AMD Steam Machine GPU vs NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 Max-Q Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The recorded data splits the two parts cleanly along power and raw compute lines. The AMD Steam Machine GPU leads in every throughput-oriented metric, while the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 Max-Q counters with efficiency and feature-set advantages.

The AMD part posts a substantial FP32 figure of 17.56 TFLOPS versus 11.34 TFLOPS for the NVIDIA, a 54.8% advantage. Texture fill also favors AMD at 274.4 GTexel/s against 177.1 GTexel/s, and pixel throughput goes to AMD at 156.8 GPixel/s versus 59.04 GPixel/s. These numbers indicate the AMD part is built for sustained compute and fill-rate workloads, a profile that suits high-resolution rendering and heavy shader work.

The NVIDIA part wins on memory bandwidth relative to its power envelope, though its absolute bandwidth is lower. The RTX 4070 Max-Q delivers 256.0 GB/s, while the AMD part reaches 288.0 GB/s. The NVIDIA advantage lies in its 35 W TDP, one-third of the AMD's 110 W. That power differential positions the NVIDIA part for thin-and-light systems where thermal and battery constraints dominate.

The specification data shows AMD's higher clocks: base 1720 MHz, boost 2450 MHz, and game 2250 MHz. NVIDIA's clocks are 735 MHz base and 1230 MHz boost, which reflects a deliberately low-power design rather than a raw-speed one.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different foundry processes and design philosophies. AMD uses Navi 33 on RDNA 3.0 architecture, fabricated on TSMC's 6 nm node. The chip carries the codename "Hotpink Bonefish" and belongs to the Console GPU (Valve) generation. NVIDIA uses AD106 on Ada Lovelace, fabricated on TSMC's 5 nm node, and sits in the GeForce 40 Mobile generation.

Transistor counts differ substantially. NVIDIA's AD106 packs 22,900 million transistors on a 188 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 121.8M per mm². AMD's Navi 33 has 13,300 million transistors on a larger 204 mm² die, giving 65.2M per mm². The smaller process node and higher density indicate NVIDIA's design leverages more advanced manufacturing for logic density.

Core configurations diverge sharply. NVIDIA's AD106 has 4608 shading units, 144 texture mapping units, 48 ROPs, 36 ray tracing cores, and 144 tensor cores. AMD's Navi 33 has 1792 shading units, 112 TMUs, 64 ROPs, and 28 ray tracing cores, with no tensor core field recorded. The NVIDIA part has 2.6 times the shading units, yet lower clock speeds result in its lower FP32 throughput.

Memory subsystems share 8 GB GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus, but clock speeds differ. AMD runs memory at 2250 MHz with 18 Gbps effective, giving 288.0 GB/s. NVIDIA runs at 2000 MHz with 16 Gbps effective, giving 256.0 GB/s. Both support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, so API compatibility is identical.

Physical attributes differ. AMD's part measures 156 mm by 152 mm by 162 mm, while NVIDIA's dimensions are not recorded. NVIDIA lists its slot width as "IGP" (integrated graphics processor) and uses PCIe 4.0 x8, while AMD's bus interface is not specified. Both use no power connectors, and both have a production status of Active.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains no head-to-head benchmark entries for these two parts, and both have an average benchmark score of zero with no recorded benchmark results. The percentile ranking places both at 50th percentile among all GPUs, indicating a median position in the overall distribution.

Absent direct measurements, the specification data provides the only comparative basis. The FP32 throughput difference is the largest numerical gap. At 17.56 TFLOPS, AMD's part exceeds NVIDIA's 11.34 TFLOPS by 6.22 TFLOPS, a 54.8% margin. This is the clearest performance differentiator in the recorded data.

Pixel rate shows a wider relative gap. AMD's 156.8 GPixel/s is 2.66 times NVIDIA's 59.04 GPixel/s. Texture rate follows a smaller margin, with AMD's 274.4 GTexel/s at 1.55 times NVIDIA's 177.1 GTexel/s. These ratios suggest AMD's architecture prioritizes rasterization throughput, while NVIDIA's lower ROP count (48 versus 64) and lower clocks constrain its pixel output.

Memory bandwidth offers a narrower difference. AMD's 288.0 GB/s is 12.5% above NVIDIA's 256.0 GB/s. Both use identical memory size, type, and bus width, so the bandwidth gap comes entirely from the clock speed difference.

Clock speeds reveal the design intent. AMD's boost clock of 2450 MHz is exactly double NVIDIA's 1230 MHz boost. AMD's base clock of 1720 MHz is more than double NVIDIA's 735 MHz base. The NVIDIA part compensates with more cores and tensor units, but the clock deficit is massive.

Power consumption is the inverse story. NVIDIA's 35 W TDP is 68.2% lower than AMD's 110 W. This means the NVIDIA part delivers 11.34 TFLOPS at 35 W, while AMD delivers 17.56 TFLOPS at 110 W. The efficiency ratio favors NVIDIA: 0.324 TFLOPS per watt versus 0.160 TFLOPS per watt for AMD, a 2.03 times advantage for the NVIDIA part.

The Verdict

The data directs each part toward a distinct use case. The AMD Steam Machine GPU is the higher-throughput option across compute, pixel, and texture metrics. Its 17.56 TFLOPS FP32 performance, 156.8 GPixel/s pixel rate, and 274.4 GTexel/s texture rate make it the choice for workloads that saturate these resources, such as high-resolution gaming with heavy post-processing or compute-oriented rendering tasks.

The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 Max-Q is the efficiency-focused part. Its 35 W TDP enables deployment in compact systems where power budgets are tight. The 144 tensor cores provide dedicated AI acceleration hardware that AMD's part lacks, which matters for workloads using DLSS-style upscaling or neural network inference. The 36 ray tracing cores exceed AMD's 28, suggesting stronger ray tracing throughput per watt, though absolute ray tracing performance cannot be confirmed from the recorded data alone.

The 50th percentile ranking for both parts indicates they occupy similar overall positions in the GPU performance distribution, but the specification data shows they achieve that position through opposite strategies. AMD uses high clocks and moderate core counts, while NVIDIA uses many cores at very low clocks. The 2.03 times efficiency advantage for NVIDIA means the RTX 4070 Max-Q can deliver most of the AMD part's performance while drawing one-third of the power, at the cost of absolute throughput.

Release timing also differs. The AMD part carries a release date of 2026-06-28, while the NVIDIA part is dated 2023-01-02. The NVIDIA predecessor is GeForce 30 Mobile with successor GeForce 50 Mobile, while AMD lists no predecessor or successor. These dates indicate the AMD part is a newer design aimed at a specific console platform, while NVIDIA's part belongs to an established mobile product line.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher FP32 compute performance?

A: The AMD Steam Machine GPU records 17.56 TFLOPS FP32, which is 54.8% higher than the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 Max-Q's 11.34 TFLOPS.

Q: How does power consumption compare between the two parts?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 Max-Q uses a 35 W TDP, while the AMD Steam Machine GPU uses a 110 W TDP. NVIDIA's part draws 68.2% less power.

Q: Do both GPUs support the same graphics APIs?

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

Q: What memory configuration do the two parts share?

A: Both use 8 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 128-bit bus. AMD achieves 288.0 GB/s bandwidth, while NVIDIA achieves 256.0 GB/s.

Q: Which GPU has more ray tracing cores?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 Max-Q has 36 ray tracing cores, compared to 28 on the AMD Steam Machine GPU.

Q: What is the transistor density difference?

A: NVIDIA's AD106 chip has a density of 121.8M transistors per mm² on its 188 mm² die, while AMD's Navi 33 has 65.2M per mm² on its 204 mm² die.

Specification Differences

| Field | AMD Steam Machine GPU | NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 Max-Q |

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

| Chip | Navi 33 | AD106 |

| Architecture | RDNA 3.0 | Ada Lovelace |

| Generation | Console GPU (Valve) | GeForce 40 Mobile |

| Process Node | 6 nm | 5 nm |

| Transistors | 13,300 million | 22,900 million |

| Die Size | 204 mm² | 188 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 65.2M / mm² | 121.8M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 1720 MHz | 735 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 2450 MHz | 1230 MHz |

| Game Clock | 2250 MHz | Not recorded |

| Memory Clock | 2250 MHz, 18 Gbps effective | 2000 MHz, 16 Gbps effective |

| Bandwidth | 288.0 GB/s | 256.0 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 1792 | 4608 |

| TMUs | 112 | 144 |

| ROPs | 64 | 48 |

| Ray Tracing Cores | 28 | 36 |

| Tensor Cores | Not recorded | 144 |

| Pixel Rate | 156.8 GPixel/s | 59.04 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 274.4 GTexel/s | 177.1 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 17.56 TFLOPS | 11.34 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | 17.56 TFLOPS (1:1) | 11.34 TFLOPS (1:1) |

| TDP | 110 W | 35 W |

| Slot Width | Not recorded | IGP |

| Bus Interface | Not recorded | PCIe 4.0 x8 |

| Display Outputs | 1x HDMI 2.1a, 1x DisplayPort 2.1 | Portable Device Dependent |

| Dimensions | 156 mm, 152 mm, 162 mm | Not recorded |

| Release Date | 2026-06-28 | 2023-01-02 |

| Predecessor | Not recorded | GeForce 30 Mobile |

| Successor | Not recorded | GeForce 50 Mobile |