NVIDIA N1X 48SM vs NVIDIA Rubin GPU Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows no direct benchmark scores for either GPU, so the comparison relies on the computed specifications and the percentile fields. Both parts land at the 50th percentile against all GPUs in the database, meaning neither has a measured performance advantage in the current dataset. The absence of head-to-head results means the analysis below is derived entirely from the architectural and specification records.

The most decisive numerical gap is in FP32 compute. The NVIDIA Rubin GPU delivers 130.0 TFLOPS, while the NVIDIA N1X 48SM delivers 28.83 TFLOPS. That puts the Rubin GPU at roughly 4.5 times the raw single-precision throughput. In FP16, the gap widens further: the Rubin GPU reaches 260.0 TFLOPS with a 2:1 ratio, while the N1X 48SM matches its FP32 figure at 28.83 TFLOPS with a 1:1 ratio. The Rubin GPU leads by a factor of about 9 in FP16 work.

Memory bandwidth separates the two even more sharply. The Rubin GPU shows 22.1 TB/s from its 16384-bit HBM4 interface, compared to 273.2 GB/s from the N1X 48SM’s 256-bit LPDDR5X bus. That is an 80.9x difference in raw bandwidth, which will dominate any memory-bound workload. Texture rate follows a similar pattern: the Rubin GPU posts 2,031.2 GTexel/s versus 900.9 GTexel/s for the N1X 48SM, a 2.25x advantage.

The N1X 48SM does lead in pixel throughput. Its 112.6 GPixel/s rasterization rate is more than double the Rubin GPU’s 54.41 GPixel/s. That suggests the integrated part is optimized for display output and conventional raster workloads, while the Rubin GPU is built for compute density rather than pixel pushing. The N1X 48SM also has 48 ROPs against the Rubin GPU’s 24, reinforcing the pixel-rate lead despite the Rubin GPU’s far larger shader array.

Clock speeds are close. The N1X 48SM runs a base clock of 741 MHz and a boost of 2346 MHz. The Rubin GPU runs a base clock of 700 MHz and a boost of 2267 MHz. The N1X 48SM holds a 41 MHz base advantage and a 79 MHz boost advantage, but those small clock deltas do little to offset the massive core-count and memory differences.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different architectural generations. The N1X 48SM is built on Blackwell 2.0, part of the Blackwell IGP (N1x) generation, while the Rubin GPU uses the Rubin architecture from the Server Rubin (Rxx) generation. The process nodes differ: the N1X 48SM uses a 5 nm process at TSMC, while the Rubin GPU uses a 3 nm process at TSMC. That node advantage contributes to the Rubin GPU’s transistor density of 230.8M per mm².

Die size is a major divider. The Rubin GPU measures 1456 mm² with 336,000 million transistors, while the N1X 48SM measures 382 mm² with an unknown transistor count. The Rubin GPU’s die is 3.8x larger in area, and its transistor count is recorded while the N1X 48SM’s is not. The density figure for the Rubin GPU confirms that the larger die is also packed tighter, despite the more advanced node.

Shader resources are far higher on the Rubin GPU. It carries 28,672 shading units, 896 TMUs, and 896 tensor cores. The N1X 48SM has 6,144 shading units, 384 TMUs, and 192 tensor cores. The Rubin GPU has 4.67x the shaders, 2.33x the TMUs, and 4.67x the tensor cores. Ray tracing cores are listed for the N1X 48SM at 48, while the Rubin GPU’s RT core count is not recorded in the database.

Memory architecture is fundamentally different. The N1X 48SM uses 128 GB of LPDDR5X on a 256-bit bus, likely a unified memory pool for an integrated part. The Rubin GPU uses 288 GB of HBM4 on a 16384-bit bus, a server-class memory system with 22.1 TB/s of bandwidth. The memory clock also differs: 1067 MHz (8.5 Gbps effective) for the N1X 48SM versus 2695 MHz (10.8 Gbps effective) for the Rubin GPU.

Power and form factor separate them completely. The N1X 48SM is an IGP with no power connectors, no TDP recorded, and a single HDMI output. The Rubin GPU is an SXM Module with a 2300 W TDP and a suggested PSU of 2700 W, with no display outputs. The bus interfaces differ as well: PCIe 5.0 x16 for the N1X 48SM versus PCIe 6.0 x16 for the Rubin GPU.

The Verdict

From the recorded data, the NVIDIA Rubin GPU is the clear leader in compute throughput, memory bandwidth, and raw shader resources. Its 130.0 TFLOPS FP32 and 260.0 TFLOPS FP16 are multiples of the N1X 48SM’s 28.83 TFLOPS in both precisions. The 22.1 TB/s memory bandwidth is an order of magnitude beyond the N1X 48SM’s 273.2 GB/s, and the 896 tensor cores dwarf the 192 in the integrated part. Any workload that scales with parallel math or memory movement will favor the Rubin GPU decisively.

The N1X 48SM counters with a faster pixel rate (112.6 GPixel/s versus 54.41 GPixel/s), double the ROP count (48 versus 24), and a slightly higher boost clock (2346 MHz versus 2267 MHz). It also has display output capability via a single HDMI port, while the Rubin GPU has no outputs. For tasks that require rasterization throughput or direct display connection, the N1X 48SM is the more practical part.

Users who need a server accelerator for large-scale compute, high-bandwidth memory access, or tensor-heavy operations should select the Rubin GPU based on the data. Users who need an integrated GPU with display output and reasonable pixel throughput for a desktop or embedded system should consider the N1X 48SM. The release dates also differ: the Rubin GPU is recorded as released on 2025-12-31T17:00:00.000Z, while the N1X 48SM follows on 2026-05-31T17:00:00.000Z.

Specification Differences

The table below lists only the fields where the two GPUs differ in the database.

| Field | NVIDIA N1X 48SM | NVIDIA Rubin GPU |

|---|---|---|

| Chip | GB20B | GR100 |

| Architecture | Blackwell 2.0 | Rubin |

| Generation | Blackwell IGP (N1x) | Server Rubin (Rxx) |

| Process Node | 5 nm | 3 nm |

| Transistors | unknown | 336,000 million |

| Die Size | 382 mm² | 1456 mm² |

| Transistor Density | null | 230.8M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 741 MHz | 700 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 2346 MHz | 2267 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 1067 MHz 8.5 Gbps effective | 2695 MHz 10.8 Gbps effective |

| Memory Size | 128 GB | 288 GB |

| Memory Type | LPDDR5X | HBM4 |

| Memory Bus Width | 256 bit | 16384 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 273.2 GB/s | 22.1 TB/s |

| Shading Units | 6144 | 28672 |

| TMUs | 384 | 896 |

| ROPs | 48 | 24 |

| RT Cores | 48 | null |

| Tensor Cores | 192 | 896 |

| Pixel Rate | 112.6 GPixel/s | 54.41 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 900.9 GTexel/s | 2,031.2 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 28.83 TFLOPS | 130.0 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | 28.83 TFLOPS (1:1) | 260.0 TFLOPS (2:1) |

| TDP | unknown | 2300 W |

| Slot Width | IGP | SXM Module |

| Power Connectors | None | null |

| Suggested PSU | null | 2700 W |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 5.0 x16 | PCIe 6.0 x16 |

| Display Outputs | 1x HDMI | No outputs |

| Release Date | 2026-05-31T17:00:00.000Z | 2025-12-31T17:00:00.000Z |

| Predecessor | null | Server Blackwell |

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher FP32 compute performance?

A: The NVIDIA Rubin GPU delivers 130.0 TFLOPS, compared to the N1X 48SM’s 28.83 TFLOPS. The Rubin GPU leads by roughly 4.5x in single-precision throughput.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference?

A: The Rubin GPU has 22.1 TB/s from HBM4 on a 16384-bit bus, while the N1X 48SM has 273.2 GB/s from LPDDR5X on a 256-bit bus. That is an 80.9x gap.

Q: Does the N1X 48SM have any advantage in rasterization?

A: Yes. The N1X 48SM posts 112.6 GPixel/s and has 48 ROPs, while the Rubin GPU posts 54.41 GPixel/s and has 24 ROPs. The N1X 48SM is over 2x faster in pixel rate.

Q: Are the clock speeds similar?

A: They are close. The N1X 48SM runs at 741 MHz base and 2346 MHz boost. The Rubin GPU runs at 700 MHz base and 2267 MHz boost. The N1X 48SM has a 41 MHz base and 79 MHz boost advantage.

Q: Which GPU has more tensor cores?

A: The Rubin GPU has 896 tensor cores, while the N1X 48SM has 192. The Rubin GPU leads by 4.67x.

Q: Can either GPU output to a display?

A: Only the N1X 48SM has a display output, listed as 1x HDMI. The Rubin GPU has no outputs recorded.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA Rubin GPU wins every compute-centric category. FP32 is 130.0 TFLOPS versus 28.83 TFLOPS, FP16 is 260.0 TFLOPS versus 28.83 TFLOPS, and texture rate is 2,031.2 GTexel/s versus 900.9 GTexel/s. Tensor core count is 896 versus 192, memory bandwidth is 22.1 TB/s versus 273.2 GB/s, and memory capacity is 288 GB versus 128 GB. The Rubin GPU also has more shading units (28,672 versus 6,144) and more TMUs (896 versus 384). It uses a 3 nm process, a 1456 mm² die, and 336,000 million transistors, all of which support its server-class positioning. Its 2300 W TDP and suggested PSU of 2700 W confirm the Rubin GPU is designed for high-power, high-throughput environments.

The NVIDIA N1X 48SM wins in pixel rate, with 112.6 GPixel/s against 54.41 GPixel/s, and doubles the ROP count at 48 versus 24. It also has a higher base clock (741 MHz versus 700 MHz) and higher boost clock (2346 MHz versus 2267 MHz), a smaller die (382 mm² versus 1456 mm²), a 5 nm process, and a lower memory clock (1067 MHz versus 2695 MHz). The N1X 48SM carries 48 RT cores while the Rubin GPU has no recorded RT core count. It is the only part with a display output (1x HDMI) and the only one with no power connectors, reflecting its integrated design. The N1X 48SM uses PCIe 5.0 x16, while the Rubin GPU uses PCIe 6.0 x16.

For a workstation or server node where compute density and memory bandwidth are the priority, the Rubin GPU is the only choice from the data. For a system that needs integrated graphics with display output and faster pixel fill, the N1X 48SM is the relevant part. The release timeline also matters: the Rubin GPU appears in the database earlier, with a release date of 2025-12-31T17:00:00.000Z, while the N1X 48SM is dated 2026-05-31T17:00:00.000Z. Each GPU wins where its architectural strengths align with the workload, and the recorded specifications make that split unambiguous.