AMD Steam Machine GPU vs NVIDIA RTX A400 Comparison

The AMD Steam Machine GPU and NVIDIA RTX A400 occupy very different positions in the database, despite sharing a similar physical footprint in some dimensions. The Steam Machine GPU is a console-oriented part built on RDNA 3.0, while the RTX A400 is a low-profile workstation card based on Ampere. Benchmark results are sparse for the AMD part, with no recorded scores in the database, whereas the RTX A400 has a full set of nine benchmark entries. The recorded data therefore relies on architectural specifications and the RTX A400’s measured performance against its nearest rivals.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

No direct head-to-head benchmark results exist between the AMD Steam Machine GPU and the NVIDIA RTX A400 in the database. The AMD part has an empty benchmark array, while the RTX A400’s scores are recorded across Geekbench and Passmark tests. This absence of overlapping measurements means the comparison must be drawn from theoretical throughput figures and the RTX A400’s placement among its own competitors.

The RTX A400’s average benchmark score is 6078, placing it in the 35th percentile of all GPUs tracked. Its nearest rival, the NVIDIA GeForce MX230, scores 6077, a delta of 0 percent. The Quadro P2000 scores 6049, which is 0.5 percent behind the RTX A400. The Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200 scores 6117, putting it 0.6 percent ahead of the RTX A400. The AMD Radeon 760M scores 6019, trailing the RTX A400 by 1 percent. These deltas are all within a single percentage point, indicating that the RTX A400 sits in a tightly clustered performance band.

Looking at individual tests, the RTX A400’s strongest results come from Geekbench OpenCL with a score of 22844 and Geekbench Vulkan with 22237. Passmark G3D delivers 5983, while Passmark G2D reaches 899. Compute performance via Passmark GPU Compute is 2557. DirectX legacy tests show low absolute numbers: DirectX 9 scores 87, DirectX 10 scores 32, DirectX 11 scores 37, and DirectX 12 scores 27. These figures are not comparable to the AMD Steam Machine GPU directly, since no equivalent tests were recorded for that part.

The AMD Steam Machine GPU, by contrast, shows a theoretical FP32 throughput of 17.56 TFLOPS, while the RTX A400 delivers 2.706 TFLOPS. That places the AMD part at approximately 6.5 times the raw floating-point output of the RTX A400, based solely on the recorded specification values. Pixel rate for the AMD part is 156.8 GPixel/s versus 28.19 GPixel/s for the RTX A400, a ratio of roughly 5.6 to 1. Texture rate is 274.4 GTexel/s versus 42.29 GTexel/s, a ratio of about 6.5 to 1. These are specification-derived comparisons, not benchmark scores, but they establish the performance gap that would likely appear in any direct test.

Memory bandwidth also diverges sharply. The AMD Steam Machine GPU uses 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus, yielding 288.0 GB/s. The RTX A400 has 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus, yielding 96.00 GB/s. The AMD part offers three times the bandwidth. The RTX A400’s memory clock is 1500 MHz or 12 Gbps effective, while the AMD part runs at 2250 MHz or 18 Gbps effective.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Steam Machine GPU wins decisively in raw compute, memory capacity, bandwidth, and pixel throughput. Its FP32 figure of 17.56 TFLOPS is more than six times the RTX A400’s 2.706 TFLOPS. The 8 GB memory capacity doubles the RTX A400’s 4 GB, and the 288.0 GB/s bandwidth triples the RTX A400’s 96.00 GB/s. The shading unit count favors the AMD part at 1792 versus 768, and texture mapping units are 112 versus 24. Raster operation units are 64 versus 16. These specifications indicate that the AMD Steam Machine GPU would dominate in scenarios requiring high-resolution rendering, heavy texture work, or large data sets that exceed 4 GB.

The RTX A400 wins in areas where its architecture provides specialized capabilities. It includes 24 tensor cores, which the AMD Steam Machine GPU lacks entirely, as the AMD part lists no tensor core count. The RTX A400 also has 6 RT cores, while the AMD part has 28, but the RTX A400’s Ampere generation includes dedicated hardware for AI workloads through those tensor cores. The AMD Steam Machine GPU’s RT cores are more numerous but the database does not provide a direct comparison of RT performance. The RTX A400’s 50 W TDP is less than half of the AMD part’s 110 W, making it more efficient in power draw per unit of work, though the AMD part delivers far more absolute performance.

The RTX A400’s benchmark data shows it competes closely with integrated and low-end discrete GPUs. Its average score of 6078 is effectively identical to the MX230, Quadro P2000, Iris Pro 6200, and Radeon 760M, with deltas no larger than 1 percent. This indicates the RTX A400 is positioned at the entry level of workstation graphics. The AMD Steam Machine GPU, with its 50th percentile ranking versus the RTX A400’s 35th percentile, is placed higher in the overall distribution, though its average benchmark score is recorded as zero due to missing tests.

The RTX A400’s display outputs are four mini-DisplayPort 1.4a connectors, which suit multi-monitor workstation setups. The AMD Steam Machine GPU offers one HDMI 2.1a and one DisplayPort 2.1, a more limited output configuration. For professional environments needing multiple displays, the RTX A400 has a clear advantage in connectivity.

Architecture Differences

The AMD Steam Machine GPU uses the Navi 33 chip built on a 6 nm process at TSMC. The RTX A400 uses the GA107 chip built on an 8 nm process at Samsung. The process node difference is significant: 6 nm versus 8 nm, which contributes to the AMD part’s higher transistor density of 65.2M per mm² versus 43.5M per mm² for the RTX A400. The AMD chip packs 13,300 million transistors on a 204 mm² die, while the RTX A400 has 8,700 million transistors on a 200 mm² die. The die sizes are nearly identical, but the AMD part fits roughly 53 percent more transistors into the same area.

Clock behavior differs as well. The AMD Steam Machine GPU has a base clock of 1720 MHz, a boost clock of 2450 MHz, and a game clock of 2250 MHz. The RTX A400 clocks at 1417 MHz base and 1762 MHz boost. The AMD part’s boost clock is nearly 700 MHz higher. Memory clocks also differ: the AMD part runs at 2250 MHz (18 Gbps effective) versus 1500 MHz (12 Gbps effective) for the RTX A400.

The architectures themselves represent different generations. RDNA 3.0 is AMD’s latest GPU architecture in this database entry, while Ampere is NVIDIA’s previous-generation architecture for workstations. The AMD part is classified as a Console GPU for Valve, while the RTX A400 is a Workstation Ampere (Ax000) part. The AMD chip’s codename is Hotpink Bonefish; the RTX A400’s codename is not listed.

Ray tracing hardware differs in count but not necessarily capability. The AMD Steam Machine GPU has 28 RT cores, while the RTX A400 has 6. Tensor cores are exclusive to the RTX A400, with 24 of them, and the AMD part has none. This is a fundamental architectural split: the RTX A400 can accelerate AI inference and certain compute workloads through tensor operations, while the AMD part relies on its general-purpose shaders for all work.

Power delivery and physical design also separate the two. The AMD Steam Machine GPU has a TDP of 110 W and requires no external power connectors. The RTX A400 has a TDP of 50 W, also no power connectors, but it lists a suggested PSU of 250 W. The RTX A400 is single-slot, while the AMD part’s slot width is not recorded. Dimensions differ: the AMD part measures 156 mm by 152 mm by 162 mm, while the RTX A400 measures 163 mm by 69 mm with no width recorded. The AMD part is roughly square in profile, while the RTX A400 is a long, low card.

Both support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The RTX A400 uses PCIe 4.0 x8 as its bus interface; the AMD part’s bus interface is not listed. The RTX A400’s predecessor is Quadro Turing, and its successor is Workstation Ada. The AMD part has no predecessor or successor recorded. Release dates differ by over two years: the RTX A400 launched in April 2024, while the AMD Steam Machine GPU is dated June 2026.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher raw compute performance?

A: The AMD Steam Machine GPU shows 17.56 TFLOPS FP32, while the RTX A400 shows 2.706 TFLOPS FP32. The AMD part is approximately 6.5 times higher in this metric.

Q: How do memory capacities compare?

A: The AMD Steam Machine GPU has 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus with 288.0 GB/s bandwidth. The RTX A400 has 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus with 96.00 GB/s bandwidth. The AMD part offers double the capacity and triple the bandwidth.

Q: Does the RTX A400 have any unique hardware features?

A: The RTX A400 includes 24 tensor cores, which are absent from the AMD Steam Machine GPU. It also has 6 RT cores, whereas the AMD part has 28 RT cores. The tensor cores enable AI-accelerated workloads not available on the AMD part.

Q: What are the power requirements for each card?

A: The AMD Steam Machine GPU has a TDP of 110 W. The RTX A400 has a TDP of 50 W and lists a suggested PSU of 250 W. Neither card requires external power connectors.

Q: How does the RTX A400 perform against its closest rivals?

A: The RTX A400’s average benchmark score is 6078, placing it at the 35th percentile. Its nearest rival, the NVIDIA GeForce MX230, scores 6077 with a 0 percent delta. The Quadro P2000 is 0.5 percent behind, the Intel Iris Pro 6200 is 0.6 percent ahead, and the AMD Radeon 760M is 1 percent behind.

Q: What display outputs does each card provide?

A: The AMD Steam Machine GPU has one HDMI 2.1a and one DisplayPort 2.1. The RTX A400 has four mini-DisplayPort 1.4a outputs.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Steam Machine GPU | NVIDIA RTX A400 |

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

| Chip | Navi 33 | GA107 |

| Architecture | RDNA 3.0 | Ampere |

| Generation | Console GPU (Valve) | Workstation Ampere (Ax000) |

| 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 |

| Game Clock | 2250 MHz | Not listed |

| Memory Clock | 2250 MHz (18 Gbps effective) | 1500 MHz (12 Gbps effective) |

| Memory Size | 8 GB | 4 GB |

| Memory Bus Width | 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 | Not listed | 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 |

| FP16 | 17.56 TFLOPS (1:1) | 2.706 TFLOPS (1:1) |

| TDP | 110 W | 50 W |

| Slot Width | Not listed | Single-slot |

| Suggested PSU | Not listed | 250 W |

| Bus Interface | Not listed | PCIe 4.0 x8 |

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

| Length | 156 mm (6.1 inches) | 163 mm (6.4 inches) |

| Height | 152 mm (6 inches) | 69 mm (2.7 inches) |

| Width | 162 mm (6.4 inches) | Not listed |

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

| Predecessor | Not listed | Quadro Turing |

| Successor | Not listed | Workstation Ada |

| Percentile vs All GPUs | 50 | 35 |

| Average Benchmark Score | 0 | 6078 |

The database shows a clear capability split. The AMD Steam Machine GPU is a high-throughput console part with a 50th percentile ranking, while the RTX A400 is a low-power workstation card at the 35th percentile. The RTX A400’s tensor cores and quad mini-DisplayPort outputs serve professional AI and multi-display roles, but its compute, memory, and bandwidth figures place it far behind the AMD part in general rendering workloads. The AMD part’s lack of recorded benchmarks leaves its real-world performance unmeasured, yet the specification deltas are large enough to indicate a substantial performance gulf.