Intel Arc A570M vs NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4060 AD106 Comparison

FAQ

Q: How does the Intel Arc A570M compare to the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4060 AD106 in overall benchmark standing?

A: The Arc A570M sits in the 88th percentile of all GPUs in the database, with an average benchmark score of 58,239. The RTX 4060 AD106 holds the 50th percentile and has no recorded average benchmark score. The Arc card's score places it within 0.3% of the AMD Radeon RX 6950 XT (58,392) and 0.3% ahead of the AMD Radeon RX 5600 OEM (58,085).

Q: What is the compute performance difference between the two GPUs?

A: The RTX 4060 AD106 delivers 15.11 TFLOPS of FP32 compute, which is roughly 2.8 times the Arc A570M's 5.325 TFLOPS. The Arc A570M reaches 10.65 TFLOPS FP16 using a 2:1 ratio, while the RTX 4060 AD106 achieves 15.11 TFLOPS FP16 at a 1:1 ratio.

Q: How do the memory subsystems differ?

A: Both cards use 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus. The RTX 4060 AD106 has 272.0 GB/s of bandwidth versus 224.0 GB/s for the Arc A570M, a 21.4% advantage. Memory clocks are 17 Gbps effective on the RTX 4060 AD106 and 14 Gbps effective on the Arc A570M.

Q: What are the transistor and die size differences?

A: The RTX 4060 AD106 packs 22,900 million transistors on a 188 mm² die, while the Arc A570M has 11,500 million transistors on a 269 mm² die. The RTX 4060 AD106 achieves 121.8 million transistors per mm², nearly three times the Arc A570M's 42.8 million per mm².

Q: How do the shading resources compare?

A: The RTX 4060 AD106 has 3,072 shading units, 96 TMUs, and 48 ROPs. The Arc A570M has 2,048 shading units, 128 TMUs, and 64 ROPs. The NVIDIA chip fields 24 RT cores and 96 tensor cores, while the Arc A570M has 16 RT cores and no tensor cores.

Q: What is the production status of each GPU?

A: The Arc A570M is listed as Active. The RTX 4060 AD106 is listed as End-of-life, with the GeForce 30 as its predecessor and GeForce 50 as its successor.

The Verdict

The recorded data separates these two GPUs into very different usage buckets. The Arc A570M is the only one with an actual benchmark score, delivering 58,239 in Geekbench OpenCL and ranking in the 88th percentile. Its nearest rivals, the AMD Radeon RX 6950 XT, the NVIDIA P102-100, and the AMD Radeon PRO V710, all score within 0.7% of it, indicating that the Arc card competes in a high-end performance tier despite its modest 75 W TDP.

The RTX 4060 AD106 has no recorded benchmark scores and no nearest rivals in the database, leaving its measured performance undefined. Its architecture, Ada Lovelace, provides significantly higher theoretical throughput: 15.11 TFLOPS FP32, 118.1 GPixel/s pixel rate, and 236.2 GTexel/s texture rate. Those figures suggest a faster GPU, but without a recorded benchmark, the database cannot confirm real-world behavior.

The Arc A570M is the choice for anyone relying on verified benchmark results, as it has a concrete score and a percentile ranking. The RTX 4060 AD106 is the choice for those prioritizing raw compute specifications, especially FP32 throughput and memory bandwidth, but its performance remains unverified in the database. The production status also matters: the Arc A570M remains Active, while the RTX 4060 AD106 is End-of-life.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head benchmark table between the two cards is empty, meaning no direct comparative tests exist in the database. However, individual data points allow indirect comparison.

The Arc A570M's only recorded benchmark is Geekbench OpenCL at 58,239. This score places it in the 88th percentile of all GPUs. Its nearest rivals show how tight this field is: the AMD Radeon RX 6950 XT scores 58,392 (0.3% higher), the AMD Radeon RX 5600 OEM scores 58,085 (0.3% lower), the NVIDIA P102-100 scores 58,528 (0.5% higher), and the AMD Radeon PRO V710 scores 58,657 (0.7% higher). The Arc A570M is effectively within a rounding error of all four, indicating that the 88th percentile bracket is extremely dense.

The RTX 4060 AD106 has zero recorded benchmarks and an average score of 0, which places it in the 50th percentile by default. This does not mean it performs at half the level of the Arc card; it means the database lacks any measurement for it. Comparing theoretical rates, the RTX 4060 AD106's FP32 throughput of 15.11 TFLOPS is 184% higher than the Arc A570M's 5.325 TFLOPS. The pixel rate of 118.1 GPixel/s is 42% higher than 83.20 GPixel/s, and the texture rate of 236.2 GTexel/s is 42% higher than 166.4 GTexel/s.

Memory bandwidth favors the RTX 4060 AD106 by 48 GB/s (272.0 versus 224.0). The Arc A570M counters with a higher ROP count (64 versus 48) and higher TMU count (128 versus 96), which could benefit certain rasterization workloads, but no benchmark data confirms this.

Specification Differences

Both GPUs share 8 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 128-bit bus and support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. Beyond that, the differences are substantial.

The Arc A570M uses a 6 nm process, while the RTX 4060 AD106 uses 5 nm. Both are fabricated by TSMC. The Arc A570M has a larger die at 269 mm² versus 188 mm², but fewer transistors: 11,500 million versus 22,900 million. Transistor density tells the story: 42.8M per mm² for Intel versus 121.8M per mm² for NVIDIA.

Clock speeds differ dramatically. The Arc A570M runs at 900 MHz base and 1300 MHz boost. The RTX 4060 AD106 runs at 1830 MHz base and 2460 MHz boost. Memory clocks are 1750 MHz (14 Gbps effective) for the Arc and 2125 MHz (17 Gbps effective) for the RTX 4060 AD106.

The shader configuration diverges: 2,048 shading units, 128 TMUs, and 64 ROPs for the Arc A570M; 3,072 shading units, 96 TMUs, and 48 ROPs for the RTX 4060 AD106. RT core counts are 16 versus 24, and the RTX 4060 AD106 adds 96 tensor cores while the Arc A570M lists none.

Power and physical requirements differ. The Arc A570M has a 75 W TDP and an IGP slot width, meaning it is designed to be integrated into a portable device. The RTX 4060 AD106 has a 115 W TDP, a dual-slot form factor, a single 12-pin power connector, and a suggested PSU of 300 W. The Arc A570M's display outputs are portable-device dependent, while the RTX 4060 AD106 offers 1x HDMI 2.1 and 3x DisplayPort 1.4a.

Release dates also differ: the Arc A570M launched on July 31, 2023, and the RTX 4060 AD106 launched on March 31, 2024.

Architecture Differences

The Arc A570M is built on Intel's Xe-HPG architecture, specifically the DG2-256 chip from the Alchemist generation, marketed as Arc 5 Mobile. The RTX 4060 AD106 is built on NVIDIA's Ada Lovelace architecture, using the AD106 chip from the GeForce 40 generation.

The process node difference is one generation apart: Intel uses 6 nm, NVIDIA uses 5 nm, both from TSMC. The transistor density gap is the most striking architectural divergence. The RTX 4060 AD106 crams 121.8 million transistors per square millimeter, versus 42.8 million for the Arc A570M. This allows the NVIDIA chip to fit nearly double the transistors on a smaller die: 22,900 million on 188 mm² versus 11,500 million on 269 mm².

Compute architecture differs in FP16 handling. The Arc A570M uses a 2:1 FP16 rate, delivering 10.65 TFLOPS, while the RTX 4060 AD106 uses a 1:1 rate, delivering 15.11 TFLOPS. This suggests the Intel architecture is optimized for FP32 with reduced FP16 throughput, while the NVIDIA architecture handles both at full rate.

The RTX 4060 AD106 includes 96 tensor cores, which are absent from the Arc A570M. Tensor cores are typically used for AI acceleration, but the database does not include specific AI benchmarks for either card. RT core counts are 24 versus 16, giving the RTX 4060 AD106 a 50% advantage in ray tracing hardware.

The Arc A570M's higher TMU and ROP counts (128 and 64 versus 96 and 48) indicate a different rasterization pipeline design. With 83.20 GPixel/s and 166.4 GTexel/s, the Arc card's rates are lower than the RTX 4060 AD106's 118.1 GPixel/s and 236.2 GTexel/s, despite having more units, because clock speeds are much lower.

Where Each One Wins

The Arc A570M wins on verified benchmark presence. It has a concrete Geekbench OpenCL score of 58,239 and an 88th percentile ranking. It also wins on physical integration: a 75 W TDP and IGP slot width make it suitable for portable devices, whereas the RTX 4060 AD106 requires a dual-slot layout and a 300 W suggested PSU.

The Arc A570M wins on rasterization unit counts. Its 128 TMUs and 64 ROPs exceed the RTX 4060 AD106's 96 TMUs and 48 ROPs. For workloads that are fill-rate limited, the higher TMU and ROP counts could offset some of the clock speed disadvantage, though the recorded data does not include a specific test for this.

The RTX 4060 AD106 wins on nearly every raw compute specification. FP32 throughput of 15.11 TFLOPS is nearly triple the Arc A570M's 5.325 TFLOPS. Pixel rate of 118.1 GPixel/s and texture rate of 236.2 GTexel/s are both roughly 42% higher. Memory bandwidth of 272.0 GB/s is 21.4% higher.

The RTX 4060 AD106 wins on architectural features. Its 96 tensor cores provide AI acceleration hardware that the Arc A570M lacks entirely. Its 24 RT cores exceed the Arc's 16. The 1:1 FP16 rate doubles the Arc's FP16 throughput in absolute terms, even though the Arc has a 2:1 rate.

The RTX 4060 AD106 wins on efficiency of design. It delivers higher theoretical performance from a smaller die (188 mm² versus 269 mm²) and a higher clock speed (2460 MHz boost versus 1300 MHz boost). The transistor density of 121.8M per mm² indicates a much more compact layout.

The Arc A570M wins on production status. It is Active, while the RTX 4060 AD106 is End-of-life with a successor already defined as GeForce 50. For deployment scenarios where longevity matters, the Active status of the Arc A570M is the only verified advantage in the database.

The RTX 4060 AD106 wins on memory speed with 17 Gbps effective versus 14 Gbps. It also wins on display connectivity, offering 1x HDMI 2.1 and 3x DisplayPort 1.4a, while the Arc A570M's outputs are portable-device dependent.

The Arc A570M wins on power draw, with 75 W TDP versus 115 W TDP for the RTX 4060 AD106. This 40 W difference makes the Arc card more suitable for thermally constrained environments, consistent with its IGP form factor.