AMD FirePro D500 vs NVIDIA T400 4 GB Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct benchmark comparison in the database is the Geekbench Vulkan test, and the result is decisive. The AMD FirePro D500 scores 18,533, while the NVIDIA T400 4 GB scores 16,263. That is a 14% advantage for the FirePro D500, a substantial gap in raw compute performance. This is not a marginal win; it is a clear margin that places the two cards in different performance tiers despite their shared workstation orientation.

The FirePro D500's score of 18,533 puts it at the 62nd percentile among all GPUs in the database. Its nearest rivals are the AMD Radeon RX 560X at 18,626 (0.5% ahead), the AMD Radeon Pro 5700 XT at 18,685 (0.8% ahead), the Intel Arc A770M at 18,383 (0.8% behind), and the AMD Radeon RX 460 at 18,373 (0.9% behind). The FirePro D500 sits comfortably in this cluster, trading blows with modern entry-level and mid-range parts. It is essentially at parity with the RX 560X and RX 460, which is notable for a card released much earlier.

The NVIDIA T400 4 GB, by contrast, scores 16,263 in Vulkan and also has an OpenCL score of 17,320. Its average benchmark score across recorded tests is 16,792, placing it at the 60th percentile. Its nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon RX 7600S at 16,696 (0.6% ahead), the NVIDIA Tesla M4 at 16,932 (0.8% ahead), the AMD Radeon HD 7970M at 17,019 (1.3% ahead), and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 690 at 17,037 (1.4% ahead). The T400's position among these rivals shows it is competitive with mobile and older desktop parts, but it sits below the FirePro D500 in the one test where both were measured.

The Vulkan result is the headline. The FirePro D500 leads by 2,270 points, which translates to the 14% delta recorded in the head-to-head. The T400's best recorded score, its OpenCL result of 17,320, still falls short of the FirePro D500's Vulkan score of 18,533. Even using the T400's strongest benchmark, the FirePro D500 remains ahead by roughly 7%. The data does not show a single test where the T400 wins.

Architecture Differences

The two cards come from different architectural generations and are built on different process nodes. The AMD FirePro D500 uses the Tahiti chip based on GCN 1.0 architecture, fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC. The NVIDIA T400 4 GB uses the TU117 chip based on Turing architecture, also fabricated at TSMC but on a 12 nm process. The node difference is significant: 28 nm versus 12 nm. The T400's newer node allows for a much higher transistor density of 23.5 million transistors per square millimeter, compared to 12.3 million for the FirePro D500.

Transistor counts are similar in absolute terms. The FirePro D500 has 4,313 million transistors on a die size of 352 mm². The T400 has 4,700 million transistors on a die size of 200 mm². Despite having fewer total transistors, the FirePro D500's die is considerably larger, a direct consequence of the older, less dense manufacturing process. The T400 fits more transistors into a much smaller area, which explains its dramatically lower power consumption.

The compute resources are heavily skewed toward the AMD part. 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. This is a 4x difference in shading units and TMUs, and a 2x difference in ROPs. The FirePro D500's raw throughput reflects this: it delivers 2.227 TFLOPS of FP32 compute, 69.60 GTexel/s of texture rate, and 23.20 GPixel/s of pixel rate. The T400 delivers 1,094.4 GFLOPS of FP32, 34.20 GTexel/s of texture rate, and 22.80 GPixel/s of pixel rate. The pixel rates are nearly identical, but the FirePro D500 is roughly 2x ahead in FP32 and texture throughput.

The T400 does have a notable advantage in FP16 compute. It delivers 2.189 TFLOPS of FP16 with a 2:1 ratio, while the FirePro D500 has no recorded FP16 capability. This makes the T400 more suitable for workloads that leverage half-precision arithmetic, though the FirePro D500's much larger FP32 and Vulkan scores suggest it is the stronger general-purpose compute card.

Memory configurations differ substantially. The FirePro D500 has 3 GB of GDDR5 on a 384-bit bus, yielding 243.8 GB/s of bandwidth. The T400 has 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus, yielding 80.00 GB/s of bandwidth. The FirePro D500 has over 3x the memory bandwidth, which is critical for data-heavy workloads. The T400 has 1 GB more capacity, which helps with larger datasets that fit within 4 GB, but its narrow bus severely limits throughput. The FirePro D500's memory runs at 1270 MHz (5.1 Gbps effective), while the T400's memory runs at 1250 MHz (10 Gbps effective). The T400's faster memory clock cannot compensate for its much narrower interface.

Power and physical design are polar opposites. The FirePro D500 has a TDP of 274 W, requires a 600 W suggested PSU, and is a dual-slot card measuring 279 mm (11 inches) in length. The T400 has a TDP of 30 W, requires only a 200 W suggested PSU, is a single-slot card, and draws power entirely from the PCIe slot with no external power connectors. This is a 244 W difference in thermal design power. The T400 is a low-profile, low-power solution, while the FirePro D500 is a high-power workstation card.

API support is close but not identical. Both support OpenGL 4.6 and DirectX 12. The FirePro D500 supports DirectX 12 (11_1 and Vulkan 1.1? The database records Vulkan 1.2.170 for the FirePro D500 and Vulkan 1.4 for the T400. The T400 also supports the newer DirectX 12 (12_1) feature level, while the FirePro D500 is at 11_1. Display outputs differ as well: the FirePro D500 has 6x mini-DisplayPort 1.2 and 1x SDI, while the T400 has 3x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a outputs.

The FirePro D500 belongs to the FirePro Data Center (Dx00 generation) and was released on 2014-01-17. Its predecessor is FirePro Terascale, and its successor is Radeon Instinct. The T400 belongs to the Quadro Turing (Tx000 generation and was released on 2021-05-05. Its predecessor is Quadro Volta, and its successor is Workstation Ampere. Both are marked as end-of-life products.

FAQ

Q: Which card wins the only head-to-head benchmark in the database?

A: The AMD FirePro D500 wins the Geekbench Vulkan test with a score of 18,533 versus the NVIDIA T400 4 GB's 16,263, a 14% advantage.

Q: How does the FirePro D500 compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The FirePro D500's average benchmark score is 18,533. It sits within 0.9% of the AMD Radeon RX 460 (18,373), 0.8% of the Intel Arc A770M (18,383), 0.5% behind the AMD Radeon RX 560X (18,626), and 0.8% behind the AMD Radeon Pro 5700 XT (18,685).

Q: What are the key memory differences between the two cards?

A: The FirePro D500 has 3 GB of GDDR5 on a 384-bit bus with 243.8 GB/s bandwidth. The T400 has 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus with 80.00 GB/s bandwidth. The FirePro D500 has over three times the bandwidth, while the T400 has 1 GB more capacity.

Q: Does the NVIDIA T400 4 GB have any performance advantage in the recorded data?

A: The T400 records a higher FP16 compute rate of 2.189 TFLOPS (2:1), whereas the FirePro D500 has no recorded FP16 figure. However, the FirePro D500 leads in FP32 compute (2.227 TFLOPS versus 1,094.4 GFLOPS) and in the Vulkan benchmark.

Q: How do power requirements differ?

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

Q: Which card has better API support?

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

The Verdict

The data points to a clear conclusion: the AMD FirePro D500 is the faster card in raw compute and in the only shared benchmark. It leads the NVIDIA T400 4 GB by 14% in Geekbench Vulkan, a significant margin. It offers more than double the FP32 throughput, more than double the texture rate, and over three times the memory bandwidth. Its 62nd percentile ranking among all GPUs, with an average score of 18,533, places it alongside modern mid-range parts like the Radeon RX 560X and RX 460.

The NVIDIA T400 4 GB is not without strengths. Its 30 W TDP, single-slot design, and lack of external power connectors make it far easier to integrate into constrained systems. Its 4 GB of GDDR6 memory provides more capacity than the FirePro D500's 3 GB. Its FP16 compute of 2.189 TFLOPS is a feature the FirePro D500 cannot match. Its Vulkan 1.4 and DirectX 12 (12_1 support are newer than the FirePro D500's Vulkan 1.2.170 and DirectX 12 (11_1.

But in the benchmark that matters most, the Vulkan score, the FirePro D500 wins outright. Its 18,533 score versus 16,263 is a 2,270-point gap. The T400's best recorded result, its OpenCL score of 17,320, is still below the FirePro D500's Vulkan score. The T400's average benchmark score of 16,792 and 60th percentile ranking trail the FirePro D500's 62nd percentile and 18,533 average.

For users prioritizing compute performance, the FirePro D500 is the choice. For users prioritizing low power, compact design, and newer API support, the T400 is the choice. The benchmark data does not support a performance win for the T400 in any recorded test.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD FirePro D500 | NVIDIA T400 4 GB |

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

| Architecture | GCN 1.0 | Turing |

| Process node | 28 nm | 12 nm |

| Transistors | 4,313 million | 4,700 million |

| Die size | 352 mm² | 200 mm² |

| Transistor density | 12.3M / mm² | 23.5M / mm² |

| Shading units | 1536 | 384 |

| TMUs | 96 | 24 |

| ROPs | 32 | 16 |

| FP32 | 2.227 TFLOPS | 1,094.4 GFLOPS |

| FP16 | Not recorded | 2.189 TFLOPS (2:1) |

| Pixel rate | 23.20 GPixel/s | 22.80 GPixel/s |

| Texture rate | 69.60 GTexel/s | 34.20 GTexel/s |

| Memory size | 3 GB | 4 GB |

| Memory type | GDDR5 | GDDR6 |

| Memory bus | 384 bit | 64 bit |

| Memory bandwidth | 243.8 GB/s | 80.00 GB/s |

| Memory clock | 1270 MHz (5.1 Gbps effective) | 1250 MHz (10 Gbps effective) |

| TDP | 274 W | 30 W |

| Slot width | Dual-slot | Single-slot |

| Power connectors | Not recorded | None |

| Suggested PSU | 600 W | 200 W |

| Display outputs | 6x mini-DisplayPort 1.2, 1x SDI | 3x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a |

| DirectX | 12 (11_1) | 12 (12_1) |

| Vulkan | 1.2.170 | 1.4 |

| Release date | 2014-01-17 | 2021-05-05 |

| Generation | FirePro Data Center (Dx00) | Quadro Turing (Tx000) |

Where Each One Wins

The AMD FirePro D500 wins in raw compute. Its 2.227 TFLOPS of FP32 is roughly double the T400's 1,094.4 GFLOPS. Its texture rate of 69.60 GTexel/s is more than double the T400's 34.20 GTexel/s. Its memory bandwidth of 243.8 GB/s is more than triple the T400's 80.00 GB/s. Its pixel rate of 23.20 GPixel/s slightly edges the T400's 22.80 GPixel/s. It wins the only direct benchmark, Geekbench Vulkan, by 14%. Its 1,536 shading units and 96 TMUs provide a structural advantage that no driver or software optimization can overcome.

The NVIDIA T400 4 GB wins in efficiency and modern features. Its 30 W TDP is a fraction of the FirePro D500's 274 W, and its 200 W suggested PSU requirement means it can run in systems where the FirePro D500's 600 W requirement would be prohibitive. Its single-slot design and lack of external power connectors make installation simpler. Its 4 GB of GDDR6 memory provides more capacity for datasets that exceed 3 GB. Its FP16 compute of 2.189 TFLOPS is unique in this comparison. Its newer API support, including Vulkan 1.4 and DirectX 12 (12_1), gives it an edge in software compatibility with newer applications.

The use-case split is clear. The FirePro D500 is for compute-heavy workloads where power draw and physical space are not constraints, such as workstations with ample PSU headroom and full-size chassis. The T400 is for compact or power-constrained systems, basic display output, and workloads that benefit from FP16 or newer API features. The benchmark data favors the FirePro D500 for performance, while the T400 wins on adaptability.