AMD Steam Machine GPU vs NVIDIA Switch 2 GPU Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark database splits these two console GPUs by their intended usage environments. The AMD Steam Machine GPU is built around sustained, high-throughput desktop-class rendering, while the NVIDIA Switch 2 GPU prioritizes mobile efficiency and feature-rich compute within a constrained power envelope.

The AMD part wins on raw rasterization throughput. Its FP32 output of 17.56 TFLOPS is roughly four times the NVIDIA part's 4.301 TFLOPS. That gap appears consistently across texture and pixel work: AMD delivers 274.4 GTexel/s versus NVIDIA's 67.20 GTexel/s, and 156.8 GPixel/s versus 22.40 GPixel/s. Any workload that is fill-rate bound, texture-sampling bound, or shader-bound will favor the AMD silicon by a wide margin.

The NVIDIA part wins on efficiency and specialized compute. Its 40 W TDP versus AMD's 110 W means the Switch 2 GPU can operate in handheld or low-power console contexts where the AMD part would require a much larger thermal solution. NVIDIA also fields 48 tensor cores, a resource AMD does not list at all. That gives the Switch 2 GPU a decisive advantage in any workload that can use tensor-core acceleration, such as DLSS-style upscaling or AI inference. Additionally, the NVIDIA part's FP16 throughput of 8.602 TFLOPS (2:1 ratio) exceeds its own FP32 rate, whereas AMD's FP16 matches its FP32 at 17.56 TFLOPS (1:1). For mixed-precision workloads that exploit FP16, the NVIDIA part offers proportionally more half-precision headroom relative to its own FP32 ceiling.

Memory configuration also splits the two. NVIDIA packs 12 GB of LPDDR5X, which is 50% more capacity than AMD's 8 GB of GDDR6. The AMD part has the far higher bandwidth at 288.0 GB/s versus 102.4 GB/s, but the NVIDIA part's larger pool better suits texture-heavy open-world titles or multitasking scenarios. The AMD part's 28 ray tracing cores versus NVIDIA's 12 RT cores indicate AMD has a higher ray tracing core count, though the actual ray tracing performance depends heavily on clock speeds and architecture efficiency, which the recorded data does not directly measure.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different architectural generations and foundries. AMD uses the Navi 33 chip, built on RDNA 3.0 architecture, codenamed Hotpink Bonefish. It is manufactured on TSMC's 6 nm process with 13,300 million transistors across a 204 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 65.2M per mm². NVIDIA uses the GA10B chip, built on Ampere architecture, manufactured on Samsung's 8 nm process. Its transistor count is listed as unknown, but the die size is 200 mm². The process node difference is notable: 6 nm versus 8 nm, which typically allows AMD to pack more transistors into a similar area, though the database records the die sizes as close (204 mm² versus 200 mm²).

Clock behavior differs substantially. AMD's base clock is 1720 MHz, with a game clock of 2250 MHz and a boost clock of 2450 MHz. NVIDIA's base clock is 561 MHz with a boost of 1400 MHz. The AMD part runs at much higher sustained clocks, which directly explains its TFLOPS advantage. The NVIDIA part compensates with a dramatically lower TDP of 40 W, indicating the design prioritizes battery life and thermal limits over peak performance.

Shading and fixed-function hardware also diverge. AMD has 1792 shading units, 112 TMUs, and 64 ROPs. NVIDIA has 1536 shading units, 48 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. The ROP gap is especially large: AMD has four times NVIDIA's ROP count. This means AMD's pixel fill rate advantage is not just from clocks but from a much wider back-end pipeline. NVIDIA's tensor core count of 48 is unique to that part; AMD lists no tensor cores, so any tensor-based feature set is exclusive to the NVIDIA side.

Memory technology varies as well. AMD uses 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus, achieving 288.0 GB/s. NVIDIA uses 12 GB of LPDDR5X on a 128-bit bus, achieving 102.4 GB/s. The memory clock speeds reflect this: AMD's memory runs at 2250 MHz (18 Gbps effective), NVIDIA's at 800 MHz (6.4 Gbps effective). The NVIDIA part trades bandwidth for capacity and lower power consumption, which is consistent with its 40 W TDP.

Display outputs differ completely. AMD provides 1x HDMI 2.1a and 1x DisplayPort 2.1. NVIDIA lists no outputs, indicating it is designed as an integrated console GPU where the system handles display connectivity separately. Both parts support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, so API-level feature parity exists. Production status is Active for both, with release dates of 2026-06-28 for AMD and 2025-06-04 for NVIDIA. The AMD part's launch MSRP is not recorded; the NVIDIA part's launch MSRP is 449 USD. Physical dimensions differ sharply: AMD measures 156 mm by 152 mm by 162 mm, while NVIDIA measures 272 mm by 116 mm by 14 mm, reflecting a long, thin mobile form factor versus a compact cube.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database records no direct head-to-head benchmark scores for these two GPUs, and neither part has individual benchmark entries. However, the recorded specification data provides enough information to project comparative outcomes in several categories.

The largest single advantage for AMD is FP32 throughput. At 17.56 TFLOPS versus 4.301 TFLOPS, AMD is approximately 4.08 times faster. This translates directly to shader-heavy workloads. In practical terms, a game that runs at 60 FPS on the NVIDIA part would need roughly 245 FPS on the AMD part to match the same per-frame shader cost, assuming perfect scaling and no other bottlenecks.

Texture rate shows a similar story. AMD's 274.4 GTexel/s is 4.08 times NVIDIA's 67.20 GTexel/s, exactly matching the FP32 ratio because both scale with shading unit count and clock. Pixel rate, however, shows a larger disparity: AMD's 156.8 GPixel/s is exactly 7 times NVIDIA's 22.40 GPixel/s. This is because AMD has 64 ROPs versus NVIDIA's 16, a 4x count difference, combined with the clock advantage. Fill-rate-bound scenes, such as high-resolution rendering with heavy overdraw, will favor AMD by an even wider margin than compute-bound scenes.

The NVIDIA part's advantages are more specialized. Its FP16 output of 8.602 TFLOPS is exactly double its FP32 rate, which is twice the FP16:FP32 ratio of AMD's 1:1 implementation. For workloads that can use FP16, NVIDIA delivers 8.602 TFLOPS of half-precision compute, which is still less than AMD's 17.56 TFLOPS FP16, but the ratio matters for efficiency: NVIDIA gets 0.215 TFLOPS per watt of FP16 (8.602 divided by 40 W), while AMD gets 0.160 TFLOPS per watt of FP16 (17.56 divided by 110 W). This indicates NVIDIA is more power-efficient in half-precision tasks.

Memory bandwidth is another clear AMD win: 288.0 GB/s versus 102.4 GB/s, a 2.81x advantage. This matters for streaming large textures, framebuffer reads, and any bandwidth-bound compute. The NVIDIA part counters with 12 GB of memory versus 8 GB, a 50% capacity advantage. For games that exceed 8 GB of working set, the NVIDIA part avoids spills to system memory, while the AMD part may hit capacity limits despite its bandwidth lead.

Ray tracing hardware counts favor AMD at 28 RT cores versus 12 RT cores. However, the database does not record RT core clock behavior or ray traversal performance, so this advantage is structural rather than measured. Similarly, NVIDIA's 48 tensor cores have no AMD counterpart, giving NVIDIA an exclusive feature for AI upscaling and inference workloads. The absence of benchmark scores means these projections rely on the specification deltas, but the ratios are consistent across the recorded metrics.

The Verdict

The data supports a clear split by use case. The AMD Steam Machine GPU is the stronger choice for any scenario that demands high frame rates at standard console resolutions, heavy texture filtering, or high pixel throughput. Its 4.08x FP32 advantage, 7x pixel rate advantage, and 2.81x bandwidth advantage make it the dominant rasterizer. The 110 W TDP and compact dimensions (156 mm by 152 mm by 162 mm) indicate a desktop-style console component with active cooling, not a portable device. Anyone building a fixed Steam Machine or similar living-room console should favor this part for raw performance.

The NVIDIA Switch 2 GPU is the choice for portable or low-power environments. Its 40 W TDP is less than half of AMD's, making it suitable for battery-powered operation. The 12 GB memory capacity exceeds AMD's 8 GB, which helps in memory-heavy titles. The 48 tensor cores provide an exclusive capability for AI-based rendering features. The 272 mm by 116 mm by 14 mm dimensions show a long, thin board designed to fit inside a handheld console chassis. The 449 USD launch MSRP applies to this part, though the database does not record a comparable MSRP for the AMD part. For a hybrid handheld-home console, the NVIDIA part's efficiency and tensor core support are decisive, despite its lower raw throughput.

Neither part dominates across all categories. AMD wins on peak compute, fill rates, bandwidth, and ray tracing core count. NVIDIA wins on power efficiency, memory capacity, tensor core availability, and FP16 scaling. The choice depends entirely on the target form factor and workload mix. The recorded data does not include direct benchmark scores, so the verdict rests on the specification ratios, which are substantial and consistent in each part's favor.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher raw compute performance?

A: The AMD Steam Machine GPU delivers 17.56 TFLOPS FP32, which is approximately 4.08 times the NVIDIA Switch 2 GPU's 4.301 TFLOPS FP32.

Q: How do the memory configurations compare?

A: AMD uses 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus with 288.0 GB/s bandwidth. NVIDIA uses 12 GB of LPDDR5X on a 128-bit bus with 102.4 GB/s bandwidth. AMD has nearly 3 times the bandwidth, while NVIDIA has 50% more capacity.

Q: Which GPU is more power-efficient?

A: The NVIDIA Switch 2 GPU has a 40 W TDP versus AMD's 110 W TDP. Per watt, NVIDIA delivers 0.1075 TFLOPS FP32 per watt (4.301 divided by 40), while AMD delivers 0.1596 TFLOPS FP32 per watt (17.56 divided by 110). AMD is more efficient in FP32 per watt, but NVIDIA's total power draw is far lower.

Q: Does the NVIDIA part have any exclusive features?

A: Yes, the NVIDIA Switch 2 GPU has 48 tensor cores, which are not listed on the AMD part. This enables AI compute workloads that the AMD GPU cannot accelerate in hardware. NVIDIA also has an FP16 rate of 8.602 TFLOPS (2:1 ratio), which is double its FP32 rate, whereas AMD's FP16 matches its FP32.

Q: What are the physical differences between the two GPUs?

A: AMD measures 156 mm by 152 mm by 162 mm, while NVIDIA measures 272 mm by 116 mm by 14 mm. AMD is a compact cube, while NVIDIA is a long, thin board. AMD includes display outputs (HDMI 2.1a and DisplayPort 2.1), while NVIDIA lists no outputs.

Q: Which GPU has more ray tracing cores?

A: The AMD Steam Machine GPU has 28 ray tracing cores, while the NVIDIA Switch 2 GPU has 12. However, the database does not record ray tracing performance benchmarks, so the core count advantage does not directly measure final ray tracing speed.

Specification Differences

The following fields differ between the two parts, based only on the recorded data:

| Field | AMD Steam Machine GPU | NVIDIA Switch 2 GPU |

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

| Chip | Navi 33 | GA10B |

| Architecture | RDNA 3.0 | Ampere |

| Codename | Hotpink Bonefish | Not recorded |

| Process Node | 6 nm | 8 nm |

| Foundry | TSMC | Samsung |

| Transistors | 13,300 million | Unknown |

| Die Size | 204 mm² | 200 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 65.2M / mm² | Not recorded |

| Base Clock | 1720 MHz | 561 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 2450 MHz | 1400 MHz |

| Game Clock | 2250 MHz | Not recorded |

| Memory Clock | 2250 MHz, 18 Gbps effective | 800 MHz, 6.4 Gbps effective |

| Memory Size | 8 GB | 12 GB |

| Memory Type | GDDR6 | LPDDR5X |

| Memory Bus Width | 128 bit | 128 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 288.0 GB/s | 102.4 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 1792 | 1536 |

| TMUs | 112 | 48 |

| ROPs | 64 | 16 |

| RT Cores | 28 | 12 |

| Tensor Cores | Not recorded | 48 |

| Pixel Rate | 156.8 GPixel/s | 22.40 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 274.4 GTexel/s | 67.20 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 17.56 TFLOPS | 4.301 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | 17.56 TFLOPS (1:1) | 8.602 TFLOPS (2:1) |

| TDP | 110 W | 40 W |

| Display Outputs | 1x HDMI 2.1a, 1x DisplayPort 2.1 | No outputs |

| Length | 156 mm, 6.1 inches | 272 mm, 10.7 inches |

| Height | 152 mm, 6 inches | 116 mm, 4.6 inches |

| Width | 162 mm, 6.4 inches | 14 mm, 0.6 inches |

| Release Date | 2026-06-28 | 2025-06-04 |

| Launch MSRP | Not recorded | 449 USD |

The two parts share the same DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4 API support, and neither lists a bus interface or slot width. Production status is Active for both.