NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4060 AD106 vs NVIDIA N1 16SM Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded database contains no direct benchmark scores for either the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4060 AD106 or the NVIDIA N1 16SM. Both entries report an average benchmark score of zero, and the head-to-head benchmark array is empty. Consequently, there are no measured performance deltas, no percentile shifts, and no quantified wins to allocate between these two parts. The winsA and winsB counters both stand at zero, confirming that no comparative testing data has been logged for this pairing.

What the data does provide is a set of theoretical throughput ceilings derived from each chip's architectural configuration. The RTX 4060 AD106 computes a peak FP32 rate of 15.11 TFLOPS, while the N1 16SM reaches 9.609 TFLOPS. That difference translates to a 57% advantage for the GeForce part in raw single-precision compute. The texture rate tells a different story: the N1 16SM delivers 300.3 GTexel/s against the RTX 4060's 236.2 GTexel/s, a 27% lead for the integrated part. Pixel throughput favors the RTX 4060 at 118.1 GPixel/s versus 56.30 GPixel/s, a 110% gap.

Memory bandwidth is nearly identical, with the RTX 4060 at 272.0 GB/s and the N1 16SM at 273.2 GB/s. The N1 16SM edges ahead by 1.2 GB/s, a margin too small to register as a meaningful competitive advantage. Both parts operate on 5 nm process nodes from TSMC, though the N1 16SM's die is substantially larger at 382 mm² compared to the RTX 4060's 188 mm².

Where Each One Wins

Without logged benchmark results, the wins must be inferred from the architectural specifications. The RTX 4060 AD106 dominates in scenarios that demand raw shading throughput. Its 3072 shading units, 96 TMUs, and 48 ROPs, combined with the 15.11 TFLOPS FP32 rate, position it for compute-heavy workloads such as general-purpose GPU compute, real-time graphics rendering, and applications that rely on pixel fill. The 24 RT cores and 96 tensor cores also give it a hardware acceleration path for ray tracing and AI inference, features that are present but reduced in the N1 16SM's 16 RT cores and 64 tensor cores.

The N1 16SM wins on texture throughput, a metric that reflects its 128 TMUs versus the RTX 4060's 96. That configuration favors workloads with high texture fetch rates, such as certain scientific visualization tasks or image processing pipelines. The N1 16SM also holds a decisive memory capacity advantage with 128 GB of LPDDR5X across a 256-bit bus, compared to the RTX 4060's 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus. For workloads that exceed 8 GB of working set, the N1 16SM can keep data resident without spilling to system memory, while the RTX 4060 would hit its capacity ceiling.

The N1 16SM's PCIe 5.0 x16 interface offers double the per-lane bandwidth of the RTX 4060's PCIe 4.0 x8 connection, which matters for data transfer between GPU and host. Its status as an integrated graphics processor (IGP) with no power connectors and an unknown TDP suggests deployment in a unified memory system, where the 128 GB pool is shared with the CPU. The RTX 4060, by contrast, is a dual-slot discrete card with a 115 W TDP and a 300 W suggested PSU, indicating a traditional add-in-board use case.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different NVIDIA design families. The RTX 4060 AD106 uses the AD106 chip built on the Ada Lovelace architecture, part of the GeForce 40 generation. It integrates 22,900 million transistors on a 188 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 121.8 million per square millimeter. The N1 16SM uses the GB20B chip on the Blackwell 2.0 architecture, designated as part of the Blackwell IGP (N1x) generation. Its transistor count is not recorded, but its die measures 382 mm², nearly double the RTX 4060's footprint.

Clock behavior differs sharply. The RTX 4060 runs a base clock of 1830 MHz and a boost of 2460 MHz. The N1 16SM starts much lower at 741 MHz base but boosts to 2346 MHz, a 3.8% lower peak. Memory clocks also diverge: the RTX 4060 uses 2125 MHz (17 Gbps effective) GDDR6, while the N1 16SM runs 1067 MHz (8.5 Gbps effective) LPDDR5X. Despite the lower memory clock, the N1 16SM's 256-bit bus compensates to reach nearly identical bandwidth.

Compute resource counts favor the RTX 4060 in shading and ray tracing. Its 3072 shading units, 96 TMUs, and 48 ROPs compare to the N1 16SM's 2048, 128, and 24 respectively. The RTX 4060 also has more RT cores (24 vs 16) and more tensor cores (96 vs 64). The N1 16SM's higher TMU count is its only structural advantage, along with the larger memory bus and capacity.

API support separates the two as well. The RTX 4060 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The N1 16SM reports N/A for DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan, indicating it does not expose those graphics APIs in the recorded data. That absence suggests the N1 16SM targets compute or specialized environments rather than conventional gaming or graphics workloads.

Physical and power characteristics also differ. The RTX 4060 is a dual-slot card with a single 12-pin power connector, a 115 W TDP, and a 300 W suggested PSU. It uses PCIe 4.0 x8 and outputs 1x HDMI 2.1 and 3x DisplayPort 1.4a. The N1 16SM is an IGP with no slot width, no power connectors, and an unknown TDP. It uses PCIe 5.0 x16 and has a single HDMI output. Production status marks the RTX 4060 as end-of-life with a release date of 2024-03-31, while the N1 16SM is active with a release date of 2026-05-31.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher raw compute throughput?

A: The RTX 4060 AD106 delivers 15.11 TFLOPS FP32, which is 57% higher than the N1 16SM's 9.609 TFLOPS.

Q: How do the memory configurations compare?

A: The RTX 4060 has 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus with 272.0 GB/s bandwidth. The N1 16SM has 128 GB of LPDDR5X on a 256-bit bus with 273.2 GB/s bandwidth, a negligible 1.2 GB/s bandwidth advantage.

Q: Does either GPU support ray tracing?

A: Both include RT cores. The RTX 4060 has 24 RT cores, while the N1 16SM has 16 RT cores.

Q: What are the API support differences?

A: The RTX 4060 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The N1 16SM reports N/A for all three APIs.

Q: Which GPU has higher texture throughput?

A: The N1 16SM achieves 300.3 GTexel/s, which is 27% higher than the RTX 4060's 236.2 GTexel/s.

Q: What are the physical form factor differences?

A: The RTX 4060 is a dual-slot discrete card with a 115 W TDP, one 12-pin connector, and a 300 W suggested PSU. The N1 16SM is an integrated GPU with no power connectors and an unknown TDP.

The Verdict

The data supports distinct deployment profiles for each GPU. The RTX 4060 AD106 is the stronger choice for tasks that depend on shading throughput, pixel fill, and ray tracing. Its 15.11 TFLOPS FP32, 118.1 GPixel/s pixel rate, and 24 RT cores provide a clear edge in graphics rendering and compute workloads that leverage those resources. Its support for DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4 makes it applicable to standard graphics APIs. The end-of-life production status and 2024 release date indicate it is a mature product from the GeForce 40 generation, with the GeForce 50 series listed as its successor.

The N1 16SM is suited to workloads that prioritize texture throughput and memory capacity. Its 300.3 GTexel/s texture rate and 128 GB unified memory pool exceed the RTX 4060's capabilities in those areas. The PCIe 5.0 x16 interface provides higher host bandwidth, and the integrated form factor with no power connectors suggests a low-power, system-on-chip deployment. However, its N/A API status and lower FP32 throughput limit its applicability to conventional graphics rendering.

Neither part has recorded benchmark scores, so the verdict rests on specification analysis. For users needing a discrete graphics card for gaming or general GPU compute with established API support, the RTX 4060 AD106 offers more shading units, RT cores, tensor cores, and pixel throughput. For workloads that require a large memory footprint and high texture fetch rates in an integrated setting, the N1 16SM delivers those specific strengths, albeit with reduced shading and ray tracing capabilities. The choice depends entirely on which resource profile matches the target workload.