AMD Steam Deck OLED GPU vs NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4060 Ti AD104 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows no direct head-to-head benchmark entries exist between the AMD Steam Deck OLED GPU and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4060 Ti AD104. Both products sit at the 50th percentile against all GPUs in the database, with an average benchmark score of 0 for each. The wins tally is 0 for both sides, indicating that no comparative workload results have been captured in the database at this time.

The absence of measured scores does not diminish the value of the specification comparison that follows. The raw compute figures establish a wide gap. The RTX 4060 Ti AD104 delivers 22.06 TFLOPS of FP32 throughput, while the Steam Deck OLED GPU produces 1.638 TFLOPS. That places the NVIDIA part at roughly 13.5 times the raw shader throughput of the AMD part, a difference that would dominate any FP32-bound workload.

Memory bandwidth tells a similar story. The RTX 4060 Ti AD104 reaches 288.0 GB/s, while the Steam Deck OLED GPU manages 176.0 GB/s. The NVIDIA card holds a 64% bandwidth advantage. Pixel fill rate favors the RTX 4060 Ti AD104 at 121.7 GPixel/s versus 25.60 GPixel/s for the AMD chip, a 4.75x gap. Texture rate shows 344.8 GTexel/s against 51.20 GTexel/s, a 6.7x difference.

The RTX 4060 Ti AD104 also carries 136 tensor cores and 34 RT cores, whereas the Steam Deck OLED GPU lists 8 RT cores and no tensor core entry. FP16 compute on the NVIDIA card runs at 22.06 TFLOPS (1:1), while the AMD part reaches 3.277 TFLOPS (2:1). Every measured compute metric in the database favors the NVIDIA product by a substantial margin.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different architectural families and different process nodes. The AMD Steam Deck OLED GPU uses the Sephiroth chip built on RDNA 2.0 architecture, manufactured on a 6 nm process at TSMC. It integrates 2,400 million transistors across a 131 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 18.3 million per mm². The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4060 Ti AD104 uses the AD104 chip on Ada Lovelace architecture, also from TSMC but on a 5 nm process. That die packs 35,800 million transistors into 294 mm², for a density of 121.8 million per mm².

The transistor count disparity is enormous: the NVIDIA chip contains roughly 14.9 times as many transistors as the AMD chip. Die size favors NVIDIA by 2.24x, and transistor density favors NVIDIA by 6.65x. These figures reflect the different design targets. The Steam Deck OLED GPU is a low-power console part rated at 15 W TDP, while the RTX 4060 Ti AD104 carries a 160 W TDP.

Shader resources differ sharply. The AMD GPU has 512 shading units, 32 texture mapping units, and 16 ROPs. The NVIDIA GPU has 4,352 shading units, 136 TMUs, and 48 ROPs. That translates to 8.5x the shading units, 4.25x the TMUs, and 3x the ROPs. The RT core count is 34 on NVIDIA versus 8 on AMD, and NVIDIA adds 136 tensor cores with no AMD equivalent listed.

Memory subsystems diverge in type and capacity. The Steam Deck OLED GPU uses 16 GB of LPDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, while the RTX 4060 Ti AD104 uses 8 GB of GDDR6 on the same 128-bit bus width. The NVIDIA memory clock runs at 2250 MHz with 18 Gbps effective, versus 1375 MHz with 11 Gbps effective on the AMD part. Despite having half the capacity, the NVIDIA card achieves higher bandwidth due to faster memory signaling.

API support shows both cards reaching DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) and OpenGL 4.6. The NVIDIA card supports Vulkan 1.4, while the AMD card lists Vulkan 1.3. Display outputs differ completely: the Steam Deck OLED GPU offers a single USB Type-C connector, while the RTX 4060 Ti AD104 provides 1x HDMI 2.1 and 3x DisplayPort 1.4a. The NVIDIA card uses a PCIe 4.0 x8 bus interface, requires a 450 W suggested PSU, and draws power through a single 16-pin connector. The AMD card lists no bus interface, no power connector, and no suggested PSU in the database.

Physical dimensions also separate the two. The Steam Deck OLED GPU measures 298 mm by 117 mm by 49 mm, while the RTX 4060 Ti AD104 measures 240 mm by 111 mm by 40 mm. The AMD part is longer and thicker, the NVIDIA part is shorter and slimmer, and the NVIDIA card is dual-slot while the AMD card has no slot width listed.

Where Each One Wins

The RTX 4060 Ti AD104 wins in every recorded compute category. FP32 throughput, FP16 throughput, pixel rate, texture rate, bandwidth, shading units, TMUs, ROPs, RT cores, and tensor cores all favor the NVIDIA part. The 22.06 TFLOPS FP32 figure versus 1.638 TFLOPS makes the NVIDIA card the clear choice for any workload that scales with raw shader compute. The 344.8 GTexel/s texture rate versus 51.20 GTexel/s suggests strong performance in texture-bound rendering. The 121.7 GPixel/s pixel rate versus 25.60 GPixel/s points to advantages in fill-rate-limited scenes.

The Steam Deck OLED GPU claims wins in memory capacity and power envelope. It holds 16 GB of LPDDR5 versus 8 GB of GDDR6, doubling the frame buffer. That capacity matters for large texture sets or workloads that exceed 8 GB. The 15 W TDP versus 160 W TDP represents a 10.7x power advantage for the AMD part, making it suitable for low-power embedded or handheld designs. The AMD card also carries a 6 nm process node, which is larger than the 5 nm node of the NVIDIA part, but the lower transistor count keeps power consumption minimal.

The AMD GPU is the only one of the two with an active production status. The NVIDIA RTX 4060 Ti AD104 is marked end-of-life. The AMD part also carries a 2023-11-08 release date, while the NVIDIA part released on 2024-03-31. The NVIDIA card has a listed predecessor (GeForce 30) and successor (GeForce 50), while the AMD card lists neither.

The Vulkan API advantage goes to NVIDIA, which supports version 1.4 versus AMD's 1.3. Display connectivity favors NVIDIA with four outputs against AMD's single USB Type-C. The PCIe 4.0 x8 interface on the NVIDIA card provides a defined host connection pathway, while the AMD card lists no bus interface.

The Verdict

The data indicates two products built for entirely different roles. The AMD Steam Deck OLED GPU is a 15 W console part with 16 GB of LPDDR5 memory and modest compute resources. The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4060 Ti AD104 is a 160 W desktop card with 8 GB of GDDR6 memory and roughly 13.5x the FP32 throughput. Anyone selecting between these based on raw performance should choose the RTX 4060 Ti AD104 without hesitation, as every compute metric in the database favors it.

Those selecting based on power efficiency or memory capacity would choose the Steam Deck OLED GPU. Its 15 W TDP allows operation in thermally constrained environments, and its 16 GB frame buffer exceeds the NVIDIA card's capacity by 2x. The AMD part remains in active production, while the NVIDIA part is end-of-life. The NVIDIA card does carry a launch MSRP of 399 USD, but the AMD card has none listed.

The verdict from the recorded data is straightforward: the RTX 4060 Ti AD104 dominates in performance-oriented tasks, and the Steam Deck OLED GPU dominates in low-power or high-capacity-memory scenarios. The 22.06 TFLOPS versus 1.638 TFLOPS gap is too large to bridge in any compute-bound application. Conversely, the 15 W versus 160 W power difference makes the AMD part the only viable option for battery-powered or passively cooled designs.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher FP32 compute performance?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4060 Ti AD104 delivers 22.06 TFLOPS of FP32 throughput, while the AMD Steam Deck OLED GPU produces 1.638 TFLOPS. The NVIDIA card is approximately 13.5 times faster in this metric.

Q: How does memory capacity compare between the two cards?

A: The AMD Steam Deck OLED GPU has 16 GB of LPDDR5 memory, while the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4060 Ti AD104 has 8 GB of GDDR6 memory. The AMD part offers double the capacity, but the NVIDIA part achieves higher bandwidth at 288.0 GB/s versus 176.0 GB/s.

Q: What are the TDP ratings for each GPU?

A: The AMD Steam Deck OLED GPU is rated at 15 W, and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4060 Ti AD104 is rated at 160 W. The AMD part consumes 10.7 times less power.

Q: Which GPU supports more display outputs?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4060 Ti AD104 provides 1x HDMI 2.1 and 3x DisplayPort 1.4a, totaling four outputs. The AMD Steam Deck OLED GPU offers a single USB Type-C output.

Q: What is the production status of each GPU?

A: The AMD Steam Deck OLED GPU is listed as active in production. The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4060 Ti AD104 is listed as end-of-life.

Q: Which GPU has more RT cores?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4060 Ti AD104 has 34 RT cores, while the AMD Steam Deck OLED GPU has 8 RT cores. The NVIDIA card also includes 136 tensor cores, while the AMD card lists none.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Steam Deck OLED GPU | NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4060 Ti AD104 |

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

| Chip | Sephiroth | AD104 |

| Architecture | RDNA 2.0 | Ada Lovelace |

| Process Node | 6 nm | 5 nm |

| Transistors | 2,400 million | 35,800 million |

| Die Size | 131 mm² | 294 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 18.3M / mm² | 121.8M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 1000 MHz | 2310 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 1600 MHz | 2535 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 1375 MHz, 11 Gbps effective | 2250 MHz, 18 Gbps effective |

| Memory Size | 16 GB | 8 GB |

| Memory Type | LPDDR5 | GDDR6 |

| Memory Bus Width | 128 bit | 128 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 176.0 GB/s | 288.0 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 512 | 4352 |

| TMUs | 32 | 136 |

| ROPs | 16 | 48 |

| RT Cores | 8 | 34 |

| Tensor Cores | None listed | 136 |

| Pixel Rate | 25.60 GPixel/s | 121.7 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 51.20 GTexel/s | 344.8 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 1.638 TFLOPS | 22.06 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | 3.277 TFLOPS (2:1) | 22.06 TFLOPS (1:1) |

| TDP | 15 W | 160 W |

| Slot Width | None listed | Dual-slot |

| Power Connectors | None listed | 1x 16-pin |

| Suggested PSU | None listed | 450 W |

| Bus Interface | None listed | PCIe 4.0 x8 |

| Display Outputs | 1x USB Type-C | 1x HDMI 2.1, 3x DisplayPort 1.4a |

| Vulkan Version | 1.3 | 1.4 |

| Production Status | Active | End-of-life |

| Release Date | 2023-11-08 | 2024-03-31 |

| Length | 298 mm (11.7 inches) | 240 mm (9.4 inches) |

| Height | 117 mm (4.6 inches) | 111 mm (4.4 inches) |

| Width | 49 mm (1.9 inches) | 40 mm (1.6 inches) |

| Launch MSRP | None listed | 399 USD |