AMD Instinct MI350P vs NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4060 Max-Q Comparison

AMD Instinct MI350P and NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4060 Max-Q occupy opposite corners of the GPU landscape. One is a 600 W accelerator with 144 GB of HBM3e, built for data center compute. The other is a 35 W laptop part with 8 GB of GDDR6, designed for portable gaming and content creation. The recorded data shows no shared benchmark scores, no direct head-to-head results, and no nearest rival entries for either product. The comparison below relies strictly on the documented specifications, the architecture details, and the measured capabilities listed in the database.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains no head-to-head benchmark results for these two products. The winsA and winsB fields are both zero, and the headToHeadBenchmarks array is empty. Neither product has a recorded average benchmark score; both show 0 in the avgBenchmarkScore field. The percentileVsAllGpus value is 50 for both, placing each exactly at the midpoint of the database distribution, though this is a percentile rank, not a performance score.

Without direct measurements, the comparison shifts to the computed throughput fields. The AMD Instinct MI350P delivers 36.04 TFLOPS of FP32 compute and 36.04 TFLOPS of FP16 compute. The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4060 Max-Q delivers 9.032 TFLOPS of FP32 and 9.032 TFLOPS of FP16. The ratio is exactly 4:1 in both precision formats. The Instinct part processes four times the floating-point operations per second of the laptop GPU, assuming both operate at their listed peak values.

The texture rate tells a similar story. The MI350P achieves 1,126.4 GTexel/s, while the RTX 4060 Max-Q achieves 141.1 GTexel/s. The Instinct card computes roughly 8 times the texel throughput. The pixel rate, however, reverses the trend. The MI350P lists 0 MPixel/s, because it has no ROPs. The RTX 4060 Max-Q lists 70.56 GPixel/s, a figure the AMD accelerator cannot match in any rasterization workload.

Memory bandwidth shows the largest gap. The MI350P uses an 8192-bit bus with HBM3e memory running at 8 Gbps effective, producing 8.19 TB/s of bandwidth. The RTX 4060 Max-Q uses a 128-bit bus with GDDR6 at 16 Gbps effective, producing 256.0 GB/s. The Instinct part offers 32 times the memory bandwidth of the mobile GPU. Capacity also differs dramatically: 144 GB versus 8 GB, an 18:1 ratio. The AMD card moves data at a rate that the NVIDIA part cannot approach, but the NVIDIA part retains the only usable display output path and the only graphics API support.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher FP32 compute throughput?

A: The AMD Instinct MI350P records 36.04 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, exactly 4 times the 9.032 TFLOPS of the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4060 Max-Q. The database lists both products at a 1:1 FP16 to FP32 ratio, so the same 4:1 margin applies to half-precision workloads.

Q: Why does the MI350P show 0 MPixel/s for pixel rate?

A: The Instinct MI350P has 0 ROPs in its specification, meaning it cannot perform fixed-function pixel output. The RTX 4060 Max-Q has 48 ROPs and records 70.56 GPixel/s. Rasterization and traditional pixel fill are not functions of the AMD accelerator.

Q: How do the memory subsystems compare?

A: The MI350P uses 144 GB of HBM3e on an 8192-bit bus with 8.19 TB/s bandwidth. The RTX 4060 Max-Q uses 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus with 256.0 GB/s bandwidth. The AMD part provides 32 times the bandwidth and 18 times the capacity.

Q: What graphics APIs does each product support?

A: The RTX 4060 Max-Q supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The MI350P lists N/A for DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan, and has no display outputs. The NVIDIA part is the only one with a graphics feature set.

Q: What are the power requirements?

A: The MI350P has a TDP of 600 W, requires a 1000 W suggested PSU, and uses a single 16-pin power connector. The RTX 4060 Max-Q has a TDP of 35 W, uses no power connectors, and has no suggested PSU listed. The mobile GPU consumes roughly one seventeenth of the power of the Instinct card.

Q: Which product is newer?

A: The MI350P has a release date of 2026-05-06, while the RTX 4060 Max-Q has a release date of 2023-01-02. The AMD accelerator comes from the later generation and follows the Radeon Instinct line, while the NVIDIA part follows the GeForce 30 Mobile series.

The Verdict

The data supports a clear functional split. The AMD Instinct MI350P exists for high-throughput compute: 36.04 TFLOPS of FP32, 36.04 TFLOPS of FP16, 1,126.4 GTexel/s, and 8.19 TB/s of memory bandwidth. It carries 8192 shading units, 512 TMUs, and 144 GB of HBM3e. It has no ROPs, no pixel rate, no display outputs, and no graphics API support. It is a dual-slot, 600 W accelerator with a 267 mm length, 111 mm height, and 40 mm width, built on a 1190 mm² die with 73,000 million transistors.

The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4060 Max-Q exists for client graphics. It delivers 9.032 TFLOPS of FP32, 9.032 TFLOPS of FP16, 70.56 GPixel/s, and 141.1 GTexel/s. It includes 24 RT cores and 96 tensor cores, features the MI350P does not list. It supports DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, and its display outputs are portable-device dependent. It is an IGP-class part with a 35 W TDP and no power connectors.

Anyone selecting between these two products must first decide the workload. The MI350P wins every compute metric by a wide margin, but it cannot render to a screen or run graphics APIs. The RTX 4060 Max-Q is the only option with rasterization, ray tracing, tensor acceleration, and display connectivity. The 8 GB memory capacity and 256.0 GB/s bandwidth serve a laptop GPU well, but they are not in the same class as the 144 GB and 8.19 TB/s of the Instinct card. The database does not provide a single benchmark where both compete, so the decision rests on the documented feature sets.

Specification Differences

The two products differ in nearly every specification field. The MI350P uses the MI350 128CU chip on a 3 nm TSMC process, while the RTX 4060 Max-Q uses the AD107 chip on a 5 nm TSMC process. The Instinct card has 73,000 million transistors on a 1190 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 61.3M per mm². The NVIDIA part has 18,900 million transistors on a 159 mm² die, giving a density of 118.9M per mm². The smaller process node belongs to the AMD card, but the denser chip belongs to NVIDIA.

Clocks differ in both base and boost. The MI350P runs at 1000 MHz base and 2200 MHz boost. The RTX 4060 Max-Q runs at 1140 MHz base and 1470 MHz boost. Memory clock is listed as 2000 MHz for both, but the effective data rate differs: 8 Gbps for the Instinct card and 16 Gbps for the NVIDIA card. The bus width is 8192 bit versus 128 bit. Memory type is HBM3e versus GDDR6.

Compute unit counts differ sharply. The MI350P has 8192 shading units, 512 TMUs, and 0 ROPs. The RTX 4060 Max-Q has 3072 shading units, 96 TMUs, and 48 ROPs. The NVIDIA part adds 24 RT cores and 96 tensor cores; the AMD part lists null for both fields. The MI350P has no display outputs, while the RTX 4060 Max-Q lists portable-device dependent outputs. The bus interface is PCIe 5.0 x16 for AMD and PCIe 4.0 x8 for NVIDIA. The MI350P is dual-slot and requires a 1x 16-pin connector with a 1000 W suggested PSU. The RTX 4060 Max-Q is IGP, uses no connectors, and has no suggested PSU. The AMD card measures 267 mm by 111 mm by 40 mm; the NVIDIA card has no listed dimensions.

Architecture Differences

The MI350P uses CDNA 4.0, AMD's compute-focused architecture, and belongs to the Instinct (MIx) generation. The RTX 4060 Max-Q uses Ada Lovelace, NVIDIA's client graphics architecture, and belongs to the GeForce 40 Mobile generation. The process nodes are 3 nm for AMD and 5 nm for NVIDIA, both fabricated by TSMC. The AMD architecture prioritizes raw FP32 and FP16 throughput and memory bandwidth, with a 1:1 ratio between the two precisions. The NVIDIA architecture includes dedicated RT cores and tensor cores, which the MI350P does not list. The AMD design has no graphics API support and no ROPs, confirming a non-rendering compute role. The NVIDIA design supports DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, confirming a full graphics pipeline. The MI350P has no display outputs; the RTX 4060 Max-Q depends on the portable device for its display output. The AMD card is built for sustained data center operation at 600 W. The NVIDIA card is built for efficient mobile operation at 35 W. The predecessor relationships also differ: the MI350P follows Radeon Instinct, and the RTX 4060 Max-Q follows GeForce 30 Mobile and is succeeded by GeForce 50 Mobile.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Instinct MI350P wins in every pure compute category. FP32 performance is 36.04 TFLOPS versus 9.032 TFLOPS. FP16 performance is 36.04 TFLOPS versus 9.032 TFLOPS. Texture rate is 1,126.4 GTexel/s versus 141.1 GTexel/s. Memory bandwidth is 8.19 TB/s versus 256.0 GB/s. Memory capacity is 144 GB versus 8 GB. The MI350P has 8192 shading units and 512 TMUs, versus 3072 and 96 for the NVIDIA part. It uses PCIe 5.0 x16, while the mobile GPU uses PCIe 4.0 x8. It has a much larger die, more transistors, and a newer 3 nm process. It is the only one of the two with 73,000 million transistors and a 1190 mm² die.

The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4060 Max-Q wins in every graphics-specific category. It has 48 ROPs and 70.56 GPixel/s of pixel rate, while the MI350P has 0 ROPs and 0 MPixel/s. It has 24 RT cores and 96 tensor cores, which are absent from the AMD specification. It supports DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. It has display outputs, while the MI350P has none. It runs at a 35 W TDP with no power connector, making it suitable for portable systems. It has a base clock of 1140 MHz, higher than the MI350P's 1000 MHz, and a memory data rate of 16 Gbps, double the AMD card's 8 Gbps. It also has a higher transistor density at 118.9M per mm² versus 61.3M per mm².

The database does not provide a workload where both products score. The MI350P targets large-scale compute, inference, and bandwidth-bound tasks. The RTX 4060 Max-Q targets interactive graphics, ray tracing, and portable rendering. The choice is not a matter of one being better overall, but of which capability set matches the intended use. The recorded data shows a 4:1 compute advantage for AMD and an exclusive graphics feature set for NVIDIA.