NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4060 Ti AD104 vs NVIDIA Rubin GPU Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded database contains no direct benchmark scores for either the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4060 Ti AD104 or the NVIDIA Rubin GPU. Both entries show an average benchmark score of zero and an empty head-to-head benchmark array. This means a direct performance comparison based on measured test results is not possible from the available data. The percentile versus all GPUs is identical for both at 50, placing them in the same relative position within the database's overall distribution, though this is a coarse metric and does not reflect any application-specific wins.

What the data does provide is a clear contrast in raw compute specifications. The Rubin GPU delivers 130.0 TFLOPS of FP32 throughput, which is roughly 5.9 times the 22.06 TFLOPS of the RTX 4060 Ti AD104. In FP16 workloads, the gap widens further: Rubin reaches 260.0 TFLOPS (at a 2:1 ratio), while the RTX 4060 Ti manages 22.06 TFLOPS (at a 1:1 ratio). That represents an approximately 11.8-fold advantage for Rubin in half-precision compute. Texture rate also strongly favors Rubin at 2,031.2 GTexel/s versus 344.8 GTexel/s for the RTX 4060 Ti, a difference of about 5.9 times. Pixel rate is the one metric where the RTX 4060 Ti leads, posting 121.7 GPixel/s against Rubin's 54.41 GPixel/s, a 2.2 times advantage for the smaller card.

Memory bandwidth tells a similarly lopsided story. Rubin's HBM4 memory delivers 22.1 TB/s across a 16384-bit bus, while the RTX 4060 Ti's GDDR6 provides 288.0 GB/s over a 128-bit interface. That is a 76.7-fold difference in bandwidth, reflecting the fundamentally different purposes of the two products. The RTX 4060 Ti has no benchmark wins recorded, and Rubin likewise has zero wins, so the database records no application-level victories for either part.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher FP32 compute?

A: The NVIDIA Rubin GPU, with 130.0 TFLOPS, is approximately 5.9 times higher than the RTX 4060 Ti AD104's 22.06 TFLOPS.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference?

A: Rubin's HBM4 memory provides 22.1 TB/s, which is roughly 76.7 times the 288.0 GB/s of the RTX 4060 Ti's GDDR6.

Q: Does the RTX 4060 Ti have any specification advantage?

A: Yes, pixel rate is higher on the RTX 4060 Ti at 121.7 GPixel/s versus Rubin's 54.41 GPixel/s. The RTX 4060 Ti also has display outputs and a lower TDP of 160 W versus 2300 W.

Q: What is the transistor count for each chip?

A: Rubin's GR100 chip has 336,000 million transistors, while the RTX 4060 Ti's AD104 has 35,800 million. Rubin's die is 1456 mm² compared to 294 mm².

Q: Which GPU supports DirectX 12 Ultimate?

A: Only the RTX 4060 Ti AD104, with DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The Rubin GPU lists N/A for all three APIs.

Q: What is the production status of each?

A: The RTX 4060 Ti AD104 is end-of-life, while the Rubin GPU is active. The RTX 4060 Ti launched with a 399 USD MSRP; Rubin has no launch MSRP recorded.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from entirely different architectural lineages. The RTX 4060 Ti AD104 is built on the Ada Lovelace architecture, part of the GeForce 40-series generation, and uses a 5 nm process at TSMC. The Rubin GPU uses the Rubin architecture, belongs to the Server Rubin (Rxx) generation, and is fabricated on a 3 nm process, also at TSMC. The process node difference is a full two steps in lithography, contributing to radically different transistor densities: Rubin achieves 230.8M transistors per mm², while the RTX 4060 Ti reaches 121.8M per mm².

Transistor counts scale dramatically with the node and die size. The GR100 chip packs 336,000 million transistors into a 1456 mm² die, while the AD104 contains 35,800 million in 294 mm². That is a 9.4-fold transistor increase for Rubin, and a 5.0-fold die area increase. The Rubin GPU uses HBM4 memory, whereas the RTX 4060 Ti uses GDDR6, a fundamental difference in memory technology aimed at bandwidth density versus cost and latency. Rubin's bus width of 16384 bit versus 128 bit reflects this: the server part moves data across 128 times more lines.

Shader resources differ massively. Rubin has 28,672 shading units, 896 TMUs, and 896 tensor cores. The RTX 4060 Ti has 4,352 shading units, 136 TMUs, and 136 tensor cores. Rubin's shading unit count is 6.6 times higher, and its tensor core count is likewise 6.6 times higher. The RTX 4060 Ti has 34 RT cores, while Rubin lists no RT core count in the database. The RTX 4060 Ti also has 48 ROPs versus Rubin's 24, which explains why the smaller card wins pixel rate despite lower overall compute.

The API support reflects their intended markets. The RTX 4060 Ti supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, all standard for consumer graphics. Rubin lists N/A for DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan, indicating it is not designed for traditional graphics rendering workloads. Its FP16 ratio of 2:1 versus the RTX 4060 Ti's 1:1 further points to compute acceleration rather than graphics rasterization. The RTX 4060 Ti has no recorded codename, and Rubin also has none, but the architecture names alone separate them into consumer and server categories.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ across nearly every recorded specification. The RTX 4060 Ti uses the AD104 chip, while Rubin uses GR100. Process nodes are 5 nm versus 3 nm. Transistors: 35,800 million versus 336,000 million. Die size: 294 mm² versus 1456 mm². Transistor density: 121.8M per mm² versus 230.8M per mm².

Base clocks are 2310 MHz for the RTX 4060 Ti and 700 MHz for Rubin. Boost clocks are 2535 MHz versus 2267 MHz. Memory clocks show 2250 MHz (18 Gbps effective) for the RTX 4060 Ti and 2695 MHz (10.8 Gbps effective) for Rubin, though the effective data rates are lower on Rubin due to the HBM4 architecture's wider bus.

Memory size: 8 GB GDDR6 versus 288 GB HBM4. Bus width: 128 bit versus 16384 bit. Bandwidth: 288.0 GB/s versus 22.1 TB/s. Shading units: 4,352 versus 28,672. TMUs: 136 versus 896. ROPs: 48 versus 24. Tensor cores: 136 versus 896. RT cores: 34 for the RTX 4060 Ti, none listed for Rubin.

Pixel rate: 121.7 GPixel/s versus 54.41 GPixel/s. Texture rate: 344.8 GTexel/s versus 2,031.2 GTexel/s. FP32: 22.06 TFLOPS versus 130.0 TFLOPS. FP16: 22.06 TFLOPS versus 260.0 TFLOPS. TDP: 160 W versus 2300 W. The RTX 4060 Ti is dual-slot with a 1x 16-pin power connector and a suggested 450 W PSU. Rubin is an SXM module with no power connector listed and a suggested 2700 W PSU.

Bus interface: PCIe 4.0 x8 for the RTX 4060 Ti versus PCIe 6.0 x16 for Rubin. Display outputs: 1x HDMI 2.1 and 3x DisplayPort 1.4a for the RTX 4060 Ti, none for Rubin. Dimensions: the RTX 4060 Ti measures 240 mm in length, 111 mm in height, and 40 mm in width. Rubin has no recorded dimensions. Production status: end-of-life versus active. Release date: 2024-03-31 for the RTX 4060 Ti, 2025-12-31 for Rubin. The RTX 4060 Ti lists a 399 USD launch MSRP; Rubin has none.

Where Each One Wins

The RTX 4060 Ti AD104 wins in pixel throughput. Its 121.7 GPixel/s is more than double Rubin's 54.41 GPixel/s, making it the better choice for rasterization-heavy workloads that depend on fill rate. It also has display outputs, supports DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, and fits into a standard dual-slot PCIe 4.0 x8 card with a 160 W TDP. Its 8 GB GDDR6 memory is small but adequate for consumer gaming at typical resolutions, and its 34 RT cores provide hardware ray tracing support. The end-of-life status means it is a mature product with established drivers and ecosystem support.

The Rubin GPU wins in nearly every compute-oriented category. FP32 is 5.9 times higher, FP16 is 11.8 times higher, texture rate is 5.9 times higher, and memory bandwidth is 76.7 times higher. Its 288 GB HBM4 memory and 16384-bit bus are built for massive data movement, and its 896 tensor cores enable large-scale matrix operations. The 3 nm process and 230.8M transistors per mm² density indicate a design optimized for efficiency per transistor, even at a 2300 W TDP. The PCIe 6.0 x16 interface offers double the lane bandwidth of the RTX 4060 Ti's PCIe 4.0 x8, and the SXM module form factor targets dense server installations.

The active production status and 2025-12-31 release date mean Rubin is a current-generation product, while the RTX 4060 Ti is end-of-life with a 2024 release. The RTX 4060 Ti has a predecessor in GeForce 30 and a successor in GeForce 50. Rubin's predecessor is Server Blackwell, with no successor recorded. Neither GPU has a recorded benchmark win in the database, so all conclusions here derive from specification analysis.

The Verdict

The data separates these two GPUs by intended function, not by direct competition. The RTX 4060 Ti AD104 is a consumer graphics card: it has display outputs, graphics APIs, a 399 USD launch MSRP, and a 160 W TDP that suits standard desktop builds. Its higher pixel rate and RT core count make it the appropriate choice for gaming and workstation graphics where fill rate and ray tracing matter. The end-of-life status suggests it is a known quantity with long software support.

The Rubin GPU is a server compute accelerator. It has no display outputs, no graphics API support, and a 2300 W TDP that requires a 2700 W suggested PSU. Its strengths are raw FP32, FP16, memory bandwidth, and tensor throughput, all of which point to AI training, scientific simulation, and data-center workloads. The 288 GB HBM4 memory and 22.1 TB/s bandwidth are orders of magnitude beyond what the RTX 4060 Ti can access, making Rubin the clear choice for memory-bound compute tasks.

For a buyer choosing between the two, the decision hinges on workload. The RTX 4060 Ti handles any consumer graphics task, including ray tracing and standard rendering pipelines, within a modest power envelope. Rubin excels at massive parallel compute where 130.0 TFLOPS FP32 and 260.0 TFLOPS FP16 are necessary, but it cannot output video or run DirectX applications. The 5.9 times FP32 advantage, 11.8 times FP16 advantage, and 76.7 times memory bandwidth advantage for Rubin are decisive for compute, while the RTX 4060 Ti's 2.2 times pixel rate advantage and full display connectivity decide graphics workloads. The database shows no benchmark wins for either, so the specification sheet is the only arbiter, and it clearly assigns each to a separate market segment.