NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4060 AD106 vs NVIDIA Switch 2 GPU Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The recorded data splits these two NVIDIA parts into entirely different performance classes. The RTX 4060 AD106 is a desktop graphics card built for general-purpose rendering workloads, while the Switch 2 GPU is a console processor optimized for a fixed power envelope. In raw compute terms, the RTX 4060 AD106 holds a decisive advantage across every measurable metric. Its FP32 throughput of 15.11 TFLOPS is roughly 3.5 times the Switch 2 GPU’s 4.301 TFLOPS. The texture rate tells a similar story: 236.2 GTexel/s against 67.20 GTexel/s, a 3.5x gap. The pixel rate difference is even larger, with the RTX 4060 AD106 producing 118.1 GPixel/s versus the Switch 2 GPU’s 22.40 GPixel/s, a 5.3x margin.

The Switch 2 GPU does claim one notable win: FP16 compute. Its FP16 figure of 8.602 TFLOPS exceeds its FP32 output because the architecture uses a 2:1 ratio, effectively doubling throughput on half-precision workloads. The RTX 4060 AD106 runs FP16 at a 1:1 ratio, matching its FP32 at 15.11 TFLOPS. Even so, the RTX 4060 AD106 still outputs more FP16 compute in absolute terms. The Switch 2 GPU’s advantage is purely architectural, not a practical performance lead.

Memory capacity is the other area where the Switch 2 GPU wins outright. It carries 12 GB of LPDDR5X, while the RTX 4060 AD106 has 8 GB of GDDR6. The desktop card compensates with far higher bandwidth: 272.0 GB/s versus 102.4 GB/s, a 2.7x gap. The Switch 2 GPU’s larger pool helps with console-style asset loading, but the bandwidth deficit limits how fast that memory can feed the GPU cores.

Architecture Differences

The two chips come from different NVIDIA architectures and different foundries. The RTX 4060 AD106 uses the Ada Lovelace architecture built on a 5 nm TSMC process, packing 22,900 million transistors into a 188 mm² die. That works out to a transistor density of 121.8M per mm². The Switch 2 GPU uses the Ampere architecture on an 8 nm Samsung process, with a die size of 200 mm² and an unknown transistor count. The desktop chip is smaller yet denser, reflecting the more advanced manufacturing node.

Core configuration diverges sharply. The RTX 4060 AD106 has 3,072 shading units, 96 texture mapping units, 48 render output units, 24 RT cores, and 96 tensor cores. The Switch 2 GPU halves most of that: 1,536 shading units, 48 TMUs, 16 ROPs, 12 RT cores, and 48 tensor cores. The ROP count is disproportionately low on the Switch 2 GPU, which explains its small pixel rate relative to the texture rate. Clock speeds also differ dramatically. The RTX 4060 AD106 runs at a base of 1830 MHz and boosts to 2460 MHz. The Switch 2 GPU idles at 561 MHz base and boosts to 1400 MHz, a much lower ceiling imposed by its 40 W TDP.

Memory subsystems use different technologies. The RTX 4060 AD106 pairs 8 GB of GDDR6 with a 128-bit bus and memory clocks of 2125 MHz (17 Gbps effective). The Switch 2 GPU uses 12 GB of LPDDR5X on the same 128-bit bus, but memory clocks of 800 MHz (6.4 Gbps effective). The desktop card’s faster memory clock is the primary reason its bandwidth reaches 272.0 GB/s versus 102.4 GB/s. Power consumption reflects the design goals: the RTX 4060 AD106 draws 115 W and needs a 300 W suggested PSU with a 12-pin connector, while the Switch 2 GPU sips 40 W and has no external power connectors or PSU requirement.

Physical and interface details also differ. The RTX 4060 AD106 is a dual-slot card with PCIe 4.0 x8, one HDMI 2.1 port, and three DisplayPort 1.4a outputs. The Switch 2 GPU has no display outputs at all, as it feeds a fixed console display pipeline. Its dimensions are listed as 272 mm by 116 mm by 14 mm, while the desktop card’s dimensions are not recorded. The Switch 2 GPU is an active production part with a launch MSRP of 449 USD, whereas the RTX 4060 AD106 is end-of-life, released in March 2024, with no launch MSRP recorded. The desktop card’s predecessor is GeForce 30 and its successor is GeForce 50; the Switch 2 GPU has neither.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher raw FP32 performance?

A: The RTX 4060 AD106 delivers 15.11 TFLOPS, while the Switch 2 GPU delivers 4.301 TFLOPS. The desktop card is roughly 3.5 times faster in single-precision compute.

Q: Why does the Switch 2 GPU have a higher FP16 number relative to its FP32?

A: The Switch 2 GPU uses a 2:1 FP16 ratio, doubling throughput to 8.602 TFLOPS from its 4.301 TFLOPS FP32 baseline. The RTX 4060 AD106 runs FP16 at a 1:1 ratio, so its FP16 remains 15.11 TFLOPS.

Q: How does memory bandwidth compare between the two?

A: The RTX 4060 AD106 has 272.0 GB/s bandwidth from 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus. The Switch 2 GPU has 102.4 GB/s from 12 GB of LPDDR5X on the same bus width, a 2.7x bandwidth advantage for the desktop card.

Q: Which GPU has more render output units?

A: The RTX 4060 AD106 has 48 ROPs, while the Switch 2 GPU has 16 ROPs. This contributes to the large pixel rate gap of 118.1 GPixel/s versus 22.40 GPixel/s.

Q: What is the transistor density difference?

A: The RTX 4060 AD106 achieves 121.8M transistors per mm² on a 5 nm TSMC process with 22,900 million transistors in a 188 mm² die. The Switch 2 GPU’s transistor count is unknown, but its die is 200 mm² on an 8 nm Samsung process.

Q: Do both support the same APIs?

A: Yes, both list DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4 in the database.

Specification Differences

The table below isolates the fields where the two GPUs differ, based solely on recorded data.

| Specification | RTX 4060 AD106 | Switch 2 GPU |

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

| Architecture | Ada Lovelace | Ampere |

| Process node | 5 nm | 8 nm |

| Foundry | TSMC | Samsung |

| Transistors | 22,900 million | unknown |

| Die size | 188 mm² | 200 mm² |

| Transistor density | 121.8M / mm² | null |

| Base clock | 1830 MHz | 561 MHz |

| Boost clock | 2460 MHz | 1400 MHz |

| Memory clock | 2125 MHz 17 Gbps effective | 800 MHz 6.4 Gbps effective |

| Memory size | 8 GB | 12 GB |

| Memory type | GDDR6 | LPDDR5X |

| Bandwidth | 272.0 GB/s | 102.4 GB/s |

| Shading units | 3072 | 1536 |

| TMUs | 96 | 48 |

| ROPs | 48 | 16 |

| RT cores | 24 | 12 |

| Tensor cores | 96 | 48 |

| Pixel rate | 118.1 GPixel/s | 22.40 GPixel/s |

| Texture rate | 236.2 GTexel/s | 67.20 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 15.11 TFLOPS | 4.301 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | 15.11 TFLOPS (1:1) | 8.602 TFLOPS (2:1) |

| TDP | 115 W | 40 W |

| Slot width | Dual-slot | null |

| Power connectors | 1x 12-pin | null |

| Suggested PSU | 300 W | null |

| Bus interface | PCIe 4.0 x8 | null |

| Display outputs | 1x HDMI 2.1, 3x DisplayPort 1.4a | No outputs |

| Dimensions | null | 272 mm x 116 mm x 14 mm |

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

| Release date | 2024-03-31 | 2025-06-04 |

| Launch MSRP | null | 449 USD |

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database records no direct benchmark scores for either GPU, so the head-to-head comparison relies entirely on the computed specification rates. The largest single gap appears in pixel throughput. The RTX 4060 AD106 outputs 118.1 GPixel/s, which is 5.3 times the Switch 2 GPU’s 22.40 GPixel/s. This stems from the desktop card’s 48 ROPs, triple the Switch 2 GPU’s 16, combined with a much higher boost clock of 2460 MHz versus 1400 MHz.

Texture rate shows a 3.5x difference. The RTX 4060 AD106 reaches 236.2 GTexel/s with 96 TMUs, while the Switch 2 GPU manages 67.20 GTexel/s with 48 TMUs. The shading unit count follows the same ratio: 3,072 versus 1,536, producing the identical 3.5x gap in FP32 compute (15.11 TFLOPS versus 4.301 TFLOPS). Those three metrics, shading units, TMUs, and FP32, all scale linearly with the core count difference, as expected from the same architectural family.

The FP16 comparison is more nuanced. The Switch 2 GPU’s 2:1 FP16 ratio brings its output to 8.602 TFLOPS, which is double its FP32 rate. The RTX 4060 AD106’s 1:1 ratio keeps FP16 at 15.11 TFLOPS, so the desktop card still leads by 1.76x. Had the Switch 2 GPU not implemented the 2:1 ratio, its FP16 would have matched its FP32 at 4.301 TFLOPS, widening the gap further.

Bandwidth is another decisive metric. The RTX 4060 AD106’s 272.0 GB/s is 2.7 times the Switch 2 GPU’s 102.4 GB/s. The desktop card’s GDDR6 memory at 17 Gbps effective easily outpaces the console’s LPDDR5X at 6.4 Gbps effective, despite both using a 128-bit bus. The Switch 2 GPU’s only memory-related advantage is capacity, 12 GB versus 8 GB, which does not appear in any throughput figure.

Power efficiency favors the Switch 2 GPU in raw terms. Its 40 W TDP is less than a third of the RTX 4060 AD106’s 115 W, yet it delivers roughly 28% of the FP32 performance. That translates to better performance per watt on the console chip, though the desktop card’s absolute performance remains far higher. The RTX 4060 AD106 also requires a 300 W suggested PSU and a 12-pin power connector, while the Switch 2 GPU has no such requirements.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear functional split. The RTX 4060 AD106 is the superior compute device on every throughput metric: FP32, FP16, pixel rate, texture rate, and memory bandwidth. Its 15.11 TFLOPS FP32 and 272.0 GB/s bandwidth make it suitable for high-resolution rendering and general desktop workloads. The Switch 2 GPU, with 4.301 TFLOPS FP32 and 102.4 GB/s, operates at a fraction of that capability, constrained by its 40 W power budget and console role.

The Switch 2 GPU’s advantages are limited to memory capacity (12 GB versus 8 GB), a smaller power draw (40 W versus 115 W), and a 2:1 FP16 ratio that doubles its half-precision output. Those traits fit a fixed-function console environment where power efficiency and memory pool size matter more than raw peak rates. The RTX 4060 AD106’s end-of-life status, dual-slot cooler, and PCIe 4.0 x8 interface mark it as a conventional expansion card, whereas the Switch 2 GPU is an active, integrated console processor with no display outputs.

Neither GPU wins outright in a universal sense because they target different use cases. Benchmark results indicate that any workload dominated by FP32 compute, rasterization, or high-bandwidth memory access will favor the RTX 4060 AD106 by margins of 2.7x to 5.3x. Workloads that rely on large memory pools or minimal power draw will favor the Switch 2 GPU. The recorded data does not include any actual benchmark scores, so the comparison rests on the specification-level rates, which consistently place the desktop part in a higher performance tier.