AMD Steam Machine GPU vs NVIDIA RTX 3500 Embedded Ada Generation Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database records no direct head-to-head benchmark results between the AMD Steam Machine GPU and the NVIDIA RTX 3500 Embedded Ada Generation. Both parts sit at the 50th percentile among all GPUs in the database, and their average benchmark scores are recorded as zero. This means the comparison must be drawn from the recorded architectural and specification data rather than from direct measurement outcomes.

The most significant raw compute advantage belongs to the NVIDIA part. The RTX 3500 Embedded Ada Generation delivers 23.04 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, which is 31.2% higher than the AMD Steam Machine GPU's 17.56 TFLOPS. The same 23.04 TFLOPS figure applies to FP16 performance for the NVIDIA part, while the AMD part also records 17.56 TFLOPS for FP16, indicating a 1:1 ratio for both architectures. The texture throughput follows a similar pattern: the NVIDIA GPU reaches 360.0 GTexel/s against the AMD part's 274.4 GTexel/s, a 31.2% advantage in texture fill rate. The AMD part counters in pixel throughput, recording 156.8 GPixel/s versus the NVIDIA part's 144.0 GPixel/s, an 8.9% lead in rasterization output.

Memory capacity and bandwidth clearly favor the NVIDIA part. The RTX 3500 Embedded Ada Generation carries 12 GB of GDDR6 on a 192-bit bus, yielding 432.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The AMD Steam Machine GPU has 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus, producing 288.0 GB/s. The NVIDIA part provides 50% more memory capacity and exactly 50% more memory bandwidth. Both use GDDR6 memory clocked at 2250 MHz with 18 Gbps effective transfer rates, so the bandwidth gap stems entirely from the wider memory bus.

Clock behavior is mixed. The AMD part has a lower base clock at 1720 MHz versus 1725 MHz for the NVIDIA part, a negligible 0.3% difference. At boost, the AMD part runs higher at 2450 MHz compared to 2250 MHz for the NVIDIA part, an 8.9% boost-clock advantage. The AMD part also records a dedicated game clock of 2250 MHz, a figure the NVIDIA part does not list. The AMD GPU's higher boost clock helps close some of the raw throughput gap, but not enough to overcome the NVIDIA part's larger shader count and higher transistor budget.

Pixel rate comparison shows the AMD part ahead at 156.8 GPixel/s versus 144.0 GPixel/s for the NVIDIA part. Both parts share 64 ROPs, so the AMD advantage comes from its higher clock speeds. The NVIDIA part has 160 TMUs against 112 for the AMD part, and 5120 shading units against 1792, which explains the texture rate and FP32 leads. The NVIDIA part also includes 160 tensor cores, a feature class entirely absent from the AMD Steam Machine GPU's specification sheet.

The Verdict

The recorded data indicates that the NVIDIA RTX 3500 Embedded Ada Generation is the stronger compute platform for workloads that scale with shader count, tensor throughput, and memory capacity. Its 23.04 TFLOPS FP32 output sits 31.2% above the AMD part, and its 12 GB memory frame buffer with 432.0 GB/s bandwidth provides 50% more capacity and bandwidth. The NVIDIA part also draws less power, with a 100 W TDP against 110 W for the AMD part, despite the higher transistor count of 35,800 million versus 13,300 million.

The AMD Steam Machine GPU, however, posts the higher pixel fill rate at 156.8 GPixel/s and the higher boost clock at 2450 MHz. It also carries a larger physical footprint at 156 mm by 152 mm by 162 mm, whereas the NVIDIA part is listed as an integrated graphics processor with no recorded dimensions. The AMD part includes display outputs (1x HDMI 2.1a and 1x DisplayPort 2.1), while the NVIDIA embedded part records no display outputs at all. For systems that need direct display connectivity from the GPU itself, the AMD part is the only option in this pairing.

The NVIDIA part uses a PCIe 4.0 x16 bus interface, while the AMD part lists no bus interface in the database. The NVIDIA part also records a suggested PSU of 300 W, a figure the AMD part does not list. Both parts are marked as Active in production status, and neither has a recorded launch MSRP. The NVIDIA part has a release date in March 2023, while the AMD part is dated June 2026, making the AMD product the newer introduction.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different architectural families. The AMD Steam Machine GPU uses the RDNA 3.0 architecture with the Navi 33 chip, codenamed Hotpink Bonefish. The NVIDIA RTX 3500 Embedded Ada Generation uses the Ada Lovelace architecture with the AD104 chip. The AMD part belongs to the Console GPU (Valve) generation, while the NVIDIA part belongs to the Ada-MW generation and carries the GeForce 30-series series label.

Manufacturing processes differ by one nanometer step. The AMD chip is built on a 6 nm process at TSMC, while the NVIDIA chip uses a 5 nm process, also at TSMC. Transistor counts show a large divergence: the NVIDIA AD104 packs 35,800 million transistors into a 294 mm² die, while the AMD Navi 33 contains 13,300 million transistors on a 204 mm² die. Transistor density follows accordingly, with the NVIDIA part at 121.8M transistors per mm² versus 65.2M per mm² for the AMD part. The NVIDIA die is 44.1% larger in area but carries 169.2% more transistors.

Ray tracing resources differ as well. The NVIDIA part has 40 RT cores, while the AMD part has 28. The NVIDIA part also includes 160 tensor cores, which the AMD part does not list at all. This indicates a hardware capability gap for AI-accelerated workloads, though the database does not include direct benchmark scores to quantify the impact. The NVIDIA part's predecessor is listed as Ampere-MW and its successor as Blackwell-MW, placing it in a defined product lineage. The AMD part lists no predecessor or successor in the database.

Both parts support the same API feature set: DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The power delivery approach is identical in that both list no power connectors, and both have no recorded slot width for the AMD part while the NVIDIA part is explicitly listed as IGP (integrated graphics processor). The NVIDIA part's suggested PSU is 300 W, a field the AMD part leaves empty.

Specification Differences

Memory configuration separates the two parts clearly. The NVIDIA RTX 3500 Embedded Ada Generation uses 12 GB of GDDR6 on a 192-bit bus, while the AMD Steam Machine GPU uses 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus. Bandwidth is 432.0 GB/s for the NVIDIA part and 288.0 GB/s for the AMD part. Both run memory at 2250 MHz with 18 Gbps effective transfer, so the bus width alone drives the bandwidth difference.

Compute resources diverge sharply. The NVIDIA part has 5120 shading units, 160 TMUs, 64 ROPs, 40 RT cores, and 160 tensor cores. The AMD part has 1792 shading units, 112 TMUs, 64 ROPs, and 28 RT cores, with no tensor cores listed. The NVIDIA part has 185.7% more shading units, 42.9% more TMUs, and 42.9% more RT cores. ROP counts match at 64 for both.

Clock speeds show a mixed picture. Base clocks are nearly identical at 1725 MHz for NVIDIA and 1720 MHz for AMD. Boost clocks favor AMD at 2450 MHz versus 2250 MHz for NVIDIA. The AMD part lists a game clock of 2250 MHz, while the NVIDIA part does not record one. Pixel rate favors AMD at 156.8 GPixel/s versus 144.0 GPixel/s for NVIDIA, while texture rate favors NVIDIA at 360.0 GTexel/s versus 274.4 GTexel/s for AMD.

Power and physical specifications differ as well. The NVIDIA part has a 100 W TDP, the AMD part 110 W. The NVIDIA part lists a suggested PSU of 300 W and a PCIe 4.0 x16 bus interface. The AMD part records no bus interface and no suggested PSU. The AMD part measures 156 mm by 152 mm by 162 mm, while the NVIDIA part has no recorded dimensions. The AMD part provides 1x HDMI 2.1a and 1x DisplayPort 2.1 outputs; the NVIDIA part records no display outputs. The NVIDIA part is slot width IGP; the AMD part lists no slot width.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher FP32 compute performance?

A: The NVIDIA RTX 3500 Embedded Ada Generation delivers 23.04 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, which is 31.2% higher than the AMD Steam Machine GPU's 17.56 TFLOPS.

Q: How much memory does each GPU carry?

A: The NVIDIA part has 12 GB of GDDR6 on a 192-bit bus with 432.0 GB/s bandwidth. The AMD part has 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus with 288.0 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Which GPU has the higher boost clock?

A: The AMD Steam Machine GPU boosts to 2450 MHz, while the NVIDIA RTX 3500 Embedded Ada Generation boosts to 2250 MHz, giving the AMD part an 8.9% boost-clock advantage.

Q: Do both GPUs support the same APIs?

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

Q: Does the NVIDIA part have tensor cores?

A: Yes, the RTX 3500 Embedded Ada Generation includes 160 tensor cores. The AMD Steam Machine GPU does not list any tensor cores.

Q: Can the NVIDIA part output video directly?

A: No, the NVIDIA part records no display outputs. The AMD part provides 1x HDMI 2.1a and 1x DisplayPort 2.1 outputs.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA RTX 3500 Embedded Ada Generation wins in compute-heavy scenarios. Its 23.04 TFLOPS FP32 output, 360.0 GTexel/s texture rate, and 160 tensor cores make it the stronger choice for workloads that scale with shader throughput, texture sampling, or tensor operations. The 12 GB memory frame buffer with 432.0 GB/s bandwidth provides 50% more capacity and bandwidth, which benefits large datasets and high-resolution textures. The 100 W TDP, lower than the AMD part's 110 W, also gives it a power efficiency edge on paper, and the PCIe 4.0 x16 bus interface provides a defined host connection path.

The AMD Steam Machine GPU wins in pixel throughput and clock speed. Its 156.8 GPixel/s pixel rate exceeds the NVIDIA part's 144.0 GPixel/s, and its 2450 MHz boost clock runs 8.9% higher than the NVIDIA part's 2250 MHz. The inclusion of display outputs (HDMI 2.1a and DisplayPort 2.1) makes it the only one of the two that can drive a display directly. Its 6 nm process node and smaller 204 mm² die with 13,300 million transistors indicate a more compact implementation, and its 110 W TDP stays close to the NVIDIA part despite the lower transistor count.

For systems that require direct video output from the GPU, the AMD part is the clear choice because the NVIDIA part records no display outputs at all. For embedded or compute-oriented installations where display output is handled elsewhere and shader throughput, memory capacity, or tensor acceleration matter more, the NVIDIA part holds the advantage in every one of those recorded categories. The AMD part's higher game clock of 2250 MHz suggests a design tuned for sustained gaming loads, while the NVIDIA part's larger shader array and tensor core count point toward general-purpose or AI-adjacent compute duties. The database shows no direct benchmark scores for either part, so these conclusions rest entirely on the recorded architectural and specification data.