Intel Arc Pro A60M vs NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4060 Ti AD104 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data contains no direct head-to-head benchmark results for the Intel Arc Pro A60M versus the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4060 Ti AD104. Both entries list empty benchmark arrays, zero wins for each side, and identical percentile rankings at 50.0% against all GPUs. The absence of comparative scores means the database cannot currently show which part wins in any specific workload. The average benchmark score for each is also zero, which indicates no aggregated performance data has been collected for either product.

Without measured deltas or percentile differences, the only quantitative comparisons available come from the raw specification fields. The RTX 4060 Ti AD104 delivers 22.06 TFLOPS of FP32 compute, while the Arc Pro A60M delivers 5.325 TFLOPS. That is a 4.14x gap in raw shader throughput. The NVIDIA part also reaches 344.8 GTexel/s of texture fill versus 166.4 GTexel/s for the Intel part, a 2.07x advantage. Pixel throughput favors NVIDIA as well at 121.7 GPixel/s compared to 83.20 GPixel/s.

The memory subsystems are closer. Both use 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus. The RTX 4060 Ti AD104 has 288.0 GB/s of bandwidth, while the Arc Pro A60M has 256.0 GB/s, a 12.5% difference. The Intel mobile part runs its memory at 16 Gbps effective, and the NVIDIA desktop card runs at 18 Gbps effective.

Clock behavior also separates the two. The Arc Pro A60M has a 900 MHz base and 1300 MHz boost. The RTX 4060 Ti AD104 has a 2310 MHz base and 2535 MHz boost. The NVIDIA part's boost clock is nearly double the Intel part's boost clock. This clock gap compounds with the shading unit difference: the RTX 4060 Ti AD104 has 4352 shading units versus 2048 on the Arc Pro A60M.

The data suggests the NVIDIA part is in a different performance class, but because the head-to-head table is empty, the database cannot confirm real-world deltas. The wins counters remain at zero for both, so no workload-specific verdict can be drawn from measured results.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different architecture families. The Intel Arc Pro A60M uses Xe-HPG, built on the DG2-256 chip, and belongs to the Alchemist generation for Pro-Series Mobile. The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4060 Ti AD104 uses Ada Lovelace, built on the AD104 chip, and belongs to the GeForce 40 series.

The process nodes differ. Intel uses TSMC's 6 nm process, while NVIDIA uses TSMC's 5 nm process. Transistor counts diverge sharply: the DG2-256 has 11,500 million transistors on a 269 mm² die, and the AD104 has 35,800 million transistors on a 294 mm² die. The transistor density reflects this: the Intel chip has 42.8M transistors per mm², while the NVIDIA chip has 121.8M per mm². The AD104 packs over three times the transistors into a slightly larger die.

Core configurations differ across every unit type. The Arc Pro A60M has 2048 shading units, 128 texture mapping units, and 64 raster output units. The RTX 4060 Ti AD104 has 4352 shading units, 136 TMUs, and 48 ROPs. NVIDIA has more shading units and TMUs but fewer ROPs. Ray tracing hardware also differs: the Intel part has 16 RT cores, while the NVIDIA part has 34 RT cores. The NVIDIA part includes 136 tensor cores; the Intel part lists no tensor core count in the database.

Memory specifications are similar in capacity and bus width. Both have 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit interface. Bandwidth favors NVIDIA at 288.0 GB/s versus 256.0 GB/s. The memory clock is listed as 2000 MHz with 16 Gbps effective for Intel, and 2250 MHz with 18 Gbps effective for NVIDIA.

The form factors differ substantially. The Arc Pro A60M is an integrated graphics processor with IGP slot width and display outputs described as portable device dependent. The RTX 4060 Ti AD104 is a dual-slot add-in card measuring 240 mm in length, 111 mm in height, and 40 mm in width, with power delivered through a single 16-pin connector and a suggested 450 W power supply. The Intel part lists no power connector and no suggested PSU. The bus interfaces also differ: the Arc Pro A60M uses PCIe 4.0 x16, while the RTX 4060 Ti AD104 uses PCIe 4.0 x8.

Power consumption differs by 65 W. The Intel part has a 95 W TDP, and the NVIDIA part has a 160 W TDP. Both support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The production status also differs: the Arc Pro A60M is listed as active, while the RTX 4060 Ti AD104 is end-of-life. The release dates are nine months apart: Intel launched on 2023-06-05, and NVIDIA launched on 2024-03-31.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher FP32 compute performance?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4060 Ti AD104 delivers 22.06 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, which is 4.14 times the 5.325 TFLOPS of the Intel Arc Pro A60M.

Q: Do both GPUs have the same memory configuration?

A: Yes, in capacity and bus width. Both have 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus. They differ in bandwidth: the NVIDIA part has 288.0 GB/s, and the Intel part has 256.0 GB/s.

Q: What process nodes do the two chips use?

A: The Intel DG2-256 chip uses TSMC's 6 nm process, and the NVIDIA AD104 chip uses TSMC's 5 nm process.

Q: How do the transistor counts compare?

A: The AD104 has 35,800 million transistors, while the DG2-256 has 11,500 million. The AD104 die is 294 mm², and the DG2-256 die is 269 mm².

Q: What are the power requirements for each GPU?

A: The Intel Arc Pro A60M has a 95 W TDP and no listed power connector. The NVIDIA RTX 4060 Ti AD104 has a 160 W TDP, uses one 16-pin connector, and has a suggested 450 W power supply.

Q: Which GPU has more ray tracing cores?

A: The NVIDIA RTX 4060 Ti AD104 has 34 RT cores, while the Intel Arc Pro A60M has 16 RT cores. The NVIDIA part also has 136 tensor cores, which the Intel part does not list.

The Verdict

The specification data points to the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4060 Ti AD104 as the stronger compute device. It has more than double the shading units, roughly four times the FP32 throughput, higher clocks, more RT cores, and tensor core support. The memory capacity is equal at 8 GB, and the bandwidth advantage is modest at 12.5%. The NVIDIA part also runs on a denser 5 nm process with over three times the transistor count.

The Intel Arc Pro A60M counters with a lower 95 W TDP versus 160 W, a wider PCIe 4.0 x16 interface versus x8, and a smaller physical footprint as an IGP. It also holds an active production status, while the NVIDIA part is end-of-life. The Intel part has more ROPs at 64 versus 48, which can matter for fill-rate-bound scenes, but its raw pixel rate is still lower at 83.20 GPixel/s versus 121.7 GPixel/s.

The verdict from the data is clear on raw performance: the RTX 4060 Ti AD104 dominates in every measured compute and rendering throughput category. The Arc Pro A60M is the lower-power, integrated option with a production status that remains active. For a mobile professional platform where power draw and integration matter, the Intel part fits a specific niche. For performance, the NVIDIA part is the definitive choice based on the recorded specifications.

Specification Differences

| Field | Intel Arc Pro A60M | NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4060 Ti AD104 |

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

| Architecture | Xe-HPG | Ada Lovelace |

| Generation | Alchemist (Pro-Series Mobile) | GeForce 40 |

| Process node | 6 nm | 5 nm |

| Transistors | 11,500 million | 35,800 million |

| Die size | 269 mm² | 294 mm² |

| Transistor density | 42.8M / mm² | 121.8M / mm² |

| Base clock | 900 MHz | 2310 MHz |

| Boost clock | 1300 MHz | 2535 MHz |

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

| Memory bandwidth | 256.0 GB/s | 288.0 GB/s |

| Shading units | 2048 | 4352 |

| TMUs | 128 | 136 |

| ROPs | 64 | 48 |

| RT cores | 16 | 34 |

| Tensor cores | None listed | 136 |

| Pixel rate | 83.20 GPixel/s | 121.7 GPixel/s |

| Texture rate | 166.4 GTexel/s | 344.8 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 5.325 TFLOPS | 22.06 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | 10.65 TFLOPS (2:1) | 22.06 TFLOPS (1:1) |

| TDP | 95 W | 160 W |

| Slot width | IGP | Dual-slot |

| Power connector | None listed | 1x 16-pin |

| Suggested PSU | None listed | 450 W |

| Bus interface | PCIe 4.0 x16 | PCIe 4.0 x8 |

| Display outputs | Portable Device Dependent | 1x HDMI 2.1, 3x DisplayPort 1.4a |

| Dimensions | None listed | 240 mm x 111 mm x 40 mm |

| Production status | Active | End-of-life |

| Release date | 2023-06-05 | 2024-03-31 |

| Launch MSRP | None listed | 399 USD |

Shared specifications include 8 GB GDDR6 memory, 128-bit bus width, DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, Vulkan 1.4, and TSMC as the foundry.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4060 Ti AD104 wins in every measured performance category. FP32 compute is 4.14x higher at 22.06 TFLOPS. FP16 compute is 2.07x higher at 22.06 TFLOPS versus 10.65 TFLOPS, though the NVIDIA part runs FP16 at a 1:1 ratio while Intel uses a 2:1 ratio. Texture fill is 2.07x higher, pixel fill is 1.46x higher, and memory bandwidth is 12.5% higher. The NVIDIA part also has more shading units, TMUs, RT cores, and the only tensor cores in the comparison. Its boost clock of 2535 MHz is nearly double the Intel boost clock of 1300 MHz.

The Intel Arc Pro A60M wins in efficiency-oriented and integration-oriented fields. Its 95 W TDP is 40.6% lower than the 160 W TDP of the NVIDIA part. It uses a PCIe 4.0 x16 interface, which provides twice the lane width of the NVIDIA part's PCIe 4.0 x8 interface. It has 64 ROPs versus 48, a 33% advantage in ROP count. It is an IGP with no separate power connector requirement and no suggested PSU, making it suitable for portable devices. Its production status remains active, while the NVIDIA part is end-of-life. The Intel part also has a smaller die at 269 mm² versus 294 mm², despite having fewer transistors.

Use-case separation follows these strengths. The RTX 4060 Ti AD104 suits workloads that demand high shader throughput, ray tracing, tensor operations, and texture-heavy rendering. The Arc Pro A60M suits low-power mobile professional systems where the GPU is integrated, the thermal envelope is tight at 95 W, and the PCIe x16 link is preferred over x8. The database shows no overlapping benchmark wins, so the division is strictly along specification lines.