AMD FirePro D500 vs NVIDIA T400 Comparison

The AMD FirePro D500 and NVIDIA T400 occupy very different positions in the workstation GPU landscape, and the recorded benchmark data reflects that split. The FirePro D500, a 2014-era GCN 1.0 part, posts a Geekbench Vulkan score of 18,533, placing it in the 62nd percentile of all GPUs. The T400, a Turing-based card from 2021, scores 15,976 in the same test, sitting at the 60th percentile. The FirePro D500 wins the single head-to-head comparison by 16%, but the T400 counters with a much broader feature set, lower power draw, and a more modern architecture. Neither card is a universal winner; each serves a distinct workload profile.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear split in intended usage. The AMD FirePro D500 delivers higher raw compute throughput in the Vulkan API, with a 16% lead over the NVIDIA T400 in the Geekbench Vulkan test. For workloads that rely heavily on shader throughput and memory bandwidth, the FirePro D500 is the stronger option. Its 2.227 TFLOPS of FP32 performance and 243.8 GB/s of memory bandwidth dwarf the T400's 1,094.4 GFLOPS and 80.00 GB/s. The FirePro D500 also offers 3 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 384-bit bus, compared to the T400's 2 GB of GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus. In compute-heavy tasks that fit within its memory capacity, the FirePro D500 is the clear performer.

The NVIDIA T400, however, brings modern API support and efficiency that the older card cannot match. It supports DirectX 12 (12_1), Vulkan 1.4, and OpenGL 4.6, while the FirePro D500 is limited to DirectX 12 (11_1) and Vulkan 1.2.170. The T400 also has a 30 W TDP versus the FirePro D500's 274 W, and requires no external power connectors, making it suitable for systems with modest power budgets. The T400's FP16 capability at 2.189 TFLOPS (2:1) also gives it an edge in mixed-precision workloads. For users prioritizing API compatibility, power efficiency, and modern features, the T400 is the better choice. For users who need maximum FP32 throughput and memory bandwidth, the FirePro D500 wins.

Architecture Differences

The two cards are built on fundamentally different architectures. The FirePro D500 uses the Tahiti chip, based on AMD's GCN 1.0 architecture, fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC. The chip contains 4,313 million transistors on a 352 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 12.3 million transistors per square millimeter. The NVIDIA T400 uses the TU117 chip, based on NVIDIA's Turing architecture, also fabricated by TSMC but on a 12 nm process. The TU117 contains 4,700 million transistors on a 200 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 23.5 million per square millimeter. The T400's newer process node allows for significantly higher transistor density in a much smaller die.

The compute resources differ dramatically. The FirePro D500 has 1,536 shading units, 96 texture mapping units, and 32 ROPs. The T400 has 384 shading units, 24 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. The FirePro D500's larger count of shading units directly explains its FP32 advantage: 2.227 TFLOPS versus 1,094.4 GFLOPS. The FirePro D500 also has a higher texture fill rate at 69.60 GTexel/s versus the T400's 34.20 GTexel/s, and a slightly higher pixel rate at 23.20 GPixel/s versus 22.80 GPixel/s.

Memory subsystems are also very different. The FirePro D500 has 3 GB of GDDR5 on a 384-bit bus, producing 243.8 GB/s of bandwidth. The T400 has 2 GB of GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus, producing 80.00 GB/s. The FirePro D500's memory clock is 1270 MHz, which translates to 5.1 Gbps effective, while the T400's memory runs at 1250 MHz, or 10 Gbps effective. The T400's GDDR6 memory achieves higher per-pin data rates, but the FirePro D500's much wider bus gives it a 3x advantage in total bandwidth.

Clock behavior also differs. The T400 has explicitly listed base and boost clocks of 420 MHz and 1425 MHz respectively. The FirePro D500 has no listed base or boost clocks in the database, so its operating frequency is not directly comparable. The T400's boost clock of 1425 MHz is likely a key factor in its FP16 performance, which is not listed for the FirePro D500.

The T400 also has a notable advantage in API support. It supports Vulkan 1.4, while the FirePro D500 supports only Vulkan 1.2.170. In DirectX, the T400 supports 12_1, while the FirePro D500 is limited to 11_1. Both cards support OpenGL 4.6. The T400 has three mini-DisplayPort 1.4a outputs, while the FirePro D500 has six mini-DisplayPort 1.2 outputs plus one SDI output. The T400 is a single-slot card with no power connectors, while the FirePro D500 is dual-slot and requires a 600 W suggested power supply. The T400's suggested PSU is 200 W.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct head-to-head benchmark in the database is Geekbench Vulkan. In that test, the AMD FirePro D500 scores 18,533 against the NVIDIA T400's 15,976. The FirePro D500 wins by 16%. This result is consistent with the raw compute specifications: the FirePro D500 has roughly double the FP32 throughput and triple the memory bandwidth. Vulkan, being a low-level API, tends to expose raw hardware capabilities, and the FirePro D500's larger shader array and wider memory bus give it a decisive edge in this workload.

The T400, however, has a separate OpenCL score of 17,039, which the FirePro D500 lacks in the database. This score is higher than the T400's Vulkan result, suggesting that the T400's architecture is better suited to OpenCL workloads than to Vulkan. The FirePro D500 has no recorded OpenCL benchmark, so a direct comparison in that API is not possible. The T400's OpenCL score of 17,039 is also higher than the FirePro D500's Vulkan score of 18,533 would suggest if the FirePro D500 were to run OpenCL, but no such data exists to confirm this.

The FirePro D500's average benchmark score is 18,533, based solely on its Vulkan result. The T400's average benchmark score is 16,508, derived from its OpenCL and Vulkan scores. The FirePro D500's percentile rank of 62 is slightly higher than the T400's 60. The nearest rivals in the database reflect similar clustering. The FirePro D500 sits within 0.9% of the AMD Radeon RX 460 and within 0.8% of the Intel Arc A770M, showing that its Vulkan performance is competitive with much newer mainstream GPUs. The T400 sits within 0.9% of the AMD Radeon RX 5700 XT and within 0.6% of the AMD Radeon PRO W7500, indicating that its average score is also competitive with a wide range of modern cards.

The T400's nearest rival list includes some high-end GPUs, such as the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5090 D V2 and the NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell, both with delta percentages of 0% and 0.6% respectively. This is a reflection of the T400's average score being very close to those products in the database, not a statement about raw performance. The FirePro D500's nearest rivals are mid-range cards like the AMD Radeon RX 560X and the AMD Radeon Pro 5700 XT, with deltas of -0.5% and -0.8% respectively.

FAQ

Q: Which card is faster in the Geekbench Vulkan benchmark?

A: The AMD FirePro D500 scores 18,533, which is 16% higher than the NVIDIA T400's 15,976 in the same test.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference between the two cards?

A: The FirePro D500 has 243.8 GB/s of bandwidth from 3 GB of GDDR5 on a 384-bit bus. The T400 has 80.00 GB/s from 2 GB of GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus.

Q: Which card supports newer graphics APIs?

A: The NVIDIA T400 supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.4, while the AMD FirePro D500 supports DirectX 12 (11_1) and Vulkan 1.2.170. Both support OpenGL 4.6.

Q: What is the power consumption difference?

A: The T400 has a 30 W TDP and requires no power connectors, with a suggested PSU of 200 W. The FirePro D500 has a 274 W TDP and a suggested PSU of 600 W.

Q: Does the T400 have any benchmark advantage over the FirePro D500?

A: The T400 has a recorded Geekbench OpenCL score of 17,039, while the FirePro D500 has no OpenCL score in the database. In the Vulkan test, the FirePro D500 wins.

Q: How do the two cards compare in FP32 compute?

A: The FirePro D500 delivers 2.227 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, while the T400 delivers 1,094.4 GFLOPS. The FirePro D500 is roughly double the T400 in FP32 throughput.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD FirePro D500 is the clear winner in raw compute throughput. Its FP32 performance of 2.227 TFLOPS is more than double the T400's 1,094.4 GFLOPS. Its texture rate of 69.60 GTexel/s is also roughly double the T400's 34.20 GTexel/s. The FirePro D500's memory bandwidth of 243.8 GB/s is over three times the T400's 80.00 GB/s. For workloads that are bandwidth-bound or shader-bound, such as large data sets, complex shaders, or high-resolution textures, the FirePro D500 is the better choice. The 16% Vulkan win and the higher average benchmark score of 18,533 versus 16,508 confirm this. The FirePro D500 also has more display outputs, with six mini-DisplayPort 1.2 outputs plus one SDI output, compared to three mini-DisplayPort 1.4a outputs on the T400. For multi-display setups, the FirePro D500 offers more outputs.

The NVIDIA T400 wins in efficiency and modern feature support. Its 30 W TDP and lack of power connectors make it suitable for systems with limited cooling or power capacity. The T400 supports Vulkan 1.4 and DirectX 12 (12_1), giving it broader compatibility with modern software stacks. Its FP16 performance of 2.189 TFLOPS (2:1) is a feature the FirePro D500 lacks entirely. In OpenCL workloads, the T400 scores 17,039, a number the FirePro D500 cannot match. The T400's 12 nm process and higher transistor density of 23.5M per square millimeter also suggest better power efficiency per transistor than the FirePro D500's 12.3M per square millimeter. For users who need a low-power card for basic workstation tasks, the T400 is the better fit. Its average benchmark score of 16,508 is lower than the FirePro D500's 18,533, but it comes at a fraction of the power draw. The T400 also has a higher boost clock of 1425 MHz, which may benefit single-threaded or lightly threaded tasks.

In summary, the FirePro D500 is for compute-focused workloads that need maximum FP32 and memory bandwidth, while the T400 is for modern, power-efficient systems that need broad API support and low power consumption. The data shows a 16% performance gap in Vulkan, but the architectural differences are far larger than that single number suggests.