NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4060 Ti 8 GB vs NVIDIA Rubin GPU Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data does not contain direct head-to-head benchmark results for these two parts. The GeForce RTX 4060 Ti 8 GB has a single 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 2913, placing it in the 19th percentile among all GPUs in the database. Its nearest rivals in that test are the NVIDIA RTX PRO 4000 Blackwell SFF at 2910 (0.1% behind), the GeForce RTX 4060 Ti 16 GB at 2907 (0.2% behind), the NVIDIA Quadro P600 at 2923 (0.3% ahead), and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4010 at 2893 (0.7% behind). This shows the 4060 Ti 8 GB sits in a tight cluster where a 0.7% swing separates the best and worst results among its closest competitors. The NVIDIA Rubin GPU has no benchmark entries in the database, so its average benchmark score is recorded as 0 and it has no nearest rivals listed. The head-to-head comparison table is empty, and neither part records a win in direct testing. The only quantifiable comparison available is the percentile placement: the Rubin GPU sits at the 50th percentile versus the 4060 Ti's 19th, but with no actual test scores for the Rubin part, that percentile cannot be tied to a measured performance figure. Any attempt to compare absolute performance between these two would require data that the database does not contain.

Architecture Differences

The two parts come from fundamentally different segments of NVIDIA's lineup. The GeForce RTX 4060 Ti 8 GB belongs to the GeForce 40-series consumer line, built on the Ada Lovelace architecture with the AD106 chip. It uses a 5 nm process from TSMC and integrates 22,900 million transistors on a 188 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 121.8M per mm². The NVIDIA Rubin GPU is a server-class part from the Server Rubin (Rxx) generation, using the Rubin architecture with the GR100 chip. It moves to a 3 nm TSMC process and scales dramatically: 336,000 million transistors on a 1456 mm² die, for a density of 230.8M per mm². That is roughly 14.7 times more transistors on roughly 7.7 times the die area.

Memory configurations could not be more different. The 4060 Ti uses 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus, delivering 288.0 GB/s of bandwidth with memory clocked at 2250 MHz (18 Gbps effective). The Rubin GPU uses 288 GB of HBM4 on a 16384-bit bus, achieving 22.1 TB/s of bandwidth, which is roughly 76.7 times the bandwidth of the 4060 Ti. Memory clock for the Rubin part is listed at 2695 MHz (10.8 Gbps effective). The compute resources also diverge sharply. The 4060 Ti has 4352 shading units, 136 TMUs, 48 ROPs, 34 RT cores, and 136 tensor cores. The Rubin GPU has 28672 shading units, 896 TMUs, 24 ROPs, 896 tensor cores, and no listed RT core count. The Rubin part has roughly 6.6 times the shading units and 6.6 times the tensor cores, but only half the ROPs.

Clock speeds tell a different story. The 4060 Ti runs at a 2310 MHz base and 2535 MHz boost, while the Rubin GPU has a low 700 MHz base but boosts to 2267 MHz. The consumer card's higher clocks let it reach 22.06 TFLOPS of FP32 and 22.06 TFLOPS of FP16 (1:1 ratio). The Rubin GPU reaches 130.0 TFLOPS FP32 and 260.0 TFLOPS FP16 with a 2:1 ratio, meaning its FP16 throughput is double its FP32 rate. In FP32, the Rubin part is roughly 5.9 times faster; in FP16, it is roughly 11.8 times faster. Pixel rates favor the 4060 Ti at 121.7 GPixel/s versus 54.41 GPixel/s for the Rubin GPU, a direct result of the Rubin part's low ROP count. Texture rates reverse the order: 344.8 GTexel/s for the 4060 Ti versus 2,031.2 GTexel/s for the Rubin GPU, reflecting the latter's much larger TMU count.

Power and physical specifications separate them further. The 4060 Ti has a 160 W TDP with a suggested 450 W PSU, uses a dual-slot cooler and a single 16-pin connector, and measures 240 mm by 111 mm by 40 mm. The Rubin GPU has a 2300 W TDP and a suggested 2700 W PSU, mounts as an SXM module, and lists no dimensions or power connectors. The 4060 Ti uses PCIe 4.0 x8 and provides 1x HDMI 2.1 and 3x DisplayPort 1.4a outputs. The Rubin GPU uses PCIe 6.0 x16 and has no display outputs. API support also differs: the 4060 Ti supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, while the Rubin GPU lists N/A for all three APIs. Production status separates them as well: the 4060 Ti is end-of-life with a release date of 2023-05-17, while the Rubin GPU is active with a release date of 2025-12-31.

Where Each One Wins

The 4060 Ti 8 GB wins in scenarios that depend on consumer-facing features. It has display outputs, so it can drive monitors directly, while the Rubin GPU has none. It supports DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, making it usable for gaming and general graphics workloads; the Rubin part lists no API support. The 4060 Ti also has a higher pixel rate at 121.7 GPixel/s versus 54.41 GPixel/s, which benefits rasterization-heavy tasks that are ROP-bound. Its smaller footprint (240 mm length, dual-slot, 160 W TDP) means it fits in standard desktop cases with a 450 W PSU recommendation, whereas the Rubin GPU requires an SXM module and a 2700 W PSU. The higher boost clock of 2535 MHz versus 2267 MHz also helps in latency-sensitive or lightly threaded workloads where clock speed matters more than raw throughput.

The Rubin GPU wins on raw compute and memory bandwidth. Its 130.0 TFLOPS FP32 is roughly 5.9 times the 4060 Ti's 22.06 TFLOPS, and its 260.0 TFLOPS FP16 is roughly 11.8 times higher. The 22.1 TB/s memory bandwidth is roughly 76.7 times the 4060 Ti's 288.0 GB/s, which matters for large data sets that cannot fit in the 4060 Ti's 8 GB frame buffer. The 288 GB capacity is 36 times larger. The 896 tensor cores versus 136 gives the Rubin part roughly 6.6 times the tensor throughput, and its 2,031.2 GTexel/s texture rate is roughly 5.9 times the 4060 Ti's 344.8 GTexel/s. The Rubin GPU also uses PCIe 6.0 x16 versus PCIe 4.0 x8, which affects host data transfer rates. It has no RT core count listed, so ray tracing performance cannot be compared from the data.

The 4060 Ti is end-of-life, meaning it is no longer in production, while the Rubin GPU is active. The 4060 Ti has a launch MSRP of 399 USD, while the Rubin GPU has no listed launch MSRP.

The Verdict

The data describes two products with almost no overlap in purpose. The GeForce RTX 4060 Ti 8 GB is a consumer graphics card with display outputs, gaming API support, and a compact dual-slot design. It delivers 22.06 TFLOPS FP32, 288.0 GB/s of bandwidth, and a measured 3DMark Steel Nomad score of 2913, which places it in the 19th percentile among all GPUs and within 0.7% of its nearest rivals. The NVIDIA Rubin GPU is a server compute module with no display outputs, no consumer API support, and a 2300 W TDP. It offers 130.0 TFLOPS FP32, 260.0 TFLOPS FP16, 22.1 TB/s memory bandwidth, and 288 GB of HBM4, with no benchmark scores recorded in the database. Anyone building a gaming PC or workstation that needs a monitor output and standard graphics APIs should use the 4060 Ti. Anyone deploying a server accelerator for FP16-heavy or memory-bandwidth-bound compute workloads should use the Rubin GPU, provided the infrastructure can support an SXM module and a 2700 W PSU. The 4060 Ti's 19th percentile ranking puts it below the median in the database, while the Rubin GPU's 50th percentile ranking is neutral, but that ranking is not backed by any measured test score. The choice is not between two similar cards; it is between a consumer GPU and a server accelerator.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has a higher FP32 compute throughput?

A: The NVIDIA Rubin GPU records 130.0 TFLOPS FP32, which is roughly 5.9 times the GeForce RTX 4060 Ti 8 GB's 22.06 TFLOPS.

Q: How much memory bandwidth does each GPU provide?

A: The GeForce RTX 4060 Ti 8 GB provides 288.0 GB/s over a 128-bit GDDR6 bus, while the NVIDIA Rubin GPU provides 22.1 TB/s over a 16384-bit HBM4 bus, roughly 76.7 times more.

Q: Can the NVIDIA Rubin GPU be used with a monitor?

A: No, the Rubin GPU lists no display outputs, while the GeForce RTX 4060 Ti 8 GB provides 1x HDMI 2.1 and 3x DisplayPort 1.4a.

Q: What is the difference in transistor count?

A: The GeForce RTX 4060 Ti 8 GB has 22,900 million transistors on a 188 mm² die, while the NVIDIA Rubin GPU has 336,000 million transistors on a 1456 mm² die.

Q: Which GPU supports DirectX 12 Ultimate?

A: The GeForce RTX 4060 Ti 8 GB supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The NVIDIA Rubin GPU lists N/A for DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan.

Q: What are the TDP figures for these GPUs?

A: The GeForce RTX 4060 Ti 8 GB has a 160 W TDP with a suggested 450 W PSU. The NVIDIA Rubin GPU has a 2300 W TDP with a suggested 2700 W PSU.

Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4060 Ti 8 GB | NVIDIA Rubin GPU |

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

| Architecture | Ada Lovelace | Rubin |

| Chip | AD106 | GR100 |

| Generation | GeForce 40 | Server Rubin (Rxx) |

| Process Node | 5 nm | 3 nm |

| Transistors | 22,900 million | 336,000 million |

| Die Size | 188 mm² | 1456 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 121.8M / mm² | 230.8M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 2310 MHz | 700 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 2535 MHz | 2267 MHz |

| Memory Size | 8 GB | 288 GB |

| Memory Type | GDDR6 | HBM4 |

| Memory Bus Width | 128 bit | 16384 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 288.0 GB/s | 22.1 TB/s |

| Memory Clock | 2250 MHz (18 Gbps effective) | 2695 MHz (10.8 Gbps effective) |

| Shading Units | 4352 | 28672 |

| TMUs | 136 | 896 |

| ROPs | 48 | 24 |

| RT Cores | 34 | N/A |

| Tensor Cores | 136 | 896 |

| Pixel Rate | 121.7 GPixel/s | 54.41 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 344.8 GTexel/s | 2,031.2 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 22.06 TFLOPS | 130.0 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | 22.06 TFLOPS (1:1) | 260.0 TFLOPS (2:1) |

| TDP | 160 W | 2300 W |

| Slot Width | Dual-slot | SXM Module |

| Power Connectors | 1x 16-pin | N/A |

| Suggested PSU | 450 W | 2700 W |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 4.0 x8 | PCIe 6.0 x16 |

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

| DirectX | 12 Ultimate (12_2) | N/A |

| OpenGL | 4.6 | N/A |

| Vulkan | 1.4 | N/A |

| Production Status | End-of-life | Active |

| Release Date | 2023-05-17 | 2025-12-31 |

| Predecessor | GeForce 30 | Server Blackwell |

| Successor | GeForce 50 | N/A |

| Launch MSRP | 399 USD | N/A |