NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 AD103 vs NVIDIA Switch 2 GPU Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database records no direct head-to-head benchmark results between the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 AD103 and the NVIDIA Switch 2 GPU. Both entries carry an average benchmark score of 0 and hold identical percentile placements (50th) across all recorded GPUs. This absence of comparative measurements means the performance relationship must be derived entirely from architectural and specification data rather than observed test outcomes.

The FP32 compute figures reveal the clearest separation. The RTX 4070 AD103 delivers 29.15 TFLOPS, while the Switch 2 GPU produces 4.301 TFLOPS. That places the desktop part roughly 6.8 times higher in raw single-precision throughput. For FP16 workloads, the gap narrows somewhat: the RTX 4070 AD103 maintains 29.15 TFLOPS with a 1:1 ratio, whereas the Switch 2 GPU reaches 8.602 TFLOPS through a 2:1 rate. The Switch 2 GPU effectively doubles its FP16 output relative to its FP32 figure, but the RTX 4070 AD103 still leads by a factor of approximately 3.4 in half-precision compute.

Texture and pixel throughput follow the same direction. The RTX 4070 AD103 sustains 455.4 GTexel/s and 158.4 GPixel/s, against 67.20 GTexel/s and 22.40 GPixel/s for the Switch 2 GPU. Those figures indicate roughly 6.8 times the texturing rate and 7.1 times the pixel fill rate for the desktop card. Memory bandwidth reinforces the pattern: 504.2 GB/s on the RTX 4070 AD103 versus 102.4 GB/s on the Switch 2 GPU, a difference of approximately 4.9 times.

Clock speeds add nuance. The RTX 4070 AD103 runs at a 1920 MHz base and 2475 MHz boost. The Switch 2 GPU operates at 561 MHz base and 1400 MHz boost. The desktop card's boost clock exceeds the console GPU's boost by 1075 MHz, and its base clock sits 1359 MHz higher. However, the Switch 2 GPU's 1400 MHz boost represents a substantial 2.5 times increase over its own base clock, suggesting the console part relies heavily on boost behavior under load.

Neither part shows any recorded wins in the head-to-head table, and the wins counters sit at 0 for both. The database simply lacks measured outcomes, so any claims about real-world gaming performance must remain speculative. What the recorded data does show is a consistent, multi-factor advantage for the RTX 4070 AD103 across every compute and memory metric.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher FP32 compute performance?

A: The RTX 4070 AD103 records 29.15 TFLOPS, while the Switch 2 GPU records 4.301 TFLOPS. The desktop card delivers approximately 6.8 times the single-precision throughput.

Q: How do their memory subsystems compare?

A: The RTX 4070 AD103 uses 12 GB of GDDR6X on a 192-bit bus, achieving 504.2 GB/s bandwidth. The Switch 2 GPU also has 12 GB, but uses LPDDR5X on a 128-bit bus, delivering 102.4 GB/s. The desktop part offers roughly 4.9 times the memory bandwidth.

Q: What are the clock speed differences?

A: The RTX 4070 AD103 runs at 1920 MHz base and 2475 MHz boost. The Switch 2 GPU runs at 561 MHz base and 1400 MHz boost. The boost clocks differ by 1075 MHz, with the desktop card holding the higher figures.

Q: Do both GPUs support the same graphics APIs?

A: Yes, both support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The API feature sets are identical, though the underlying hardware capabilities differ substantially.

Q: What process nodes do they use?

A: The RTX 4070 AD103 uses TSMC's 5 nm process, while the Switch 2 GPU uses Samsung's 8 nm node. The desktop chip measures 379 mm², and the console chip measures 200 mm².

Q: Which GPU has more shading units?

A: The RTX 4070 AD103 contains 5888 shading units, 184 TMUs, and 64 ROPs. The Switch 2 GPU contains 1536 shading units, 48 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. The desktop card has roughly 3.8 times the shading units.

Where Each One Wins

The RTX 4070 AD103 wins decisively in every measured compute category. Its FP32 throughput of 29.15 TFLOPS versus 4.301 TFLOPS makes it the clear choice for workloads that rely on raw single-precision math, such as traditional rasterization and general-purpose GPU compute. The 504.2 GB/s memory bandwidth, backed by GDDR6X on a 192-bit interface, gives it a wide advantage in memory-bound tasks like high-resolution texturing and large data transfers. The 455.4 GTexel/s texture rate and 158.4 GPixel/s pixel rate further confirm its dominance in fill-rate-limited scenarios. With 5888 shading units, 184 TMUs, 64 ROPs, 46 RT cores, and 184 tensor cores, the RTX 4070 AD103 carries substantially more parallel hardware for demanding desktop workloads.

The Switch 2 GPU wins in power efficiency and physical integration. Its 40 W TDP compares to the RTX 4070 AD103's 200 W, meaning the console part draws one-fifth the power while still delivering functional graphics output. The 8.602 TFLOPS FP16 figure, achieved through a 2:1 ratio, indicates the Switch 2 GPU can process half-precision data more efficiently relative to its FP32 capability. This matters for certain machine learning and compute tasks that favor reduced precision. The console chip operates at a 1400 MHz boost clock, which, while lower than the desktop part's 2475 MHz, represents a large relative boost from its 561 MHz base and suggests the design prioritizes dynamic power scaling. The Switch 2 GPU's 14 mm thickness and 40 W envelope make it suitable for compact, battery-powered devices, whereas the RTX 4070 AD103 requires a dual-slot cooler, a 16-pin power connector, and a 550 W suggested power supply.

For FP16-dominant workloads, the Switch 2 GPU's 2:1 ratio provides a doubling of throughput over its FP32 rate. This gives it a relative advantage in half-precision tasks compared to the RTX 4070 AD103, which maintains a flat 1:1 ratio. However, the absolute FP16 numbers still favor the desktop card by a factor of 3.4.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ across nearly every recorded specification. The RTX 4070 AD103 belongs to the GeForce 40-series with Ada Lovelace architecture, while the Switch 2 GPU uses Ampere architecture and carries the GA10B chip. The desktop part uses TSMC's 5 nm process, the console part uses Samsung's 8 nm. Transistor counts diverge sharply: 45,900 million for the RTX 4070 AD103 versus an unknown figure for the Switch 2 GPU. Die sizes measure 379 mm² and 200 mm² respectively.

Memory types differ completely. The RTX 4070 AD103 pairs 12 GB GDDR6X with a 192-bit bus and 504.2 GB/s bandwidth, running at 1313 MHz with 21 Gbps effective speed. The Switch 2 GPU pairs 12 GB LPDDR5X with a 128-bit bus and 102.4 GB/s bandwidth, running at 800 MHz with 6.4 Gbps effective. Clock speeds show a wide gap: 1920/2475 MHz versus 561/1400 MHz.

Shader resources differ considerably. The RTX 4070 AD103 has 5888 shading units, 184 TMUs, 64 ROPs, 46 RT cores, and 184 tensor cores. The Switch 2 GPU has 1536 shading units, 48 TMUs, 16 ROPs, 12 RT cores, and 48 tensor cores. Pixel and texture rates follow: 158.4 GPixel/s and 455.4 GTexel/s versus 22.40 GPixel/s and 67.20 GTexel/s.

Power and physical characteristics diverge as well. The RTX 4070 AD103 draws 200 W, requires a dual-slot cooler, a 16-pin power connector, and a 550 W suggested PSU. The Switch 2 GPU draws 40 W with no recorded slot width, power connectors, or PSU suggestion. Dimensions differ: the desktop card measures 240 mm by 110 mm by 40 mm, while the console chip measures 272 mm by 116 mm by 14 mm. The RTX 4070 AD103 lists display outputs (1x HDMI 2.1, 3x DisplayPort 1.4a), while the Switch 2 GPU records no outputs. The desktop part uses PCIe 4.0 x16, and the console part has no recorded bus interface.

Production status and release timing differ. The RTX 4070 AD103 is end-of-life, released on 2024-02-29, with a predecessor in GeForce 30 and a successor in GeForce 50. The Switch 2 GPU is active, released on 2025-06-04, with no predecessor or successor recorded. The launch MSRP for the RTX 4070 AD103 is 599 USD, and for the Switch 2 GPU it is 449 USD.

Architecture Differences

The RTX 4070 AD103 builds on Ada Lovelace, NVIDIA's architecture for the GeForce 40 generation. The Switch 2 GPU builds on Ampere, an earlier design. This architectural gap manifests in several measurable ways. The Ada Lovelace part uses a 5 nm TSMC process with 45,900 million transistors packed into 379 mm², yielding a density of 121.1 million transistors per square millimeter. The Ampere part uses an 8 nm Samsung process with an unknown transistor count and a 200 mm² die.

The shader configurations reflect different design philosophies. The RTX 4070 AD103 deploys 46 RT cores and 184 tensor cores alongside 5888 shading units. The Switch 2 GPU deploys 12 RT cores and 48 tensor cores alongside 1536 shading units. The ratio of tensor cores to shading units is similar (184/5888 versus 48/1536, both 1:32), suggesting a consistent approach to AI acceleration density. The RT core ratio differs: 46/5888 versus 12/1536, which simplifies to 1:128 versus 1:128 as well. Both designs maintain proportional ray tracing and tensor hardware relative to their shader counts.

The FP16 execution model differs. The RTX 4070 AD103 achieves 29.15 TFLOPS in FP16 at a 1:1 ratio, meaning its FP16 throughput equals its FP32 throughput. The Switch 2 GPU achieves 8.602 TFLOPS in FP16 at a 2:1 ratio, doubling its FP32 rate. This indicates the Ampere part uses a different half-precision execution path, likely pairing FP32 units for FP16 work, while the Ada Lovelace part may handle FP16 at parity in its standard pipeline.

Memory architecture also diverges. The RTX 4070 AD103 uses GDDR6X, a high-bandwidth graphics memory standard, on a 192-bit bus. The Switch 2 GPU uses LPDDR5X, a low-power memory standard, on a 128-bit bus. The bandwidth gap of 504.2 GB/s versus 102.4 GB/s reflects both the memory type and bus width differences. The desktop GDDR6X runs at 21 Gbps effective, while the console LPDDR5X runs at 6.4 Gbps effective, a 3.3 times difference in per-pin data rate.

The TDP difference of 160 W (200 W versus 40 W) points to distinct thermal design targets. The RTX 4070 AD103 operates as a standalone expansion card with its own cooling solution and power delivery. The Switch 2 GPU integrates into a console system where the 40 W budget accommodates battery operation and passive or low-noise cooling. The desktop part's 550 W suggested PSU accounts for system-level power draw, whereas the console part has no such requirement recorded.

The Verdict

The recorded data supports a clear separation of use cases. The RTX 4070 AD103 targets high-performance desktop computing where power draw and physical size are secondary concerns. Its 29.15 TFLOPS FP32, 504.2 GB/s bandwidth, and 158.4 GPixel/s pixel rate position it for demanding workloads: high-resolution gaming, content creation, and compute tasks that need substantial parallel throughput. The 200 W TDP and dual-slot footprint indicate a system built around performance first.

The Switch 2 GPU targets constrained, portable environments. Its 40 W TDP, 14 mm thickness, and 102.4 GB/s bandwidth fit a console form factor where efficiency and thermal limits dominate. The 8.602 TFLOPS FP16 capability, achieved through a 2:1 ratio, suggests the design can accelerate certain half-precision workloads despite lower absolute numbers. The 12 GB LPDDR5X memory, while slower in bandwidth, matches the desktop card's capacity, which may benefit game asset loading and storage.

Users who need maximum compute throughput should select the RTX 4070 AD103. The data shows it leads in every performance metric: 6.8 times FP32, 3.4 times FP16, 6.8 times texture rate, 7.1 times pixel rate, and 4.9 times memory bandwidth. The end-of-life production status means availability may decline, but the recorded specifications confirm its capability.

Users who prioritize power efficiency and compact integration should select the Switch 2 GPU. The data shows it operates at one-fifth the power draw of the RTX 4070 AD103 while maintaining functional graphics output. Its active production status and recent release date indicate ongoing availability. The absence of recorded benchmark scores for both parts means the final decision rests on the specification differences, which consistently favor the desktop card for raw performance and the console chip for efficiency and form factor.