I’ve spent over a decade digging into PC gaming hardware, from discrete GPUs to the latest integrated solutions. Today, I’m diving deep into one of the most requested comparisons: AMD’s new Ryzen Max+ 395 with Radeon 8060S integrated graphics versus a dedicated NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4060 Laptop GPU.
After testing these two in 25 games at both 1080p and 1440p, I’ve gathered results that might just surprise you. Here’s everything you need to know before picking your next gaming laptop.
The Core of the Battle: AMD’s Ryzen Max+ 395 vs. NVIDIA’s RTX 4060
On AMD’s side, the Ryzen Max+ 395 (often nicknamed “Strix Halo”) is found in a portable 13-inch device that blends a tablet form factor with laptop-like performance. Its hallmark is the impressive 8060S integrated GPU, which can dynamically access a portion of the system’s quad-channel LPDDR5x memory for VRAM needs.
On the other hand, NVIDIA’s RTX 4060 is a more traditional discrete GPU found in many gaming laptops, including a 15-inch setup I’ve tested.
The AMD chip is built on Zen 5 CPU cores, packing 16 cores and 32 threads on the processor side, while the integrated GPU houses 40 compute units on an RDNA 3.5 foundation. Meanwhile, the RTX 4060 uses NVIDIA’s Ada Lovelace architecture with 3072 CUDA cores and 8 GB of dedicated GDDR6 memory.
The big question? Can AMD’s integrated approach, sporting cutting-edge CPU performance and next-gen AI support, outperform or match a dedicated GPU like the 4060 in real-world gaming—and is it worth the cost?
Key Hardware Specifications at a Glance
I’ve put together a quick table comparing the core specifications of both solutions. Remember that the Ryzen Max+ 395’s default TDP is 55W, but the cTDP can scale up to 120W for both CPU and GPU combined. NVIDIA’s RTX 4060 (Laptop) has a configurable TGP range of 35W-115W (plus additional dynamic boost), though many mid-range gaming laptops will max it out near 100W or slightly higher.
Here’s a concise spec comparison:
| Specifications | AMD Ryzen Max+ 395 (Radeon 8060S iGPU) | NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4060 (Laptop) |
|---|---|---|
| CPU Cores / Threads | 16 Zen 5 Cores / 32 Threads | Depends on paired CPU; tested with 8 Zen 4 Cores / 16 Threads |
| GPU Architecture | RDNA 3.5 (Integrated) | Ada Lovelace (Discrete) |
| GPU Compute Units / Cores | 40 CUs (8060S) | 3072 CUDA Cores |
| VRAM | Shared LPDDR5x (Up to 128 GB system, user allocation) | 8 GB GDDR6 (Dedicated) |
| Base TDP / TGP | 55W (up to 120W cTDP for CPU+GPU) | 35-115W (100W often common) |
| Memory Interface | 256-bit LPDDR5x-8000 (Unified) | 128-bit GDDR6 |
| Process Node | TSMC 4nm (SoC + GPU) | TSMC 4nm (GPU) |
| Ray Tracing Cores | n/a for iGPU branding, hardware RT capability present (RDNA 3.5) | 24 RT Cores (4th Gen) |
| Form Factor Tested | 13-inch tablet-like chassis (limited cooling) | 15-inch gaming laptop (Lenovo Legion Slim 5) |
This table doesn’t tell the entire story. Performance also depends heavily on cooling, power limits, driver optimizations, and overall system design.
Why This Comparison Matters
Historically, integrated graphics were never a serious contender against mid-range or higher discrete GPUs. However, AMD’s design shows how far iGPUs have come, especially when they can dynamically allocate large chunks of ultra-fast system memory.
Some enthusiasts even argue that we’re witnessing the beginning of a future where certain discrete GPUs might become obsolete for mid-range gaming laptops.
Even though the Ryzen Max+ 395 in this test is pricey and appears in a niche 13-inch device, it opens a conversation about what we might see in future mainstream laptops. The old barrier was always available power, heat management, and limited memory bandwidth for integrated solutions. This generation takes a significant step in addressing those concerns.
On the other side, NVIDIA’s RTX 4060 has become a popular choice for those seeking a high-performance gaming laptop without jumping to pricier 4070 or 4080 tiers. Its Ada Lovelace architecture includes better ray tracing efficiency and DLSS 3 support—two features that typically outperform AMD’s integrated efforts, especially when dealing with advanced lighting effects.
Form Factor Influences
I tested AMD’s Ryzen Max+ 395 in a thinner chassis, effectively a tablet with a detachable keyboard. Cooling is inevitably more constrained than on a standard gaming laptop. The RTX 4060, by contrast, comes in a 15-inch chassis with more airflow and higher possible power draw.
The result? The NVIDIA GPU in a thicker system can maintain higher clocks for sustained periods, while AMD’s integrated approach has to remain efficient within a narrower power envelope.
CPU Performance Differences
The Ryzen Max+ 395 features the newer Zen 5 cores, while the 4060 in my test system pairs with a previous-gen Zen 4 CPU. While that difference alone can tilt some gaming results, the bigger story is how AMD’s CPU portion runs at up to 16 cores, giving it a hefty advantage in multi-threaded workloads. This can influence performance in CPU-bound games or tasks—particularly at lower resolutions where the CPU can be the deciding factor.
25 Games Tested at 1080p and 1440p
To reveal how these two solutions stand up in real-world gaming, I benchmarked 25 popular titles at 1080p and 1440p. I used a range of mostly high, some ultra, and occasionally RT-enabled presets for a thorough look. Settings were consistent and designed to see how playable each system felt in everyday usage.
One crucial detail is that the Ryzen Max+ 395 lets you select how much VRAM to allocate to the integrated GPU, ranging from 2 GB up to 16 GB or more if you have a 32 GB system.
I tried 8 GB vs. 16 GB VRAM allocation in a few games and saw minimal differences, so I stuck with 8 GB for the main suite of tests. Meanwhile, the RTX 4060 features a fixed 8 GB of dedicated VRAM.
Highlights from Key Titles
Alan Wake 2: The AMD setup delivered a marginally higher average FPS at 1080p and 1440p on standard settings. Once I enabled ray tracing and used upscaling—DLSS on NVIDIA and FSR on AMD—the advantage sometimes shifted to the 4060, particularly at 1080p. Surprisingly, at 1440p with RT, the integrated AMD solution still held its ground, even pulling a slight lead in average frames. However, overall the 4060 felt a bit smoother.
Cyberpunk 2077: At the Ultra preset, performance was close around 1080p and slightly in favor of AMD at 1440p in terms of 1% lows. But once I turned on RT Ultra, the 4060 jumped well ahead—hitting near 60 FPS at 1080p. The integrated GPU was roughly 31% behind, which confirms that advanced ray tracing still favors NVIDIA’s discrete card.
Marvel’s Spider-Man 2: One of the odd results. The integrated graphics topped the 4060 in average FPS, but the discrete card had better 1% lows. Subjectively, gameplay felt smoother on the NVIDIA system, presumably due to more stable frame pacing and the superior DLSS implementation.
When enabling ray tracing, AMD maintained an advantage in average frames at certain resolutions, but again the 4060 felt steadier. This highlights the difference in upscaling quality between FSR and DLSS as well.
Black Myth: Wukong: A big edge for NVIDIA. Even the 1% lows from the 4060 outclassed AMD’s average FPS at 1440p. Turning on ray tracing at low settings made the AMD system virtually unplayable, hinting at potential driver optimizations that AMD might need to improve for this new integrated architecture.
Borderlands 3: AMD previously claimed it could beat higher-tier discrete GPUs in this title under certain lower power configurations. In my tests, the 8060S was around 9% ahead of the 4060 on average at 1080p, but it didn’t come anywhere close to the 68% lead that was rumored from official marketing slides. Still, for an iGPU, it’s an impressive showing.
Red Dead Redemption 2: Historically known to favor AMD graphics, but ironically it gave one of the biggest wins to the 4060. The NVIDIA setup outperformed the 8060S by a wide margin at 1080p. Double-checking the results confirmed the gap. This might be a sign that driver optimizations for AMD’s new integrated GPU are still ongoing.
Overall Averages
When summing up results across 24 non-ray-traced games, the RTX 4060 was about 13% faster than the 8060S at 1080p. AMD led in only a handful of titles, but in many others, the 4060’s advantage ranged from 10% to nearly 30%. At 1440p, the gap narrowed to around 8% in favor of NVIDIA’s 4060. Some times the AMD iGPU performed better at the higher resolution, suggesting memory bandwidth constraints or driver-level quirks at 1080p.
Turning on ray tracing changed the story, with NVIDIA generally having the upper hand. On average, the 4060 was well ahead, with a few notable exceptions where AMD’s solution managed to keep pace or even lead slightly.
However, certain titles caused AMD to crater badly with RT enabled, likely due to insufficient driver optimizations or the inherent bandwidth limitations of a shared-memory design.
Balancing Power, Thermals, and Pricing
One of the most significant differences is how these systems handle power. The tested RTX 4060 was allowed to run at its full 100W TGP, plus whatever overhead the CPU used.
Meanwhile, the AMD device can draw up to around 93W total across both CPU and GPU in this particular 13-inch chassis. That’s a stark difference in power allocation—and still, the 8060S was within roughly 10% to 12% of the dedicated GPU’s performance in many titles.
In some discussions, people note that if AMD’s 395 were placed in a bigger laptop with a 120W (or higher) power budget, it might improve further. This is a valid point: if you gave this APU more thermal headroom and let the GPU run faster, you’d likely close the gap on a 4060 or potentially match certain lower-power 4070 configurations.
But the device available at launch is a smaller tablet design that can’t push the chip as hard as a conventional gaming laptop might.
However, there’s a second big factor: price. The Ryzen Max+ 395 in a 13-inch form factor can cost more than high-end 4070 or 4080 gaming laptops, making its gaming performance hard to justify.
The only reason to pay a premium might be if you absolutely must have the smallest, most portable form factor or want a high-performance CPU iGPU solution without a discrete card. Otherwise, you could grab a standard gaming laptop with a 4060 or 4070 for less.
What About Battery Life and Other Use Cases?
When it comes to battery life, integrated GPUs often hold an edge—especially under light to moderate loads. The 8060S, theoretically, should offer superior idle power efficiency and potentially better battery longevity compared to a system that constantly juggles discrete and integrated solutions. However, official gaming battery tests can vary widely by manufacturer, and results can depend on total TDP configuration, screen brightness, and user behavior.
Outside of raw gaming performance, the Max+ 395 includes next-gen AI acceleration (hence “AI Max+”), which could be handy for productivity apps leveraging hardware-based inference. Some people mention they’d love to see a MiniPC or standard laptop harnessing these features to run large AI models.
For content creators or professionals dabbling in AI tasks, the ability to tap into more unified memory might be beneficial—though software must support AMD’s approach.
FAQ: Frequently Asked Questions
Q1: Does the Ryzen Max+ 395 integrated GPU truly rival the RTX 4060?
A: It’s close in some games, especially at 1440p, but overall the 4060 still leads in most titles, particularly with ray tracing enabled.
Q2: Is the Ryzen Max+ 395 worth the high price?
A: Currently, systems with the 395 are quite expensive. If gaming is your only concern, you’ll likely get more value from a cheaper 4060 laptop or a similarly priced 4080 system. But if you want top-tier CPU performance and an ultra-portable form factor, it can be appealing.
Q3: How does RAM allocation affect AMD’s integrated performance?
A: You can allocate 8 GB, 16 GB, or more of system RAM as VRAM. However, in most tested games, switching from 8 GB to 16 GB didn’t make a major performance difference. A bigger effect might appear in VRAM-heavy workloads or future titles.
Q4: What about thermals on the 13-inch tablet design?
A: Smaller designs mean tighter cooling. The 395 is capped at around 93W in some configurations, restricting its top-end performance. Thermals can be warm, but it’s designed to handle that within the manufacturer’s specs.
Q5: How does the iGPU handle ray tracing compared to the RTX 4060?
A: Ray tracing performance was generally better on the 4060. A few games showed close or even marginal wins for AMD at certain resolutions, but many RT-heavy titles favored NVIDIA’s dedicated hardware.
Q6: Can I find a cheaper laptop with the Ryzen Max+ 395?
A: At the moment, it’s mostly available in premium designs. There’s speculation it may arrive in more traditional laptops or mini PCs later. Its high manufacturing cost and advanced packaging could keep prices elevated for a while.
Q7: Which is more power-efficient for gaming?
A: The 4060 can consume around 100W for the GPU alone, whereas the 395 can consume up to about 93W total for CPU and GPU in the tested device. In many titles, the integrated GPU is slightly behind in performance but at a somewhat lower power draw. Power efficiency depends heavily on settings and usage.
Q8: Are these Zen 5 cores significantly better than Zen 4 for gaming?
A: Zen 5 does bring a noticeable uplift in single and multi-threaded performance. However, in GPU-bound games, that CPU difference can matter less unless you play at lower resolutions or CPU-intensive titles.
Q9: Does AMD’s integrated GPU have enough bandwidth for 1440p gaming?
A: Surprisingly, yes. The system’s quad-channel LPDDR5x memory helps. In some cases, performance scaled better at 1440p than at 1080p, although discrete GPUs with dedicated VRAM still have an advantage in overall memory bandwidth efficiency.
Q10: What about real-world battery life differences?
A: Integrated GPUs typically have an edge in light tasks. For extended gaming on battery, both will deplete quickly. The exact runtime can vary widely based on how the laptop maker configures power limits and battery size.
Q11: Should I just buy a 4060 laptop or wait for AMD’s integrated approach to mature?
A: If you need a gaming laptop now and want the best balance of price and performance, a 4060 system is a solid bet. If you’re excited by the idea of a powerful iGPU and want a highly portable device, waiting for more Ryzen Max+ laptops might be worth it—especially if future models are more affordable.
Q12: Is it possible to undervolt the 4060 or tweak the power on the 395 for better balance?
A: Some OEMs allow advanced controls. The 4060 can often be tuned with third-party utilities, while integrated power settings for the 395 may be locked down or limited by BIOS. If you can fine-tune, you might achieve better power/performance trade-offs.
Q13: Could the 395 outperform a 4070 at a lower power limit?
A: Early marketing slides suggested it could challenge a 4070 configured at minimal wattage, but real-world results show it’s not consistently beating a full-power 4060, let alone a 4070. Driver updates or a bigger laptop chassis might change that in specific scenarios.
Q14: What about longevity and driver support?
A: NVIDIA has a proven track record of updates, and AMD is improving its driver support, especially for integrated GPUs. Expect better optimization over time, but if driver maturity is crucial, keep an eye on user reports and official updates.
Q15: How do upscaling technologies compare? DLSS vs. FSR?
A: Many players prefer DLSS for higher quality visuals at a given performance gain. FSR is still improving, but in some games, FSR can appear less crisp than DLSS. Which you prefer might depend on the title and your tolerance for artifacts.
Q16: Is this the end of mid-range discrete GPUs?
A: Not yet. While AMD’s integrated approach is impressive, discrete GPUs still hold strong advantages in raw performance, specialized hardware (ray tracing cores), and mature drivers. That said, the gap is narrowing, which is great news for competition.
Q17: Can I allocate even more than 16 GB to the iGPU?
A: If you have a laptop with 32 GB or 64 GB of system memory, you could theoretically set 24 or 32 GB for the GPU. However, in most current games, 8 GB to 16 GB is likely enough. Devoting too much memory to the GPU reduces system RAM, so it’s a balancing act.
Q18: How portable is the Ryzen Max+ 395 device compared to a 4060 laptop?
A: The tested model is a sleek 13-inch design that can detach from its keyboard and function like a tablet. The 4060 test system is a 15-inch clamshell laptop. If portability and 2-in-1 functionality matter, AMD wins. If raw performance per dollar matters, the 4060 is the stronger choice.
Q19: Which system handles multi-core productivity better?
A: The 16-core Zen 5 CPU in the 395 crushes multi-threaded tasks. If you regularly do 3D rendering or heavy video editing, it’s a legitimate powerhouse. The 4060 laptop tested was paired with a previous-gen CPU, so the AMD system definitely has a CPU advantage outside of gaming.
Q20: Are there gaming laptops with the Ryzen Max+ 395 yet?
A: Most OEMs have announced only niche or premium devices so far, often smaller 2-in-1 or tablet-style designs. A traditional gaming laptop with a robust 120W TDP for the 395 might appear, but it’s not common at the time of writing.
Conclusion: Is an Integrated GPU Ready to Replace Discrete Graphics?
From my perspective, AMD’s Ryzen Max+ 395 breaks new ground in integrated graphics performance. There’s no denying the achievement of approaching a power-hungry mid-range discrete GPU like the RTX 4060 in many games, sometimes even matching or exceeding it under specific conditions.
Yet, that achievement comes with limitations. Ray tracing tends to favor NVIDIA, and raw performance is still often higher on the 4060. Moreover, the Ryzen-based device is expensive, even outpricing some 4080 laptop deals.
If you want the best gaming performance for your money, a traditional 4060 laptop is still a more budget-friendly route. But if you crave a hyper-portable design with an advanced CPU and integrated GPU, AMD’s new chip is a tantalizing peek at what’s ahead in laptop evolution.
Ultimately, there’s no universal winner—it all depends on your budget, priorities, and how much you value portability or CPU horsepower. The choice is yours, and I hope this breakdown helps you decide which path fits your needs best.
Thanks for reading, and enjoy your next gaming adventure—wherever you decide to power it.