NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4060 Ti AD104 vs NVIDIA RTX A400 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains no direct head-to-head benchmark scores for the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4060 Ti AD104 against the NVIDIA RTX A400. The RTX 4060 Ti AD104 has no recorded benchmark entries, while the RTX A400 has nine recorded scores across Geekbench and Passmark suites.

For the RTX A400, the recorded data shows a mixed profile. In compute-oriented workloads, the card delivers a Geekbench OpenCL score of 22,844 and a Geekbench Vulkan score of 22,237. These are the strongest results in its recorded suite. The Passmark suite tells a different story. DirectX 9 yields a score of 87, DirectX 10 returns 32, DirectX 11 returns 37, and DirectX 12 returns 27. The Passmark G3D score sits at 5,983, while the G2D score is 899. The Passmark GPU compute score reaches 2,557.

Because the RTX 4060 Ti AD104 lacks any recorded benchmark scores, the database cannot produce a direct numeric comparison. The RTX A400's average benchmark score is 6,078, placing it in the 35th percentile among all GPUs. Its nearest rivals include the NVIDIA GeForce MX230 with an average score of 6,077 and a delta of 0%, the NVIDIA Quadro P2000 at 6,049 with a delta of 0.5%, the Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200 at 6,117 with a delta of -0.6%, and the AMD Radeon 760M at 6,019 with a delta of 1%.

Where Each One Wins

Without head-to-head data, the win analysis relies on the architectural and specification differences recorded in the database.

The RTX 4060 Ti AD104 is positioned for high-throughput rendering and compute. Its shading unit count of 4,352, texture mapping units of 136, and render output units of 48 far exceed the RTX A400's 768 shading units, 24 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. The recorded FP32 performance of 22.06 TFLOPS for the RTX 4060 Ti AD104 is roughly eight times the RTX A400's 2.706 TFLOPS. Texture rate follows the same pattern: 344.8 GTexel/s versus 42.29 GTexel/s. Pixel rate reaches 121.7 GPixel/s on the RTX 4060 Ti AD104, against 28.19 GPixel/s on the RTX A400.

Memory capacity and bandwidth favor the RTX 4060 Ti AD104 decisively. It uses 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus, producing 288.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The RTX A400 uses 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus, with 96.00 GB/s. This means the RTX 4060 Ti AD104 can sustain triple the memory throughput for large textures and datasets.

The RTX A400's advantages are physical and power-related. It draws 50 W, compared to 160 W for the RTX 4060 Ti AD104. It occupies a single slot, while the RTX 4060 Ti AD104 is dual-slot. The RTX A400 requires no power connectors, whereas the RTX 4060 Ti AD104 uses a single 16-pin connector. The suggested PSU for the RTX A400 is 250 W, versus 450 W for the RTX 4060 Ti AD104. The RTX A400 also offers four mini-DisplayPort 1.4a outputs, while the RTX 4060 Ti AD104 provides one HDMI 2.1 and three DisplayPort 1.4a outputs.

Architecture Differences

The two cards belong to different NVIDIA architectures. The RTX 4060 Ti AD104 is built on Ada Lovelace, fabricated on a 5 nm process at TSMC. The RTX A400 is built on Ampere, fabricated on an 8 nm process at Samsung. This process gap explains several measured differences.

Transistor counts diverge sharply. The RTX 4060 Ti AD104 packs 35,800 million transistors on a 294 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 121.8 million per square millimeter. The RTX A400 contains 8,700 million transistors on a 200 mm² die, with a density of 43.5 million per square millimeter. The RTX 4060 Ti AD104's die is only 47% larger by area but holds over four times the transistor count.

Both cards support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. Ray tracing and tensor core counts differ. The RTX 4060 Ti AD104 has 34 RT cores and 136 tensor cores. The RTX A400 has 6 RT cores and 24 tensor cores. The RTX 4060 Ti AD104's FP16 performance matches its FP32 at 22.06 TFLOPS with a 1:1 ratio. The RTX A400 also runs FP16 at a 1:1 ratio, but only reaches 2.706 TFLOPS.

Clock speeds favor the RTX 4060 Ti AD104. Its base clock is 2,310 MHz and boost clock reaches 2,535 MHz. The RTX A400's base clock is 1,417 MHz with a boost of 1,762 MHz. Memory clocks also differ, with the RTX 4060 Ti AD104 running at 2,250 MHz (18 Gbps effective) and the RTX A400 at 1,500 MHz (12 Gbps effective).

Physical dimensions reflect the different design goals. The RTX 4060 Ti AD104 measures 240 mm in length, 111 mm in height, and 40 mm in width. The RTX A400 is 163 mm long and 69 mm tall, with no recorded width. Both use a PCIe 4.0 x8 bus interface.

Production status differs. The RTX 4060 Ti AD104 is listed as end-of-life, with a release date of March 31, 2024, and a launch MSRP of 399 USD. Its predecessor is the GeForce 30 series and its successor is the GeForce 50 series. The RTX A400 is active, released on April 15, 2024. Its predecessor is Quadro Turing and its successor is Workstation Ada. The RTX A400 has no recorded launch MSRP.

The Verdict

The recorded data supports a clear division of use cases. The RTX 4060 Ti AD104 delivers substantially higher raw compute, memory bandwidth, and rendering throughput. Its FP32 performance of 22.06 TFLOPS, 288.0 GB/s bandwidth, and 8 GB capacity position it for demanding graphics workloads, high-resolution rendering, and compute tasks that exceed 4 GB of memory.

The RTX A400 targets low-power, compact, multi-display environments. Its 50 W power draw, single-slot form factor, and lack of power connectors make it suitable for constrained chassis. Its four mini-DisplayPort outputs support multi-monitor configurations. The recorded benchmark scores show it performs at the level of entry mobile GPUs, with its average score of 6,078 placing it near the NVIDIA GeForce MX230 and Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200.

The RTX 4060 Ti AD104 is the stronger compute performer by every recorded specification. However, its end-of-life status and higher power requirements mean it is not a direct replacement for the RTX A400 in low-power workstation slots. The RTX A400's active production status and 4 GB memory suggest it is intended for specific professional display workloads rather than high-performance rendering.

Users who need maximum shader throughput, texture rate, and memory bandwidth should select the RTX 4060 Ti AD104. Users who need a single-slot, low-power card with four display outputs and no external power connector should select the RTX A400. The data does not indicate that either card serves both roles well.

FAQ

Q: Which card has higher FP32 compute performance?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4060 Ti AD104 records FP32 performance of 22.06 TFLOPS. The NVIDIA RTX A400 records 2.706 TFLOPS, roughly one-eighth of the RTX 4060 Ti AD104's value.

Q: What is the memory capacity difference?

A: The RTX 4060 Ti AD104 uses 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus. The RTX A400 uses 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus. Bandwidth is 288.0 GB/s for the RTX 4060 Ti AD104 and 96.00 GB/s for the RTX A400.

Q: How do the power requirements compare?

A: The RTX 4060 Ti AD104 has a TDP of 160 W and requires a 450 W suggested PSU with one 16-pin connector. The RTX A400 has a TDP of 50 W, requires a 250 W suggested PSU, and uses no power connectors.

Q: What is the RTX A400's average benchmark score and percentile?

A: The RTX A400 has an average benchmark score of 6,078 and sits in the 35th percentile among all GPUs. Its nearest rival, the NVIDIA GeForce MX230, scores 6,077 with a 0% delta.

Q: Which architecture does each card use?

A: The RTX 4060 Ti AD104 uses the Ada Lovelace architecture on a 5 nm TSMC process. The RTX A400 uses the Ampere architecture on an 8 nm Samsung process.

Q: Are both cards currently available?

A: The RTX 4060 Ti AD104 is listed as end-of-life with a release date of March 31, 2024. The RTX A400 is listed as active with a release date of April 15, 2024.

Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4060 Ti AD104 | NVIDIA RTX A400 |

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

| Architecture | Ada Lovelace | Ampere |

| Process node | 5 nm (TSMC) | 8 nm (Samsung) |

| Transistors | 35,800 million | 8,700 million |

| Die size | 294 mm² | 200 mm² |

| Transistor density | 121.8M / mm² | 43.5M / mm² |

| Base clock | 2310 MHz | 1417 MHz |

| Boost clock | 2535 MHz | 1762 MHz |

| Memory clock | 2250 MHz (18 Gbps effective) | 1500 MHz (12 Gbps effective) |

| Memory size | 8 GB GDDR6 | 4 GB GDDR6 |

| Memory bus | 128 bit | 64 bit |

| Memory bandwidth | 288.0 GB/s | 96.00 GB/s |

| Shading units | 4352 | 768 |

| TMUs | 136 | 24 |

| ROPs | 48 | 16 |

| RT cores | 34 | 6 |

| Tensor cores | 136 | 24 |

| Pixel rate | 121.7 GPixel/s | 28.19 GPixel/s |

| Texture rate | 344.8 GTexel/s | 42.29 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 22.06 TFLOPS | 2.706 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | 22.06 TFLOPS (1:1) | 2.706 TFLOPS (1:1) |

| TDP | 160 W | 50 W |

| Slot width | Dual-slot | Single-slot |

| Power connectors | 1x 16-pin | None |

| Suggested PSU | 450 W | 250 W |

| Display outputs | 1x HDMI 2.1, 3x DisplayPort 1.4a | 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a |

| Dimensions | 240 mm x 111 mm x 40 mm | 163 mm x 69 mm |

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

| Release date | 2024-03-31 | 2024-04-15 |

| Launch MSRP | 399 USD | None recorded |