AMD FirePro W7000 vs NVIDIA T400 4 GB Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a clear, though not uniform, advantage for the AMD FirePro W7000 across the two benchmark tests. In Geekbench OpenCL, the FirePro W7000 scores 17,808 against the NVIDIA T400 4 GB’s 17,320. That is a 2.8% lead, a modest margin that places both cards within striking distance of each other in compute workloads that scale well across architectures.

The gap widens dramatically in Geekbench Vulkan. Here, the FirePro W7000 posts 22,001, while the NVIDIA T400 4 GB manages 16,263. The resulting delta is 35.3%, a substantial advantage for the older AMD card. This suggests that the FirePro W7000’s raw shading throughput and memory subsystem respond better to Vulkan’s explicit, low-overhead API model, whereas the T400’s Turing architecture, despite its newer design, does not translate its features into a comparable score in this specific test.

Looking at the broader database context, the FirePro W7000’s average benchmark score is 19,905, and it sits at the 65th percentile of all GPUs. Its nearest rivals include the NVIDIA Tesla K40m (19,885, delta 0.1%), the AMD Radeon RX 6650 XT (19,765, delta 0.7%), the AMD FirePro D300 (19,637, delta 1.4%), and the NVIDIA Quadro K5200 (19,602, delta 1.5%). These are extremely tight margins, indicating that the FirePro W7000 performs essentially on par with a cluster of mid-to-high-end workstation and enthusiast cards from its era.

The NVIDIA T400 4 GB, by contrast, has an average benchmark score of 16,792 and ranks at the 60th percentile. Its nearest rivals are the AMD Radeon RX 7600S (16,696, delta 0.6%), the NVIDIA Tesla M4 (16,932, delta -0.8%), the AMD Radeon HD 7970M (17,019, delta -1.3%), and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 690 (17,037, delta -1.4%). The T400’s position here shows it sits slightly below those peers, though the deltas are small, all within 1.4 percentage points. The FirePro W7000’s average score is roughly 18.5% higher than the T400’s average, which aligns with the individual benchmark results.

The head-to-head record is 2 wins for the AMD FirePro W7000 and 0 for the NVIDIA T400 4 GB. The Vulkan result, in particular, is decisive, while the OpenCL result is closer but still favors the AMD card. No benchmark in the database shows the NVIDIA card ahead.

FAQ

Q: Which card has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD FirePro W7000, with an average score of 19,905, compared to the NVIDIA T400 4 GB’s 16,792.

Q: How large is the Vulkan performance gap between the two cards?

A: The AMD FirePro W7000 leads by 35.3% in Geekbench Vulkan, scoring 22,001 versus the NVIDIA T400 4 GB’s 16,263.

Q: In which test is the NVIDIA T400 4 GB closest to the AMD FirePro W7000?

A: In Geekbench OpenCL, where the FirePro W7000 scores 17,808 and the T400 scores 17,320, a difference of only 2.8%.

Q: What is the percentile ranking of each card among all GPUs?

A: The AMD FirePro W7000 sits at the 65th percentile, while the NVIDIA T400 4 GB sits at the 60th percentile.

Q: Does the NVIDIA T400 4 GB win any benchmark in the head-to-head comparison?

A: No, the recorded data shows 0 wins for the NVIDIA T400 4 GB; the AMD FirePro W7000 wins both the OpenCL and Vulkan tests.

Q: How does the FirePro W7000 compare to the NVIDIA Quadro K5200, a nearby rival?

A: The FirePro W7000 has an average score of 19,905, which is 1.5% higher than the Quadro K5200’s 19,602.

Architecture Differences

The two cards come from different manufacturers and different architectural generations. The AMD FirePro W7000 uses the Pitcairn chip built on GCN 1.0 architecture, fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC. It integrates 2,800 million transistors on a 212 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 13.2 million per mm². The NVIDIA T400 4 GB uses the TU117 chip, based on Turing architecture, also fabricated at TSMC but on a 12 nm process. It packs 4,700 million transistors into a 200 mm² die, for a density of 23.5 million per mm². The T400’s process is smaller and denser, but the FirePro W7000’s larger die and older node still deliver higher absolute throughput in the recorded benchmarks.

The memory subsystems differ substantially. The FirePro W7000 has 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, delivering 153.6 GB/s of bandwidth. The T400 4 GB also has 4 GB, but uses GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus, yielding 80.00 GB/s. The FirePro has nearly double the memory bandwidth, which likely contributes to its lead in compute-heavy tasks. The memory clock is listed at 1200 MHz (4.8 Gbps effective) for the AMD card, while the NVIDIA card runs at 1250 MHz (10 Gbps effective). The T400’s faster per-pin speed does not compensate for its narrow bus.

The compute resources also diverge. The FirePro W7000 features 1,280 shading units, 80 texture mapping units, and 32 ROPs. The T400 offers 384 shading units, 24 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. The AMD card’s pixel rate is 30.40 GPixel/s versus 22.80 GPixel/s for the NVIDIA card, and its texture rate is 76.00 GTexel/s versus 34.20 GTexel/s. In FP32, the FirePro W7000 reaches 2.432 TFLOPS, while the T400 achieves 1,094.4 GFLOPS. The T400 does support FP16 at 2.189 TFLOPS (2:1), a feature the FirePro does not list, but this does not affect the recorded benchmark scores.

Both cards are single-slot, but their power profiles are very different. The FirePro W7000 has a TDP of 150 W and requires a 1x 6-pin power connector, with a suggested PSU of 450 W. The T400 4 GB has a TDP of only 30 W, requires no power connectors, and suggests a 200 W PSU. Display outputs also differ: the FirePro has 4x DisplayPort 1.2, while the T400 has 3x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a. API support shows the T400 with DirectX 12 (12_1) versus the FirePro’s DirectX 12 (11_1), and Vulkan 1.4 versus 1.2.170, but these are feature-level differences, not score differences.

The Verdict

The data points to a straightforward choice for raw benchmark performance: the AMD FirePro W7000 is the faster card in both recorded tests. Its OpenCL lead is narrow at 2.8%, but its Vulkan lead is commanding at 35.3%. The FirePro W7000 also holds a higher percentile rank (65th versus 60th) and a higher average benchmark score (19,905 versus 16,792). For any workload that relies on compute throughput, particularly through Vulkan, the FirePro W7000 is the stronger pick.

The NVIDIA T400 4 GB, however, has clear advantages in power draw and physical requirements. Its TDP of 30 W is a fraction of the FirePro’s 150 W, and it needs no auxiliary power connector, only a 200 W PSU. It also supports a newer DirectX feature level (12_1) and a newer Vulkan version (1.4). For systems where power delivery or cooling is constrained, the T400 is the more practical option. But the benchmark data does not show any performance win for the NVIDIA card.

The verdict, strictly from the database: choose the AMD FirePro W7000 for compute performance, especially in Vulkan-heavy tasks. Choose the NVIDIA T400 4 GB for a lower-power, lower-thermal footprint and newer API feature support, accepting lower raw scores.

Specification Differences

The following fields differ between the two cards, based on the recorded data:

• Chip: AMD FirePro W7000 uses Pitcairn; NVIDIA T400 4 GB uses TU117.
• Architecture: GCN 1.0 versus Turing.
• Process Node: 28 nm versus 12 nm.
• Transistors: 2,800 million versus 4,700 million.
• Die Size: 212 mm² versus 200 mm².
• Transistor Density: 13.2M / mm² versus 23.5M / mm².
• Base Clock: Not listed for the FirePro; 420 MHz for the T400.
• Boost Clock: Not listed for the FirePro; 1425 MHz for the T400.
• Memory Clock: 1200 MHz (4.8 Gbps effective) versus 1250 MHz (10 Gbps effective).
• Memory Type: GDDR5 versus GDDR6.
• Memory Bus Width: 256 bit versus 64 bit.
• Memory Bandwidth: 153.6 GB/s versus 80.00 GB/s.
• Shading Units: 1280 versus 384.
• Texture Mapping Units: 80 versus 24.
• ROPs: 32 versus 16.
• Pixel Rate: 30.40 GPixel/s versus 22.80 GPixel/s.
• Texture Rate: 76.00 GTexel/s versus 34.20 GTexel/s.
• FP32 Performance: 2.432 TFLOPS versus 1,094.4 GFLOPS.
• FP16 Performance: Not listed for the FirePro; 2.189 TFLOPS (2:1) for the T400.
• TDP: 150 W versus 30 W.
• Power Connectors: 1x 6-pin versus None.
• Suggested PSU: 450 W versus 200 W.
• Display Outputs: 4x DisplayPort 1.2 versus 3x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a.
• DirectX Support: 12 (11_1) versus 12 (12_1).
• Vulkan Support: 1.2.170 versus 1.4.
• Dimensions (Length): 242 mm (9.5 inches) versus not listed.
• Dimensions (Height): 111 mm (4.4 inches) versus not listed.
• Release Date: 2012-06-12 versus 2021-05-05.
• Predecessor: FirePro Terascale versus Quadro Volta.
• Successor: Radeon Pro Polaris versus Workstation Ampere.
• Launch MSRP: 899 USD for the FirePro; not listed for the T400.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD FirePro W7000 wins in every benchmark category recorded. Its Geekbench OpenCL score of 17,808 tops the T400’s 17,320, and its Geekbench Vulkan score of 22,001 is far ahead of the T400’s 16,263. The FirePro also wins on memory bandwidth (153.6 GB/s versus 80.00 GB/s), texture rate (76.00 GTexel/s versus 34.20 GTexel/s), pixel rate (30.40 GPixel/s versus 22.80 GPixel/s), and FP32 throughput (2.432 TFLOPS versus 1,094.4 GFLOPS). Its higher average score and percentile ranking reinforce this across the database.

The NVIDIA T400 4 GB wins on power efficiency and physical footprint. Its 30 W TDP is dramatically lower than the FirePro’s 150 W, and it requires no power connector, only a 200 W PSU. It also supports newer API versions, specifically DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.4, which may matter for software compatibility in modern environments. Its FP16 capability, listed at 2.189 TFLOPS (2:1), is a feature the FirePro does not document, though it does not appear in the recorded benchmark scores.

For use cases, the FirePro W7000 is the choice for compute-heavy tasks where memory bandwidth and raw shading power are critical, such as OpenCL or Vulkan-based rendering pipelines. The T400 4 GB is the choice for low-power, low-heat environments, such as compact workstations or multi-GPU systems where power draw and cooling are limited. The data does not show any performance scenario where the T400 outruns the FirePro, but its operational advantages are clear from the specification differences.