AMD Radeon 680M vs NVIDIA T400 4 GB Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a clear and consistent margin in favor of the AMD Radeon 680M across the two shared benchmark workloads. In Geekbench OpenCL, the AMD Radeon 680M scores 23,468 against the NVIDIA T400 4 GB’s 17,320. That is a delta of 26.2 percent, meaning the integrated Radeon part delivers roughly a quarter more compute throughput in this API. The gap is nearly identical in Geekbench Vulkan: the Radeon 680M posts 21,965, while the T400 manages 16,263, a 26 percent deficit for the NVIDIA card.

These are not marginal wins. The T400 4 GB trails in both tests, and the magnitude is consistent enough to suggest a fundamental performance ceiling rather than a workload-specific quirk. The Radeon 680M wins both head-to-head matchups, giving it a 2-0 record in the database’s direct comparison set. The NVIDIA part’s average benchmark score across all recorded tests sits at 16,792, which places it in the 60th percentile of all GPUs tracked. The Radeon 680M’s average is lower at 15,270, but that figure is dragged down by the inclusion of a 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 result of 378, a workload where the integrated part is clearly not optimized. In the two tests where both cards appear, the Radeon is decisively ahead.

Context from the nearest rival data reinforces the picture. The T400 4 GB’s average score of 16,792 puts it within 0.6 percent of the AMD Radeon RX 7600S (16,696), 0.8 percent ahead of the NVIDIA Tesla M4 (16,932), and 1.4 percent above the GeForce GTX 690 (17,037). Those are tight groupings, indicating the T400 sits in a narrow performance band. The Radeon 680M’s average of 15,270 is similarly clustered: it sits 0.1 percent behind the GeForce GTX 580 (15,283) and the RTX 2060 (15,290), while leading the RTX 3050 OEM (15,199) by 0.5 percent and the RX 7600 (15,171) by 0.7 percent. The averages hide the real story, though. In the two benchmarks where both are measured, the Radeon 680M’s raw scores are far above its average, while the T400’s scores are near its own average. The OpenCL result alone puts the Radeon 680M 10.8 percent above its own average score, while the T400’s OpenCL result is only 3.1 percent above its average.

The delta percentages in the head-to-head table are negative from the T400’s perspective, which is the database’s way of flagging a loss. A -26.2 percent delta in OpenCL and a -26 percent delta in Vulkan are substantial margins, not rounding errors. For a discrete workstation card facing an integrated GPU, this is an unusual outcome. The Radeon 680M is not just competitive; it is faster in every shared test, and by a wide enough margin that the T400’s role as a dedicated solution looks questionable in pure compute terms.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU wins in Geekbench OpenCL?

A: The AMD Radeon 680M wins with a score of 23,468 versus the NVIDIA T400 4 GB’s 17,320, a delta of 26.2 percent.

Q: Is the Vulkan result different from OpenCL?

A: No, the pattern holds. The Radeon 680M scores 21,965 in Vulkan, while the T400 scores 16,263, a 26 percent advantage for the AMD part.

Q: How do the average benchmark scores compare?

A: The NVIDIA T400 4 GB has a higher average benchmark score of 16,792, versus 15,270 for the Radeon 680M. However, the Radeon’s average includes a 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 result of 378, which pulls it down.

Q: What percentile does each GPU sit in?

A: The T400 4 GB is in the 60th percentile of all GPUs, while the Radeon 680M is in the 57th percentile.

Q: Are the Radeon 680M’s nearest rivals similar in score?

A: Yes. The Radeon 680M is within 0.1 percent of the GeForce GTX 580 and RTX 2060, and within 0.7 percent of the RTX 3050 OEM and RX 7600.

Q: Does the T400 4 GB have any benchmark win?

A: In the head-to-head set, the T400 wins zero tests. The Radeon 680M wins both.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different architectural generations and design philosophies. The NVIDIA T400 4 GB is built on the Turing architecture, using the TU117 chip, and belongs to the Quadro Turing (Tx000) generation. It is fabricated on a 12 nm process at TSMC, with 4,700 million transistors on a 200 mm² die. That yields a transistor density of 23.5 million per square millimeter. The AMD Radeon 680M, in contrast, uses the RDNA 2.0 architecture with the Rembrandt+ chip, part of the Navi II IGP (Rembrandt Mobile) generation. It is built on a 6 nm process, also at TSMC, with 13,100 million transistors on a 208 mm² die, giving a density of 63.0 million per square millimeter. The Radeon’s process node is twice as dense per area, a direct result of the smaller manufacturing process.

The compute resources differ sharply. The T400 has 384 shading units, 24 texture mapping units, and 16 render output units. The Radeon 680M doubles those counts: 768 shading units, 48 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. The Radeon also includes 12 ray tracing cores, a feature the T400 lacks entirely. Neither card has tensor cores, so that comparison is moot.

Clock behavior is another split. The T400 runs a base clock of 420 MHz and a boost clock of 1425 MHz, which is a wide range. The Radeon 680M runs a base clock of 2000 MHz and a boost of 2200 MHz, a much higher and tighter range. Pixel and texture rates reflect the resource gap: the T400 produces 22.80 GPixel/s and 34.20 GTexel/s, while the Radeon 680M produces 70.40 GPixel/s and 105.6 GTexel/s. Floating-point throughput follows the same pattern. The T400 delivers 1,094.4 GFLOPS in FP32, while the Radeon 680M delivers 3.379 TFLOPS, over three times as much. FP16 figures are 2.189 TFLOPS for the T400 and 6.758 TFLOPS for the Radeon, both at a 2:1 ratio.

Memory architecture is fundamentally different. The T400 uses 4 GB of dedicated GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus, with 80.00 GB/s of bandwidth. The Radeon 680M uses system shared memory, with a bus width and bandwidth marked as system dependent. That means the Radeon’s memory performance is not fixed; it scales with the host system’s RAM configuration. The T400’s memory clock is 1250 MHz, or 10 Gbps effective, while the Radeon’s memory clock is simply listed as system shared.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ on nearly every specification line in the database. The T400 is a discrete, single-slot PCIe 3.0 x16 card with a 30 W TDP and no power connectors, requiring a 200 W suggested power supply. The Radeon 680M is an integrated GPU (IGP) with a 50 W TDP, no power connectors, and a PCIe 4.0 x8 interface. The Radeon has no suggested PSU figure, as it draws from the host system’s power envelope. Display outputs also diverge: the T400 offers 3x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a, while the Radeon’s outputs are portable device dependent, meaning they change with the laptop or mini-PC it is embedded in.

The bus interface is a clear differentiator: PCIe 3.0 x16 for NVIDIA versus PCIe 4.0 x8 for AMD. The Radeon’s interface is newer and has higher per-lane bandwidth, though the T400’s x16 width compensates on older platforms. DirectX support differs as well: the T400 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), while the Radeon supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), a higher feature level. Both support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4, so those APIs are identical.

Production status and release timing separate the two further. The T400 is end-of-life, released on May 5, 2021, with its predecessor listed as Quadro Volta and successor as Workstation Ampere. The Radeon 680M is active, released on January 2, 2023, with predecessor Vega II IGP and successor Navi III IGP. The T400’s slot width is single-slot and its dimensions are not recorded; the Radeon is listed as IGP, meaning it occupies no slot. The T400’s transistor count is 4,700 million versus 13,100 million for the Radeon, and the die sizes are close (200 mm² versus 208 mm²), but the Radeon packs far more transistors into a similar area.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon 680M wins in raw compute throughput across both shared benchmarks. In OpenCL, it leads by 26.2 percent; in Vulkan, by 26 percent. That makes it the clear choice for any workload that stresses general-purpose compute or Vulkan-based rendering. Its 768 shading units, 48 TMUs, 32 ROPs, and 12 ray tracing cores provide a hardware resource advantage that the T400 cannot match. The Radeon’s higher clocks (2000 MHz base, 2200 MHz boost) and 3.379 TFLOPS FP32 throughput indicate it can sustain heavy parallel loads, and its pixel rate of 70.40 GPixel/s is over three times the T400’s 22.80 GPixel/s. For users running Vulkan applications or OpenCL compute tasks, the Radeon 680M is the superior part.

The NVIDIA T400 4 GB has fewer outright wins, but it holds advantages in specific areas. Its average benchmark score of 16,792 is higher than the Radeon’s 15,270, and it sits in the 60th percentile versus the Radeon’s 57th. That suggests the T400 is more consistent across a broader range of tests, even if it loses the two head-to-head matchups. The T400 also has dedicated 4 GB of GDDR6 memory with 80.00 GB/s of bandwidth, which is fixed and predictable, unlike the Radeon’s system-shared memory that depends on host RAM speed and capacity. For workloads that require dedicated VRAM without competing with the CPU for system memory, the T400 has a structural advantage. Its 30 W TDP is also lower than the Radeon’s 50 W, making it a more energy-efficient choice in a discrete form factor. The T400’s single-slot design and three mini-DisplayPort outputs make it a viable option for multi-display workstation setups where the Radeon’s portable-device-dependent outputs are not suitable.

In practical terms, the Radeon 680M wins for compute-heavy tasks and modern API support, especially where ray tracing is involved. The T400 wins for legacy compatibility, fixed memory bandwidth, and low power draw in a discrete package. The database’s head-to-head record is 2-0 for the Radeon, but the T400’s higher percentile ranking and dedicated memory profile mean it is not without merit. The choice depends on whether the workload prioritizes raw throughput (Radeon) or deterministic dedicated memory and lower power (T400).