NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4060 Max-Q vs NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4060 Ti AD104 Comparison

FAQ

Q: What are the core differences between the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4060 Max-Q and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4060 Ti AD104?

A: The RTX 4060 Max-Q uses the AD107 chip, while the RTX 4060 Ti AD104 uses the AD104 chip. The Max-Q variant has 3072 shading units, 96 TMUs, 24 RT cores, and 96 tensor cores, whereas the AD104 variant has 4352 shading units, 136 TMUs, 34 RT cores, and 136 tensor cores.

Q: How do the memory subsystems compare between these two GPUs?

A: Both GPUs feature 8 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 128-bit bus. The RTX 4060 Max-Q runs memory at 2000 MHz with 16 Gbps effective speed and delivers 256.0 GB/s bandwidth. The RTX 4060 Ti AD104 runs memory at 2250 MHz with 18 Gbps effective speed and delivers 288.0 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: What is the difference in power consumption and physical footprint?

A: The RTX 4060 Max-Q has a TDP of 35 W and uses an IGP slot width with no power connectors. The RTX 4060 Ti AD104 has a TDP of 160 W, uses a dual-slot design, requires a 1x 16-pin power connector, and has a suggested PSU of 450 W. The AD104 card measures 240 mm in length, 111 mm in height, and 40 mm in width.

Q: What are the compute performance differences in raw throughput?

A: The RTX 4060 Max-Q delivers 9.032 TFLOPS for both FP32 and FP16. The RTX 4060 Ti AD104 delivers 22.06 TFLOPS for both FP32 and FP16, representing roughly 2.4 times the raw compute throughput.

Q: Do both GPUs support the same API feature set?

A: Yes, both support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. Both use the Ada Lovelace architecture and are fabricated on TSMC's 5 nm process node.

Q: What are the production and release status differences?

A: The RTX 4060 Max-Q is listed as Active production status with a release date of 2023-01-02. The RTX 4060 Ti AD104 is listed as End-of-life with a release date of 2024-03-31 and a launch MSRP of 399 USD.

The Verdict

The recorded data presents two distinctly positioned GPUs within the GeForce 40-series family. The RTX 4060 Max-Q is engineered for constrained power envelopes, with a 35 W TDP that allows integration into portable devices where physical dimensions and power delivery are dependent on the host system. The RTX 4060 Ti AD104, by contrast, operates at a 160 W TDP, requires a dual-slot footprint with a 16-pin connector, and carries a suggested PSU of 450 W. Its physical dimensions of 240 mm length, 111 mm height, and 40 mm width place it firmly in the desktop expansion card category.

Benchmark results indicate a substantial performance gulf. The RTX 4060 Ti AD104 delivers 22.06 TFLOPS of FP32 throughput versus 9.032 TFLOPS for the Max-Q variant, a difference of approximately 2.4 times. Pixel fill rates tell a similar story: 121.7 GPixel/s versus 70.56 GPixel/s. Texture fill rates show 344.8 GTexel/s versus 141.1 GTexel/s. Memory bandwidth also favors the AD104 part at 288.0 GB/s versus 256.0 GB/s.

For users selecting between these two, the decision rests on the intended deployment scenario. The RTX 4060 Max-Q suits thin-and-light portable systems where a 35 W power budget and integrated form factor are non-negotiable constraints. The RTX 4060 Ti AD104 suits conventional desktop builds with adequate power delivery and chassis space, where higher compute throughput and memory bandwidth translate directly into better frame rates. The data confirms that the AD104 variant is the stronger performer across every measured specification, while the Max-Q variant is the only option for systems that cannot accommodate a discrete dual-slot card with external power.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The raw specification data provides a clear hierarchy. The RTX 4060 Ti AD104 leads in every computational category. FP32 throughput stands at 22.06 TFLOPS versus 9.032 TFLOPS, giving the AD104 a 144% advantage. FP16 performance follows identically at 22.06 TFLOPS versus 9.032 TFLOPS, since both GPUs implement FP16 at a 1:1 ratio with FP32.

Texture processing shows the AD104 with 344.8 GTexel/s against 141.1 GTexel/s for the Max-Q, a 144% lead that reflects both the higher TMU count (136 versus 96) and the substantially higher boost clock (2535 MHz versus 1470 MHz). Pixel throughput favors the AD104 at 121.7 GPixel/s versus 70.56 GPixel/s, a 72.5% advantage, even though both GPUs have the same 48 ROPs. The difference stems entirely from the clock speed disparity.

Memory bandwidth provides a narrower gap. The AD104 achieves 288.0 GB/s versus 256.0 GB/s, a 12.5% advantage. Both use 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus, so the difference comes from the higher memory clock: 2250 MHz with 18 Gbps effective versus 2000 MHz with 16 Gbps effective.

Clock speeds represent one of the largest differentiators. The AD104 runs at a base of 2310 MHz and boosts to 2535 MHz. The Max-Q runs at a base of 1140 MHz and boosts to 1470 MHz. The AD104's boost clock is 72.4% higher than the Max-Q's boost clock. This clock advantage compounds with the larger chip to produce the overall performance gap.

The transistor counts differ dramatically: 35,800 million for the AD104 versus 18,900 million for the AD107. Die size also differs at 294 mm² versus 159 mm². Transistor density is comparable at 121.8M / mm² versus 118.9M / mm², confirming that the performance difference comes from die area and clock speed rather than density improvements.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs diverge across nearly every measurable specification. The RTX 4060 Max-Q uses the AD107 chip, while the RTX 4060 Ti AD104 uses the AD104 chip. Both belong to the Ada Lovelace architecture and use TSMC's 5 nm process node.

Shading units: 3072 on the Max-Q versus 4352 on the AD104, a 41.7% increase. TMUs: 96 versus 136, a 41.7% increase. ROPs are identical at 48 on both. RT cores: 24 versus 34, a 41.7% increase. Tensor cores: 96 versus 136, a 41.7% increase. The consistent 41.7% scaling across all compute units reflects the proportional die size difference between AD107 and AD104.

Clock speeds differ substantially. The Max-Q operates at 1140 MHz base and 1470 MHz boost. The AD104 operates at 2310 MHz base and 2535 MHz boost. The AD104's boost clock is 72.4% higher.

Memory clocks also differ: 2000 MHz with 16 Gbps effective for the Max-Q versus 2250 MHz with 18 Gbps effective for the AD104. Both use 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus. Bandwidth consequently differs: 256.0 GB/s versus 288.0 GB/s.

Power specifications show the widest divergence. The Max-Q has a 35 W TDP, uses an IGP slot width, and requires no power connectors. The AD104 has a 160 W TDP, uses a dual-slot design, requires a 1x 16-pin power connector, and has a suggested PSU of 450 W. The AD104's TDP is 4.6 times higher.

Physical specifications differ as well. The Max-Q is listed as "Portable Device Dependent" for display outputs and has no listed dimensions. The AD104 has specific dimensions: 240 mm length, 111 mm height, 40 mm width, and outputs include 1x HDMI 2.1 and 3x DisplayPort 1.4a.

Bus interface is identical: PCIe 4.0 x8 for both. Production status differs: Active for the Max-Q versus End-of-life for the AD104. Release dates differ: 2023-01-02 for the Max-Q versus 2024-03-31 for the AD104.

Architecture Differences

Both GPUs share the Ada Lovelace architecture and TSMC's 5 nm process node. The foundational design principles are identical, including DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4 API support. FP16 operates at a 1:1 ratio with FP32 on both chips, indicating the same compute pipeline structure.

The architectural difference lies in chip scale and implementation. The AD104 chip contains 35,800 million transistors across a 294 mm² die, achieving a transistor density of 121.8M / mm². The AD107 chip contains 18,900 million transistors across a 159 mm² die, achieving 118.9M / mm². The density figures are nearly identical, confirming that both chips come from the same process generation and design philosophy. The AD104 simply scales up the design with more compute units.

The RT core and tensor core counts scale in proportion to the shading units. The AD104 has 34 RT cores and 136 tensor cores versus 24 RT cores and 96 tensor cores on the AD107. This proportional scaling indicates the same per-SM architecture, just more SMs on the larger chip.

Clock behavior represents the most significant architectural implementation difference. The Max-Q's 1470 MHz boost clock versus the AD104's 2535 MHz boost clock reflects the power envelope targets. The 35 W TDP of the Max-Q constrains clocks severely, while the 160 W TDP of the AD104 allows much higher operating frequencies. Both chips are capable of the same architectural features, but the Max-Q implementation prioritizes power efficiency over raw throughput.

Memory architecture is identical in width: both use a 128-bit bus with 8 GB GDDR6. The Max-Q's memory operates at 16 Gbps effective, while the AD104's operates at 18 Gbps effective. The higher memory clock on the AD104 contributes to its 288.0 GB/s bandwidth versus 256.0 GB/s.

The display output configuration differs. The Max-Q is "Portable Device Dependent," meaning the display connectivity depends on the host laptop design. The AD104 provides 1x HDMI 2.1 and 3x DisplayPort 1.4a, standard desktop outputs. This reflects the integration model: one is a mobile component, the other a standalone expansion card.

Where Each One Wins

The RTX 4060 Ti AD104 wins decisively in every raw performance metric. FP32 and FP16 compute show a 144% advantage. Texture rate shows a 144% advantage. Pixel rate shows a 72.5% advantage. Memory bandwidth shows a 12.5% advantage. The boost clock is 72.4% higher. These advantages all stem from the combination of a larger chip (4352 versus 3072 shading units) and much higher operating clocks (2535 MHz versus 1470 MHz boost).

The RTX 4060 Max-Q wins in power efficiency and integration flexibility. Its 35 W TDP is 78% lower than the AD104's 160 W TDP. It requires no power connectors and uses an IGP slot width, meaning it can be integrated directly into portable devices without discrete power delivery or expansion slot space. The display outputs are portable-device dependent, which means the host system determines connectivity rather than the GPU itself. This makes it suitable for thin-and-light laptops where power draw and physical footprint are the primary constraints.

The AD104 wins in desktop deployment scenarios. Its dual-slot form factor, 16-pin power connector, and 450 W suggested PSU indicate a conventional desktop installation. The specific display outputs (HDMI 2.1 and three DisplayPort 1.4a) provide standard multi-monitor connectivity. The 240 mm length and 111 mm height fit typical desktop cases. Its 288.0 GB/s memory bandwidth and 22.06 TFLOPS compute throughput make it the stronger choice for graphics-intensive workloads.

The Max-Q wins in scenarios where power delivery is limited. With no power connectors and a 35 W TDP, it can operate within the power budget of a laptop motherboard. The AD104 cannot function in such environments due to its 160 W power requirement and external connector.

The AD104 is end-of-life production status, while the Max-Q remains active. This suggests different supply dynamics: the Max-Q continues to ship in current products, while the AD104 represents a matured desktop part. The AD104's release date of 2024-03-31 and launch MSRP of 399 USD position it as a mid-range desktop offering, while the Max-Q's 2023-01-02 release date shows earlier availability in the mobile segment.

In summary, the AD104 wins on all performance metrics and suits desktop builds with adequate power and space. The Max-Q wins on power efficiency and integration flexibility, suiting portable devices where its 35 W TDP and connector-free design are mandatory requirements.