. These differences are substantial, but without benchmark data for the N1X 48SM, the practical advantage cannot be quantified through test results.

The A400 wins in software compatibility, supporting DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, while the N1X 48SM lists no API support. The A400 also provides four mini-DisplayPort 1.4a outputs, whereas the N1X 48SM offers only a single HDMI output.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ across nearly every recorded specification. The N1X 48SM uses a GB20B chip built on TSMC's 5 nm process, while the RTX A400 uses a GA107 chip built on Samsung's 8 nm process. The N1X 48SM has a die size of 382 mm², nearly double the A400's 200 mm². The A400 lists a transistor count of 8,700 million and a density of 43.5 million transistors per mm², while the N1X 48SM's transistor count is unknown.

Clock speeds show the A400 with a base clock of 1417 MHz and a boost clock of 1762 MHz. The N1X 48SM has a lower base clock of 741 MHz but a higher boost clock of 2346 MHz. Memory clocks also differ: the A400 runs at 1500 MHz with 12 Gbps effective, while the N1X 48SM runs at 1067 MHz with 8.5 Gbps effective.

Memory capacity and type present the largest gap. The N1X 48SM holds 128 GB of LPDDR5X on a 256-bit interface; the A400 holds 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 64-bit interface. Bandwidth follows suit, with the N1X 48SM delivering 273.2 GB/s against the A400's 96.00 GB/s.

The bus interface differs as well: the N1X 48SM connects via PCIe 5.0 x16, while the A400 uses PCIe 4.0 x8. The N1X 48SM is an IGP with no power connectors and unknown TDP, while the A400 is a single-slot card with no power connectors, a 50 W TDP, and a suggested PSU of 250 W. The A400 measures 163 mm in length and 69 mm in height; the N1X 48SM has no listed dimensions.

The release dates differ by roughly two years, with the A400 released on 2024-04-15 and the N1X 48SM on 2026-05-31. The A400 has a predecessor (Quadro Turing) and successor (Workstation Ada), while the N1X 48SM lists neither.

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide is fundamental. The N1X 48SM is built on Blackwell 2.0 architecture, part of the Blackwell IGP (N1x) generation. The RTX A400 uses Ampere architecture from the Workstation Ampere (Ax000) generation. These are two different design families from NVIDIA, separated by multiple generations of development.

The N1X 48SM's shading units, TMUs, and ROPs are organized in a configuration that reflects a large integrated design: 6,144 shading units, 384 TMUs, and 48 ROPs. The RTX A400's counts of 768 shading units, 24 TMUs, and 16 ROPs represent a much smaller discrete workstation part. Ray tracing and tensor core counts also reflect this scale difference, with the N1X 48SM carrying 48 RT cores and 192 tensor cores against the A400's 6 RT cores and 24 tensor cores.

Process technology separates the two as well. The N1X 48SM uses a 5 nm process at TSMC, while the RTX A400 uses an 8 nm process at Samsung. The smaller process node allows the N1X 48SM to pack more transistors into a larger die, though the exact transistor count is not recorded for the N1X 48SM.

The memory architectures reflect different design goals. The N1X 48SM uses LPDDR5X, a low-power memory type suited for integrated graphics, while the A400 uses GDDR6, a dedicated graphics memory type. The N1X 48SM's 192 tensor cores and 48 RT cores suggest a design aimed at AI and ray tracing workloads, while the A400's smaller counts indicate a more modest workstation role.

API support further separates the two. The N1X 48SM has no DirectX, OpenGL, or Vulkan support listed, while the A400 is fully compliant with modern graphics APIs. This difference is notable because it affects software compatibility and driver-level functionality.

The Verdict

The data clearly indicates that these two GPUs serve different purposes and cannot be directly substituted for one another. The RTX A400 is a tested, functional workstation card with verified benchmark results across multiple test suites. It supports modern graphics APIs, provides four display outputs, and fits in a single-slot form factor with a 50 W TDP. Its average benchmark score of 6,078 and 35th percentile ranking place it among entry-level workstation options, performing on par with the GeForce MX230 and slightly ahead of the Quadro P2000.

The N1X 48SM is an integrated graphics processor with no benchmark results in the database. Its specifications describe a high-capacity design with 128 GB of LPDDR5X memory, 6,144 shading units, and 28.83 TFLOPS of FP32 compute. These figures vastly exceed the A400's capabilities on paper, but without measured performance data, the practical significance remains unverified.

For users requiring a small, low-power discrete GPU with confirmed API support and multi-display output, the RTX A400 is the only option with recorded evidence of functionality. Its benchmark scores, while modest, confirm it can execute graphics and compute workloads across DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan.

For users needing massive memory capacity and high theoretical compute throughput in an integrated form factor, the N1X 48SM presents the stronger specification sheet. The lack of API support listings and benchmark data, however, means its real-world behavior cannot be confirmed from the database.

The verdict from the recorded data is straightforward: the RTX A400 is the verified, measurable product, while the N1X 48SM remains a specification-only entry. Buyers seeking confirmed performance should rely on the A400's benchmark scores. Buyers prioritizing raw specifications and memory capacity would look to the N1X 48SM, accepting that its performance is unmeasured. The database provides no evidence to favor one over the other in a shared workload because no shared benchmark exists.