NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4060 AD106 vs NVIDIA Rubin GPU Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded database contains no benchmark scores for either the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4060 AD106 or the NVIDIA Rubin GPU. Both entries carry an average benchmark score of 0, and the head-to-head benchmark array is empty. Consequently, there are no direct performance comparisons to quantify in this section. The absence of measured data reflects the different market positions of these two parts: one is an end-of-life consumer graphics card, while the other is an active server accelerator with no display outputs. Without benchmark results, the only meaningful comparisons derive from their architectural specifications, which are analyzed in the following sections.

The RTX 4060 AD106 sits at the 50th percentile among all GPUs in the database, a neutral placement indicating it performs near the middle of the recorded field. The Rubin GPU also sits at the 50th percentile, though this value carries no comparative weight given that no benchmark scores exist for it. The percentile fields are identical, but the underlying data does not support any statement about relative performance. No wins are recorded for either product in the head-to-head array, which lists zero victories for each side. The data simply does not contain the measurements needed to declare a winner in any workload category.

What can be stated from the available figures is that the RTX 4060 AD106 delivers 15.11 TFLOPS of FP32 compute, while the Rubin GPU delivers 130.0 TFLOPS in the same precision. In FP16, the RTX 4060 AD106 maintains 15.11 TFLOPS with a 1:1 ratio, whereas the Rubin GPU reaches 260.0 TFLOPS with a 2:1 ratio, meaning it processes twice as many FP16 operations per clock as FP32. These numbers are theoretical peak rates from the specification sheets, not measured benchmark results. The Rubin GPU's FP32 figure is roughly 8.6 times higher than the RTX 4060 AD106's, and its FP16 figure is roughly 17.2 times higher. Pixel fill rates diverge in the opposite direction: the RTX 4060 AD106 outputs 118.1 GPixel/s, while the Rubin GPU outputs 54.41 GPixel/s, a gap that reflects the Rubin part's server-oriented design with only 24 ROPs. Texture fill rates favor the Rubin GPU heavily, with 2,031.2 GTexel/s versus 236.2 GTexel/s for the RTX 4060 AD106.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs represent entirely different architectural lineages and market segments. The RTX 4060 AD106 uses the Ada Lovelace architecture on a 5 nm process from TSMC, while the Rubin GPU uses the Rubin architecture on a 3 nm process, also from TSMC. The transistor counts differ enormously: the RTX 4060 AD106 contains 22,900 million transistors on a die size of 188 mm², yielding a transistor density of 121.8 million per mm². The Rubin GPU contains 336,000 million transistors on a die size of 1456 mm², for a density of 230.8 million per mm². The Rubin GPU's die is roughly 7.7 times larger and its transistor count roughly 14.7 times higher, reflecting a design aimed at massive parallel compute rather than consumer gaming.

Clock behavior also distinguishes the two. The RTX 4060 AD106 operates at a base clock of 1830 MHz and a boost clock of 2460 MHz, with memory clocked at 2125 MHz (17 Gbps effective). The Rubin GPU runs at a much lower base clock of 700 MHz but boosts to 2267 MHz, with memory at 2695 MHz (10.8 Gbps effective). Memory subsystems are in different leagues: the RTX 4060 AD106 uses 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus, producing 272.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The Rubin GPU uses 288 GB of HBM4 on a 16384-bit bus, producing 22.1 TB/s of bandwidth, which is roughly 81 times higher. The bus width difference (128 bit versus 16384 bit) explains most of this bandwidth gap.

Compute resources show similar scaling. The RTX 4060 AD106 has 3072 shading units, 96 texture mapping units, 48 ROPs, 24 RT cores, and 96 tensor cores. The Rubin GPU has 28672 shading units, 896 texture mapping units, 24 ROPs, and 896 tensor cores, with no RT core count listed. Shading units are roughly 9.3 times more numerous on the Rubin GPU, and tensor cores are also 896 versus 96, a factor of roughly 9.3. The ROP count is lower on the Rubin GPU (24 versus 48), which aligns with its lower pixel rate. The RTX 4060 AD106 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The Rubin GPU lists N/A for DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan, indicating it does not expose those graphics APIs, consistent with a server accelerator that has no display outputs.

Power and physical design differ sharply. The RTX 4060 AD106 has a TDP of 115 W, uses a dual-slot form factor, requires a single 12-pin power connector, and recommends a 300 W PSU. The Rubin GPU has a TDP of 2300 W, comes as an SXM module, lists no power connector (since SXM modules receive power through the socket), and recommends a 2700 W PSU. The RTX 4060 AD106 uses a PCIe 4.0 x8 bus interface, while the Rubin GPU uses PCIe 6.0 x16. Display outputs are present on the RTX 4060 AD106 (1x HDMI 2.1 and 3x DisplayPort 1.4a) and absent on the Rubin GPU, which lists no outputs. Production status also differs: the RTX 4060 AD106 is end-of-life, and the Rubin GPU is active.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has more memory bandwidth?

A: The Rubin GPU has substantially more memory bandwidth at 22.1 TB/s, using 288 GB of HBM4 on a 16384-bit bus. The RTX 4060 AD106 provides 272.0 GB/s through 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus. The Rubin GPU's bandwidth is roughly 81 times higher.

Q: What are the pixel fill rates of the two GPUs?

A: The RTX 4060 AD106 delivers 118.1 GPixel/s, while the Rubin GPU delivers 54.41 GPixel/s. The RTX 4060 AD106 has a higher pixel rate despite having 48 ROPs versus the Rubin GPU's 24 ROPs, because its boost clock is higher and its ROP count is double.

Q: Do both GPUs support the same graphics APIs?

A: No. The RTX 4060 AD106 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The Rubin GPU lists N/A for all three APIs, and it has no display outputs, indicating it is not designed for graphics rendering workloads.

Q: What is the FP16 compute capability of each GPU?

A: The RTX 4060 AD106 achieves 15.11 TFLOPS in FP16 with a 1:1 ratio relative to FP32. The Rubin GPU achieves 260.0 TFLOPS in FP16 with a 2:1 ratio, meaning its FP16 throughput is double its FP32 throughput of 130.0 TFLOPS.

Q: How do the transistor densities compare?

A: The RTX 4060 AD106 has a transistor density of 121.8 million per mm², while the Rubin GPU has a density of 230.8 million per mm². The Rubin GPU's higher density comes from its 3 nm process node versus the RTX 4060 AD106's 5 nm node, both fabricated by TSMC.

Q: Which GPU has more tensor cores?

A: The Rubin GPU has 896 tensor cores, compared to 96 tensor cores on the RTX 4060 AD106. This is a factor of roughly 9.3 more tensor cores on the Rubin GPU, aligning with its server-oriented compute role.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ in nearly every recorded specification field. Process node: 5 nm (RTX 4060 AD106) versus 3 nm (Rubin GPU). Transistors: 22,900 million versus 336,000 million. Die size: 188 mm² versus 1456 mm². Transistor density: 121.8M per mm² versus 230.8M per mm². Base clock: 1830 MHz versus 700 MHz. Boost clock: 2460 MHz versus 2267 MHz. Memory clock: 2125 MHz (17 Gbps effective) versus 2695 MHz (10.8 Gbps effective). Memory size: 8 GB versus 288 GB. Memory type: GDDR6 versus HBM4. Bus width: 128 bit versus 16384 bit. Bandwidth: 272.0 GB/s versus 22.1 TB/s.

Compute resources differ across the board. Shading units: 3072 versus 28672. TMUs: 96 versus 896. ROPs: 48 versus 24. RT cores: 24 versus null (not listed). Tensor cores: 96 versus 896. Pixel rate: 118.1 GPixel/s versus 54.41 GPixel/s. Texture rate: 236.2 GTexel/s versus 2,031.2 GTexel/s. FP32: 15.11 TFLOPS versus 130.0 TFLOPS. FP16: 15.11 TFLOPS (1:1) versus 260.0 TFLOPS (2:1). TDP: 115 W versus 2300 W. Slot width: dual-slot versus SXM module. Power connectors: 1x 12-pin versus null. Suggested PSU: 300 W versus 2700 W. Bus interface: PCIe 4.0 x8 versus PCIe 6.0 x16. Display outputs: 1x HDMI 2.1 and 3x DisplayPort 1.4a versus no outputs. APIs: DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, Vulkan 1.4 versus N/A for all.

Additional differences appear in production status and release timing. The RTX 4060 AD106 is end-of-life and released on 2024-03-31, while the Rubin GPU is active and released on 2025-12-31. The RTX 4060 AD106 belongs to the GeForce 40-series with the Ada Lovelace architecture and a GeForce 40 generation designation. The Rubin GPU has no series, uses the Rubin architecture, and belongs to the Server Rubin (Rxx) generation. Predecessors and successors also differ: the RTX 4060 AD106 lists GeForce 30 as its predecessor and GeForce 50 as its successor, while the Rubin GPU lists Server Blackwell as its predecessor and no successor. The chip identifiers are AD106 for the RTX 4060 AD106 and GR100 for the Rubin GPU.

The Verdict

The data describes two products with no overlap in purpose. The RTX 4060 AD106 is an end-of-life consumer graphics card with display outputs, graphics API support, a 115 W TDP, and a dual-slot form factor. It delivers 15.11 TFLOPS of FP32 compute, 272.0 GB/s of memory bandwidth, and a pixel rate of 118.1 GPixel/s. The Rubin GPU is an active server accelerator with no display outputs, no graphics API support, a 2300 W TDP, and an SXM module form factor. It delivers 130.0 TFLOPS of FP32 compute, 22.1 TB/s of memory bandwidth, and a pixel rate of 54.41 GPixel/s.

For any workload involving graphics rendering, video output, or consumer gaming, the RTX 4060 AD106 is the only viable choice from these two, since the Rubin GPU lacks display outputs and graphics APIs entirely. The RTX 4060 AD106's higher pixel rate and ROP count reinforce this role. For compute-heavy server workloads, the Rubin GPU is overwhelmingly more capable, with roughly 8.6 times the FP32 throughput, roughly 17.2 times the FP16 throughput, roughly 9.3 times the shading units, and roughly 81 times the memory bandwidth. The absence of benchmark scores means these conclusions rest entirely on specification data, not measured performance. Users requiring graphics functionality should select the RTX 4060 AD106. Users requiring massive parallel compute, particularly in FP16 or tensor operations, should select the Rubin GPU. The recorded data supports no other conclusion, as the two products occupy separate market segments with mutually exclusive feature sets.