AMD Steam Machine GPU vs NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4010 Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The recorded data separates these two GPUs into entirely different performance classes. The AMD Steam Machine GPU holds a decisive advantage across every measured capability, while the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4010 operates in a much lower performance tier. The database shows the AMD part sits at the 50th percentile among all GPUs, placing it squarely in the middle of the field. The NVIDIA part, by contrast, lands at the 18th percentile, meaning roughly four out of five GPUs in the database outperform it.

The AMD Steam Machine GPU wins on raw compute throughput. Its FP32 output of 17.56 TFLOPS dwarfs the 2.706 TFLOPS delivered by the RTX 4010, a difference of roughly 6.5 times in single-precision floating-point work. That advantage carries into texture and pixel processing as well. The AMD part produces 274.4 GTexel/s and 156.8 GPixel/s, while the NVIDIA part manages 42.29 GTexel/s and 28.19 GPixel/s. These figures indicate the AMD GPU is built for sustained rendering workloads, whereas the RTX 4010 is positioned for lighter duties.

Memory capacity and bandwidth also favor the AMD part heavily. The Steam Machine GPU carries 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus, yielding 288.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The RTX 4010 offers only 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus, producing 96.00 GB/s. The AMD GPU therefore has both twice the capacity and three times the bandwidth of the NVIDIA part. For modern game assets and higher resolution textures, that difference is substantial.

The NVIDIA part does win on power efficiency as a raw ratio, since its 50 W TDP is less than half of the AMD part's 110 W TDP. However, the performance-per-watt story is more complicated, as the AMD GPU delivers far more absolute performance despite consuming more power. The RTX 4010 also wins on physical flexibility in one respect: it is a single-slot card, while the AMD part's slot width is not recorded in the database. The RTX 4010 further offers more display outputs with four mini-DisplayPort 1.4a connections versus the AMD part's single HDMI 2.1a and single DisplayPort 2.1.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different foundries, nodes, and architectural families. The AMD Steam Machine GPU uses the Navi 33 chip built on RDNA 3.0 architecture, produced on a 6 nm process at TSMC. The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4010 uses the GA107 chip built on Ampere architecture, produced on an 8 nm process at Samsung. The process node difference matters: the AMD part packs 13,300 million transistors into a 204 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 65.2 million per square millimeter. The NVIDIA die measures 200 mm² but holds only 8,700 million transistors, for a density of 43.5 million per square millimeter. The AMD chip is smaller in physical terms despite holding more transistors, which reflects the denser manufacturing process.

The shading resources differ enormously. The AMD GPU has 1,792 shading units, 112 texture mapping units, and 64 raster operation units. The NVIDIA GPU has 768 shading units, 24 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. In every count, the AMD part has more than double the resources of the NVIDIA part. The AMD GPU includes 28 ray tracing cores, while the NVIDIA GPU has 6 RT cores. The NVIDIA part does include 24 tensor cores, which the AMD part lacks entirely, but the database records no FP16 or AI-specific workload results for either GPU, so the practical impact of those tensor cores cannot be quantified from the recorded data.

Clock behavior also differs. The AMD GPU has a 1720 MHz base clock, a 2250 MHz game clock, and a 2450 MHz boost clock. The NVIDIA GPU has a 1417 MHz base clock and a 1762 MHz boost clock, with no game clock recorded. The AMD part therefore runs at higher frequencies across the board, contributing to its compute advantage. Memory clocks follow the same pattern: the AMD memory runs at 2250 MHz with 18 Gbps effective data rate, while the NVIDIA memory runs at 1500 MHz with 12 Gbps effective.

The two parts also carry different generations and market positions. The AMD GPU belongs to the Console GPU (Valve) generation, while the NVIDIA part belongs to the GeForce 40-series. The NVIDIA part has a predecessor in GeForce 30 and a successor in GeForce 50, both recorded in the database. The AMD part has no predecessor or successor listed. The release dates differ by roughly two years: the NVIDIA part launched in April 2024, while the AMD part launched in June 2026. Both are listed as Active in production status.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database does not contain direct head-to-head benchmark runs between these two GPUs. The AMD Steam Machine GPU has an empty benchmark array, and its average benchmark score is recorded as zero. The RTX 4010, however, has one recorded benchmark result: a 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 2893. That single result places the RTX 4010 in a tight cluster with several NVIDIA professional and consumer cards. The nearest rival is the RTX 4060 Ti 16 GB at 2907, which is only 0.5% faster. The RTX PRO 4000 Blackwell SFF scores 2910, 0.6% faster. The RTX 4060 Ti 8 GB scores 2913, 0.7% faster. The Quadro P600 scores 2923, 1% faster. These deltas show the RTX 4010 performing at nearly the same level as those four cards in this specific test, despite its much smaller memory pool and lower core counts.

Since the AMD GPU has no benchmark entry, a direct numerical comparison between the two is impossible from the recorded data. The specification sheets, however, tell a consistent story. The AMD part offers approximately 6.5 times the FP32 throughput, roughly 6.5 times the texture fill rate, and about 5.6 times the pixel fill rate of the RTX 4010. Its memory bandwidth is exactly three times higher. These ratios are derived from the recorded specification fields and indicate a massive performance gap in the AMD part's favor.

The RTX 4010's benchmark result does place it in context. A score of 2893 in Steel Nomad DX12, with its nearest rivals all within 1% above it, suggests this GPU delivers a specific, measurable level of DX12 performance. The AMD GPU's absence from the benchmark array means no such comparison is available. The data cannot confirm whether the AMD part would exceed the RTX 4010's Steel Nomad score by the same ratio as its FP32 advantage, since architectural efficiency differs between RDNA 3.0 and Ampere. What the data does show is that the AMD part has vastly more raw resources.

The Verdict

The recorded data supports a clear separation of roles. The AMD Steam Machine GPU is the stronger rendering part by every specification category recorded in the database. It has more shading units, more TMUs, more ROPs, more ray tracing cores, more memory, more bandwidth, higher clocks, higher pixel rate, higher texture rate, and higher FP32 output. Its 50th percentile ranking places it in the middle of all GPUs, while the RTX 4010's 18th percentile ranking places it near the bottom. For any workload that depends on the recorded compute, memory, or fill-rate specifications, the AMD part is the better choice.

The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4010 occupies a different niche. Its 50 W TDP and single-slot design indicate a low-power, space-constrained deployment. The AMD part requires 110 W and its slot width is not recorded, so the AMD GPU may not fit in the same physical envelopes. The RTX 4010 also offers four mini-DisplayPort outputs versus the AMD part's two total outputs, which matters for multi-display configurations. Its tensor cores, which the AMD part lacks, may provide capabilities that the specifications do not quantify, but no benchmark data exists to confirm their utility.

The data suggests the AMD Steam Machine GPU is intended for actual game rendering at console-class settings, consistent with its Valve console generation label. The RTX 4010, with 4 GB of memory and a 64-bit bus, appears aimed at basic graphics output, light 3D work, or multi-monitor productivity setups where power draw is the primary constraint. Users who need maximum rendering throughput should select the AMD part. Users who need minimal power consumption, a single-slot footprint, and multiple display outputs should select the NVIDIA part. Neither part's benchmark score can be directly compared, so the verdict rests on the specification deltas.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has more memory?

A: The AMD Steam Machine GPU has 8 GB of GDDR6, while the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4010 has 4 GB of GDDR6. The AMD part also uses a 128-bit bus versus the NVIDIA part's 64-bit bus.

Q: How much faster is the AMD GPU in raw compute?

A: The AMD Steam Machine GPU delivers 17.56 TFLOPS FP32, while the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4010 delivers 2.706 TFLOPS FP32. The AMD part is approximately 6.5 times higher in this specification.

Q: What benchmark score does the RTX 4010 have?

A: The RTX 4010 records a 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 2893. Its nearest rival, the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4060 Ti 16 GB, scores 2907, which is 0.5% higher.

Q: Do both GPUs support the same APIs?

A: Yes. Both support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4.

Q: What is the TDP difference?

A: The AMD Steam Machine GPU has a TDP of 110 W, and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4010 has a TDP of 50 W. The NVIDIA part consumes less than half the power of the AMD part.

Q: Which GPU has more display outputs?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4010 has four mini-DisplayPort 1.4a outputs. The AMD Steam Machine GPU has one HDMI 2.1a and one DisplayPort 2.1 output, for a total of two.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Steam Machine GPU | NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4010 |

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

| Chip | Navi 33 | GA107 |

| Architecture | RDNA 3.0 | Ampere |

| Process node | 6 nm | 8 nm |

| Foundry | TSMC | Samsung |

| Transistors | 13,300 million | 8,700 million |

| Die size | 204 mm² | 200 mm² |

| Transistor density | 65.2M / mm² | 43.5M / mm² |

| Base clock | 1720 MHz | 1417 MHz |

| Boost clock | 2450 MHz | 1762 MHz |

| Memory size | 8 GB | 4 GB |

| Memory bus | 128 bit | 64 bit |

| Memory bandwidth | 288.0 GB/s | 96.00 GB/s |

| Shading units | 1792 | 768 |

| TMUs | 112 | 24 |

| ROPs | 64 | 16 |

| RT cores | 28 | 6 |

| Tensor cores | None recorded | 24 |

| Pixel rate | 156.8 GPixel/s | 28.19 GPixel/s |

| Texture rate | 274.4 GTexel/s | 42.29 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 17.56 TFLOPS | 2.706 TFLOPS |

| TDP | 110 W | 50 W |

| Slot width | Not recorded | Single-slot |

| Bus interface | Not recorded | PCIe 4.0 x8 |

| Display outputs | 1x HDMI 2.1a, 1x DisplayPort 2.1 | 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a |

| Release date | 2026-06-28 | 2024-04-15 |