NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 Max-Q vs NVIDIA Rubin GPU Comparison

FAQ

Q: What are the two GPUs compared in this analysis?

A: The comparison is between the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 Max-Q, a mobile graphics processor from the GeForce 40-series, and the NVIDIA Rubin GPU, a server-class processor from the Server Rubin generation.

Q: Which GPU has the higher boost clock speed?

A: The Rubin GPU has a boost clock of 2267 MHz, while the RTX 4070 Max-Q boosts to 1230 MHz. The Rubin's boost clock is nearly double that of the mobile part.

Q: How do the memory subsystems differ between the two?

A: The RTX 4070 Max-Q uses 8 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 128-bit bus, delivering 256.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The Rubin GPU uses 288 GB of HBM4 memory on a 16384-bit bus, delivering 22.1 TB/s of bandwidth.

Q: What process nodes do the two chips use?

A: The RTX 4070 Max-Q is built on a 5 nm process at TSMC, while the Rubin GPU is built on a 3 nm process, also at TSMC.

Q: Which GPU has more shading units?

A: The Rubin GPU has 28,672 shading units, compared to 4,608 on the RTX 4070 Max-Q. That is a 6.2x difference in raw shader count.

Q: What is the power consumption difference?

A: The RTX 4070 Max-Q has a TDP of 35 W, while the Rubin GPU has a TDP of 2300 W. The Rubin also lists a suggested PSU of 2700 W.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs represent entirely different ends of NVIDIA's product stack. The RTX 4070 Max-Q uses the AD106 chip based on the Ada Lovelace architecture, built on a 5 nm process at TSMC. The Rubin GPU uses the GR100 chip based on the Rubin architecture, built on a 3 nm process, also at TSMC.

The transistor counts reflect the scale gap. The AD106 contains 22,900 million transistors on a die size of 188 mm², giving a transistor density of 121.8M per mm². The GR100 contains 336,000 million transistors on a die size of 1456 mm², giving a density of 230.8M per mm². The Rubin chip has over 14 times the transistor count and a die over 7.7 times larger.

The RTX 4070 Max-Q includes 36 RT cores and 144 tensor cores. The Rubin GPU lists 896 tensor cores but no RT core count in the recorded data. The Rubin's tensor core count is 6.2 times higher than the Max-Q's.

The memory architectures are fundamentally different. The Max-Q uses 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit interface. The Rubin uses 288 GB of HBM4 on a 16384-bit interface. Memory bandwidth scales accordingly: 256.0 GB/s versus 22.1 TB/s, an 86-fold difference.

The Rubin GPU is a server SXM Module with no display outputs. The RTX 4070 Max-Q is an integrated graphics package (IGP) with display outputs described as portable device dependent. The bus interfaces differ as well: PCIe 4.0 x8 for the Max-Q versus PCIe 6.0 x16 for the Rubin.

API support also separates them. The Max-Q supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The Rubin GPU records N/A for DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan, indicating it is not designed for traditional graphics API workloads.

Where Each One Wins

The RTX 4070 Max-Q wins in power efficiency and portability. Its 35 W TDP allows integration into thin laptops as an IGP with no power connectors. The data confirms it is a mobile-first part, with a release date in early 2023 and a predecessor in the GeForce 30 Mobile series. Its successor is the GeForce 50 Mobile series.

The Rubin GPU wins decisively in raw compute throughput. Its FP32 performance of 130.0 TFLOPS is 11.5 times the Max-Q's 11.34 TFLOPS. Its FP16 performance of 260.0 TFLOPS is 22.9 times the Max-Q's 11.34 TFLOPS. The texture rate of 2,031.2 GTexel/s is 11.5 times higher than the Max-Q's 177.1 GTexel/s.

The Rubin's memory capacity of 288 GB is 36 times the Max-Q's 8 GB. Its 16384-bit bus width is 128 times wider. The 22.1 TB/s bandwidth enables workloads that require massive data movement, which the Max-Q's 256.0 GB/s cannot approach.

The pixel rates are closer. The Max-Q delivers 59.04 GPixel/s, while the Rubin delivers 54.41 GPixel/s. The Max-Q actually edges ahead here by 8.5 percent. The Rubin's 24 ROPs limit its pixel throughput despite the enormous shader count, while the Max-Q's 48 ROPs are better suited to rasterization work.

Specification Differences

| Specification | RTX 4070 Max-Q | Rubin GPU |

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

| Chip | AD106 | GR100 |

| Architecture | Ada Lovelace | Rubin |

| Generation | GeForce 40 Mobile | 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 | 735 MHz | 700 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 1230 MHz | 2267 MHz |

| Memory Size | 8 GB | 288 GB |

| Memory Type | GDDR6 | HBM4 |

| Memory Bus Width | 128 bit | 16384 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 256.0 GB/s | 22.1 TB/s |

| Shading Units | 4608 | 28672 |

| TMUs | 144 | 896 |

| ROPs | 48 | 24 |

| RT Cores | 36 | null |

| Tensor Cores | 144 | 896 |

| Pixel Rate | 59.04 GPixel/s | 54.41 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 177.1 GTexel/s | 2,031.2 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 11.34 TFLOPS | 130.0 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | 11.34 TFLOPS (1:1) | 260.0 TFLOPS (2:1) |

| TDP | 35 W | 2300 W |

| Slot Width | IGP | SXM Module |

| Power Connectors | None | null |

| Suggested PSU | null | 2700 W |

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

| Display Outputs | Portable Device Dependent | No outputs |

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

| OpenGL | 4.6 | N/A |

| Vulkan | 1.4 | N/A |

| Release Date | 2023-01-02 | 2025-12-31 |

| Predecessor | GeForce 30 Mobile | Server Blackwell |

| Successor | GeForce 50 Mobile | null |

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded benchmark suite contains no direct head-to-head results, and the average benchmark score for both GPUs is zero. The percentile versus all GPUs is also identical at 50 for both. Instead, the comparison must rely on the architectural specifications recorded in the database.

The largest single advantage for the Rubin GPU is memory bandwidth. At 22.1 TB/s, it delivers 86.4 times the bandwidth of the Max-Q's 256.0 GB/s. This is the dominant gap in the comparison and shapes every other result.

The FP16 compute gap is the second major differentiator. The Rubin's 260.0 TFLOPS is 22.9 times the Max-Q's 11.34 TFLOPS. The FP32 gap is 11.5 times, with 130.0 TFLOPS versus 11.34 TFLOPS. The texture rate gap is also 11.5 times, with 2,031.2 GTexel/s versus 177.1 GTexel/s.

The shader count gap is exactly 6.2 times, with 28,672 units versus 4,608. The tensor core gap is 6.2 times as well, with 896 versus 144. The TMU gap is 6.2 times, with 896 versus 144. These consistent ratios suggest the Rubin's core architecture scales uniformly relative to the Max-Q.

The memory capacity gap is 36 times, with 288 GB versus 8 GB. The bus width gap is 128 times, with 16384 bits versus 128 bits. The transistor count gap is 14.7 times, with 336,000 million versus 22,900 million. The die size gap is 7.7 times, with 1456 mm² versus 188 mm².

The Max-Q wins only in pixel rate, at 59.04 GPixel/s versus 54.41 GPixel/s, and in ROP count, at 48 versus 24. The Max-Q also has a higher base clock at 735 MHz versus 700 MHz, though the Rubin's boost clock of 2267 MHz far exceeds the Max-Q's 1230 MHz.

The power envelope difference is stark. The Max-Q operates at 35 W, while the Rubin operates at 2300 W. The Rubin's suggested PSU is 2700 W, which exceeds the Max-Q's entire TDP by a factor of 77.

The Verdict

The data describes two products with no functional overlap. The RTX 4070 Max-Q is a mobile GPU with a 35 W TDP, 8 GB of GDDR6 memory, and full graphics API support including DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. It is designed for portable devices with display outputs dependent on the host system. Its release in early 2023 places it in the GeForce 40 Mobile generation, succeeding the GeForce 30 Mobile series.

The Rubin GPU is a server accelerator with a 2300 W TDP, 288 GB of HBM4 memory, and no display outputs. It records N/A for all graphics APIs, confirming it is not intended for rasterization workloads. Its PCIe 6.0 x16 interface and SXM Module form factor target data center deployments. It succeeds the Server Blackwell generation and carries a projected release date at the end of 2025.

For a user selecting a mobile graphics solution, the RTX 4070 Max-Q is the only viable option in this comparison. Its 35 W power draw, IGP form factor, and absence of power connectors make it suitable for thin laptops. The Rubin's 2300 W TDP and SXM Module slot width cannot function in such a context.

For compute-focused server workloads, the Rubin GPU dominates. Its 130.0 TFLOPS FP32 and 260.0 TFLOPS FP16 performance, combined with 22.1 TB/s of memory bandwidth and 288 GB of capacity, position it as a high-throughput accelerator. The Max-Q's 11.34 TFLOPS FP32 and 256.0 GB/s bandwidth are orders of magnitude below those requirements.

The pixel rate result is the only head-to-head specification where the Max-Q leads. Its 59.04 GPixel/s exceeds the Rubin's 54.41 GPixel/s, and its 48 ROPs double the Rubin's 24. This suggests the Max-Q retains an advantage in traditional rasterization throughput, consistent with its graphics API support.

The Rubin's FP16 ratio of 2:1 versus the Max-Q's 1:1 indicates the Rubin is optimized for mixed-precision compute, doubling its throughput when using FP16. The Max-Q offers equal FP16 and FP32 rates, reflecting a balanced design for graphics workloads.

Both GPUs share a production status of Active and a percentile versus all GPUs of 50. The avgBenchmarkScore of zero for both indicates no benchmark results are recorded in the database, so the verdict relies entirely on specification analysis.

The choice depends on the deployment context. The RTX 4070 Max-Q serves portable graphics needs with modest power and full API support. The Rubin GPU serves server compute needs with massive memory bandwidth, high FP16 throughput, and no display capability. The data confirms they are complementary products in NVIDIA's lineup, not competitors.