AMD Radeon 780M vs NVIDIA T400 4 GB Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The data available for direct comparison shows a decisive sweep for the AMD Radeon 780M across the two shared benchmark tests. In Geekbench OpenCL, the 780M scores 18,602 against the NVIDIA T400 4 GB’s 17,320, a 7.4% advantage. This is a meaningful margin, though not overwhelming, suggesting that in compute workloads leveraging OpenCL, the AMD part holds a clear but not dramatic edge. The gap widens considerably in Geekbench Vulkan, where the 780M delivers 33,683 versus the T400’s 16,263 — a 107.1% difference. That is more than double the performance, a substantial gulf that indicates a fundamental disparity in how the two architectures handle modern graphics APIs.

Looking at aggregate scores, the 780M’s average benchmark score is 17,588, while the T400’s is 16,792. This puts the 780M roughly 4.7% ahead overall. The percentile rankings are close — the 780M sits at the 61st percentile of all GPUs, while the T400 sits at the 60th — but this near-tie in percentile masks the uneven nature of the head-to-head results. The 780M’s nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon Pro 560 (average score 17,551, deltaPct 0.2%) and the AMD Radeon Pro 460 (17,509, deltaPct 0.5%), placing it in a cluster of mid-range mobile and workstation-class parts. The T400, by contrast, is bracketed by the AMD Radeon RX 7600S (16,696, deltaPct 0.6%) and the NVIDIA Tesla M4 (16,932, deltaPct -0.8%), a slightly lower tier of average scores.

The Vulkan result is particularly telling. A 107.1% lead in a cross-platform, low-level API benchmark highlights that the RDNA 3.0 architecture in the 780M is far more efficient at translating draw calls and managing GPU resources than the Turing-based T400. The OpenCL result, while closer, still favors the 780M, meaning that even in a more generic compute context, the AMD part outperforms. There is no single test in the shared set where the T400 comes out ahead; the wins column reads 2 for the 780M and 0 for the T400.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon 780M wins in every measured category. For pure compute throughput, the fp32 rating of 8.909 TFLOPS dwarfs the T400’s 1,094.4 GFLOPS, an eightfold difference that explains the OpenCL and Vulkan gaps. The 780M also holds advantages in pixel rate (92.80 GPixel/s versus 22.80 GPixel/s) and texture rate (139.2 GTexel/s versus 34.20 GTexel/s), which are direct indicators of rasterization and texture-fetching capability. These numbers suggest that the 780M is not merely faster in synthetic benchmarks but structurally equipped to handle higher-resolution rendering and more complex scenes.

The T400’s strengths are narrower and lie outside raw performance. It has dedicated 4 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 64-bit bus with 80.00 GB/s of bandwidth, whereas the 780M relies on System Shared memory, making its bandwidth "System Dependent." In scenarios where dedicated VRAM is critical — such as holding larger textures or datasets in local memory — the T400 has a structural advantage, though the benchmark data does not include a test that isolates this. The T400 also draws 30 W versus the 780M’s 15 W, but it is a single-slot card with no power connectors, suggesting it is designed for low-profile workstation installs rather than peak performance.

For use cases, the 780M is the clear choice for any workload that stresses the GPU compute or graphics pipeline: Vulkan-based applications, OpenCL compute, or high-fill-rate rendering. The T400, with its 12 nm Turing architecture and 384 shading units (half the 780M’s 768), is better suited to tasks where software certification or driver stability in a professional context outweighs raw speed — a factor not captured in the benchmark numbers but implied by its Quadro Turing generation label and 3x mini-DisplayPort outputs.

The Verdict

Based strictly on the data, the AMD Radeon 780M is the superior performer. Its 107.1% lead in Vulkan and 7.4% lead in OpenCL are unambiguous. The average benchmark score of 17,588 versus 16,792 confirms a consistent advantage, and the 780M’s 61st percentile ranking versus the T400’s 60th, while close, still favors AMD. The 780M’s fp32 throughput of 8.909 TFLOPS is a generational leap over the T400’s 1,094.4 GFLOPS, and its 12 RT cores (the T400 has none) add hardware ray tracing support that the NVIDIA part cannot match.

For a user prioritizing raw performance, the 780M is the only rational pick from these two. Its 4 nm process node (versus 12 nm), higher transistor density (142.6M per mm² versus 23.5M), and larger die (178 mm² versus 200 mm² with more transistors at 25,390 million versus 4,700 million) all point to a more modern and capable design. The T400’s only advantages are its dedicated memory and lower power draw — 30 W is higher than 15 W, but the T400 has a suggested PSU of 200 W, which is modest. However, no benchmark in the pack shows the T400 winning any test. The verdict is straightforward: choose the 780M for performance, and consider the T400 only if dedicated 4 GB GDDR6 memory or a single-slot form factor is a hard requirement, since the data does not demonstrate any performance benefit for the NVIDIA card.

FAQ

Q: How much faster is the AMD Radeon 780M in Vulkan?

A: The 780M scores 33,683 in Geekbench Vulkan, which is 107.1% higher than the NVIDIA T400 4 GB’s 16,263, meaning it more than doubles the T400’s Vulkan performance.

Q: Is the NVIDIA T400 4 GB competitive in any shared benchmark?

A: No. In the two shared tests (Geekbench OpenCL and Geekbench Vulkan), the T400 loses both, with the closest margin being a 7.4% deficit in OpenCL.

Q: What is the average benchmark score difference between the two?

A: The 780M has an average benchmark score of 17,588, while the T400’s is 16,792. That is a difference of 796 points, or roughly 4.7% in favor of the 780M.

Q: Which GPU has more shading units?

A: The AMD Radeon 780M has 768 shading units, double the NVIDIA T400 4 GB’s 384 shading units.

Q: Does the NVIDIA T400 have ray tracing cores?

A: No. The T400 lists no RT cores, while the 780M features 12 RT cores.

Q: What are the memory configurations?

A: The T400 has 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus with 80.00 GB/s bandwidth. The 780M uses System Shared memory, with bandwidth listed as System Dependent.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs represent fundamentally different design philosophies and eras. The AMD Radeon 780M is built on the RDNA 3.0 architecture, manufactured on a 4 nm process at TSMC, with a die size of 178 mm² and 25,390 million transistors. This yields a transistor density of 142.6 million per mm², a figure that reflects the advanced node’s ability to pack enormous compute resources into a small area. The chip is codenamed Phoenix and belongs to the Navi III IGP generation, indicating it is an integrated graphics processor rather than a discrete card. Its base clock is 800 MHz, boosting to 2900 MHz, and it carries 768 shading units, 48 TMUs, 32 ROPs, and 12 RT cores. The fp32 throughput is 8.909 TFLOPS, with fp16 at the same rate (1:1). It supports PCIe 4.0 x8 and APIs including DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4.

The NVIDIA T400 4 GB, in contrast, uses the Turing architecture on a 12 nm process, also from TSMC, with a die size of 200 mm² but only 4,700 million transistors — a density of 23.5 million per mm². This is a much older and less dense design, reflected in its lower specifications. The TU117 chip runs at a base clock of 420 MHz and boosts to 1425 MHz, with 384 shading units, 24 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. It has no RT cores and no tensor cores. Its fp32 output is 1,094.4 GFLOPS, and fp16 is 2.189 TFLOPS (2:1). The T400 is a discrete, single-slot card with 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus, delivering 80.00 GB/s of bandwidth. It uses PCIe 3.0 x16 and supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. Its power profile is 30 W, and it has a suggested PSU of 200 W.

The architectural split is stark: the 780M leverages a modern, high-density node and a massive transistor budget for compute, while the T400 relies on a larger, older die with a fraction of the transistors. The 780M’s memory is system-shared, meaning performance depends on the host system’s RAM, whereas the T400’s dedicated GDDR6 offers fixed bandwidth. The 780M is an IGP with motherboard-dependent display outputs, while the T400 is a standalone card with 3x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a outputs. The 780M is listed as Active in production, released on 2024-01-30, while the T400 is End-of-life, released on 2021-05-05. These dates and statuses align with the performance gap: the 780M is a newer, more capable part, while the T400 is a legacy workstation option.