AMD Radeon Pro 460 vs NVIDIA T400 4 GB Comparison

The AMD Radeon Pro 460 and NVIDIA T400 4 GB are both end-of-life, low-profile workstation graphics cards aimed at entry-level tasks, yet they represent fundamentally different design philosophies and eras. The data shows a split decision: the NVIDIA T400 4 GB takes a decisive lead in OpenCL compute, while the AMD Radeon Pro 460 counters with a narrower victory in Vulkan performance. This head-to-head analysis will dissect the benchmark scores, architectural choices, and specification differences to determine which card is better suited for specific workloads, based purely on the provided metrics.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The two cards split their benchmark wins evenly, but the margins of victory are far from symmetrical. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the NVIDIA T400 4 GB delivers a score of 17,320, which is 11.8% higher than the AMD Radeon Pro 460’s score of 15,284. This is a substantial gap, indicating that for general-purpose compute workloads that leverage OpenCL, the NVIDIA card holds a clear advantage. This win is particularly significant given that the T400 has fewer shading units (384 vs. 1,024) and less raw FP32 throughput (1,094.4 GFLOPS vs. 1.858 TFLOPS), suggesting its Turing architecture is far more efficient at extracting performance per shader in this specific API.

Conversely, the AMD Radeon Pro 460 wins the Geekbench Vulkan test, but by a much slimmer margin. Its score of 16,816 is only 3.4% higher than the NVIDIA T400 4 GB’s score of 16,263. While this victory is real, the smaller delta suggests that the performance gap narrows significantly in Vulkan workloads. The AMD card’s higher shading unit count and FP32 rate appear to help it close the efficiency gap that NVIDIA enjoys in OpenCL, but they are not enough to secure a dominant win. The result shows that the Pro 460 is more competitive in this API, but the T400 remains within striking distance.

Looking at the average benchmark scores, the overall picture is close. The AMD Radeon Pro 460 has an average score of 17,509, placing it in the 61st percentile of all GPUs. The NVIDIA T400 4 GB trails slightly with an average of 16,792, landing in the 60th percentile. The difference of 717 points (approximately 4.3%) is notable, but it is driven almost entirely by the Pro 460’s strong Vulkan result. In terms of nearest rivals, the Pro 460’s average score is virtually tied with the NVIDIA Tesla K40c (17,468, a 0.2% delta) and the AMD Radeon Pro 560 (17,551, a -0.2% delta). The T400, meanwhile, is closely matched with the AMD Radeon RX 7600S (16,696, a 0.6% delta) and the NVIDIA Tesla M4 (16,932, a -0.8% delta). This data shows that while the T400 wins in OpenCL, the Pro 460’s overall average is buoyed by its Vulkan performance, making it the slightly higher-performing card in aggregate.

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide between these two cards is stark. The AMD Radeon Pro 460 is built on the GCN 4.0 architecture, using the Baffin chip fabricated on a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries. In contrast, the NVIDIA T400 4 GB uses the Turing architecture with the TU117 chip, fabricated on a 12 nm process at TSMC. This generational difference is fundamental. The Pro 460’s GCN design relies on a massive number of simple cores (1,024 shading units) to achieve its throughput, while the Turing architecture in the T400 uses fewer, more complex cores (384 shading units) with a focus on instruction-level efficiency and specialized hardware.

The transistor counts and die sizes tell a story of scale. The NVIDIA chip packs 4,700 million transistors onto a 200 mm² die, while the AMD chip contains 3,000 million transistors on a smaller 123 mm² die. This results in a similar transistor density (23.5M / mm² for NVIDIA vs. 24.4M / mm² for AMD), but the sheer size of the TU117 die allows for more complex logic and features per unit area. The clock speeds also reflect the design differences. The AMD card has a modest base clock of 850 MHz and a boost clock of 907 MHz, while the NVIDIA card runs at a very low base of 420 MHz but boosts aggressively to 1,425 MHz. This high boost clock is a hallmark of the Turing architecture’s power management and allows it to hit higher peak frequencies when thermal headroom permits.

Memory technology differs as well. The Pro 460 uses 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, yielding a bandwidth of 81.28 GB/s. The T400 also has 4 GB of memory, but it is faster GDDR6, albeit on a narrower 64-bit bus, resulting in a slightly lower bandwidth of 80.00 GB/s. The memory clocks are notable: the AMD card runs at 1,270 MHz (5.1 Gbps effective), while the NVIDIA card runs at 1,250 MHz (10 Gbps effective). The doubling of the effective data rate on the T400 is a key reason it can achieve comparable bandwidth with half the bus width. Neither card features dedicated ray tracing or tensor cores, as these are entry-level workstation parts.

FAQ

Q: Which card has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro 460 has a higher average benchmark score of 17,509, compared to the NVIDIA T400 4 GB’s 16,792. The Pro 460 also sits slightly higher in the percentile ranking at 61% versus 60%.

Q: Why does the NVIDIA T400 4 GB win in OpenCL despite having fewer cores?

A: In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the T400 scores 17,320 against the Pro 460’s 15,284, an 11.8% advantage. This suggests the Turing architecture’s design, including its higher boost clock of 1,425 MHz and newer memory technology, allows it to execute OpenCL instructions more efficiently than the GCN 4.0 architecture’s larger number of simpler cores.

Q: Is the AMD Radeon Pro 460 faster in any benchmark?

A: Yes, the AMD Radeon Pro 460 wins the Geekbench Vulkan test with a score of 16,816, which is 3.4% higher than the NVIDIA T400 4 GB’s score of 16,263. This shows the Pro 460 is more competitive in Vulkan-based workloads.

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

A: The AMD Radeon Pro 460 has a memory bandwidth of 81.28 GB/s using a 128-bit bus, while the NVIDIA T400 4 GB has a bandwidth of 80.00 GB/s using a 64-bit bus. Despite the different bus widths and memory types (GDDR5 vs. GDDR6), the bandwidth figures are very close.

Q: How do the cards compare in terms of power consumption?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro 460 has a TDP of 35 W, while the NVIDIA T400 4 GB has a slightly lower TDP of 30 W. Both cards require no external power connectors, but the T400 has a suggested PSU rating of 200 W, a specification not listed for the AMD card.

Q: Do either of these cards support hardware ray tracing?

A: No. The FACT PACK lists `rtCores` as null for both the AMD Radeon Pro 460 and the NVIDIA T400 4 GB, indicating that neither card includes dedicated ray tracing hardware.

Specification Differences

The following table and list detail the fields where the two cards differ:

• Chip: AMD Radeon Pro 460 uses "Baffin"; NVIDIA T400 4 GB uses "TU117".
• Architecture: AMD uses "GCN 4.0"; NVIDIA uses "Turing".
• Generation: AMD is from "Radeon Pro Mac (400 Series)"; NVIDIA is from "Quadro Turing (Tx000)".
• Process Node: AMD is on "14 nm"; NVIDIA is on "12 nm".
• Foundry: AMD uses "GlobalFoundries"; NVIDIA uses "TSMC".
• Transistors: AMD has "3,000 million"; NVIDIA has "4,700 million".
• Die Size: AMD is "123 mm²"; NVIDIA is "200 mm²".
• Transistor Density: AMD is "24.4M / mm²"; NVIDIA is "23.5M / mm²".
• Base Clock: AMD is "850 MHz"; NVIDIA is "420 MHz".
• Boost Clock: AMD is "907 MHz"; NVIDIA is "1,425 MHz".
• Memory Clock: AMD is "1270 MHz 5.1 Gbps effective"; NVIDIA is "1250 MHz 10 Gbps effective".
• Memory Type: AMD uses "GDDR5"; NVIDIA uses "GDDR6".
• Memory Bus Width: AMD is "128 bit"; NVIDIA is "64 bit".
• Memory Bandwidth: AMD is "81.28 GB/s"; NVIDIA is "80.00 GB/s".
• Shading Units: AMD has 1024; NVIDIA has 384.
• TMUs: AMD has 64; NVIDIA has 24.
• Pixel Rate: AMD is "14.51 GPixel/s"; NVIDIA is "22.80 GPixel/s".
• Texture Rate: AMD is "58.05 GTexel/s"; NVIDIA is "34.20 GTexel/s".
• FP32: AMD is "1.858 TFLOPS"; NVIDIA is "1,094.4 GFLOPS".
• FP16: AMD is "1.858 TFLOPS (1:1)"; NVIDIA is "2.189 TFLOPS (2:1)".
• TDP: AMD is "35 W"; NVIDIA is "30 W".
• Slot Width: AMD is "IGP"; NVIDIA is "Single-slot".
• Suggested PSU: AMD is null; NVIDIA is "200 W".
• Bus Interface: AMD is "PCIe 3.0 x8"; NVIDIA is "PCIe 3.0 x16".
• Display Outputs: AMD is "Portable Device Dependent"; NVIDIA is "3x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a".
• DirectX Version: AMD supports "12 (12_0)"; NVIDIA supports "12 (12_1)".
• Vulkan Version: AMD supports "1.3"; NVIDIA supports "1.4".
• Release Date: AMD was released "2016-10-29"; NVIDIA was released "2021-05-05".
• Predecessor: AMD has none listed; NVIDIA has "Quadro Volta".
• Successor: AMD has none listed; NVIDIA has "Workstation Ampere".

The Verdict

Based strictly on the benchmark data, the choice between these two cards depends entirely on the target application. For users prioritizing OpenCL compute workloads, the NVIDIA T400 4 GB is the clear winner, offering an 11.8% performance advantage over the AMD Radeon Pro 460. This makes it the superior choice for general-purpose GPU computing tasks that rely on OpenCL, despite its lower core count and FP32 rating. The T400’s architecture appears to be far more efficient in this API, making it the practical pick for such scenarios.

For workloads that utilize the Vulkan API, the AMD Radeon Pro 460 is the better option, though its 3.4% lead is less pronounced. In this case, the Pro 460’s higher shading unit count and raw throughput help it overcome the efficiency gap seen in OpenCL. If a user’s primary software relies on Vulkan, the Pro 460 offers a measurable, if modest, advantage.

Looking at the overall average benchmark score, the AMD Radeon Pro 460 edges out the T400 with a score of 17,509 versus 16,792. This aggregate metric suggests that, on average, the Pro 460 is the slightly more capable card across a mix of workloads. However, the user should be aware that this average is heavily influenced by its Vulkan win. The NVIDIA card’s strengths are concentrated in OpenCL, where it excels. In short, the data suggests the T400 is a specialist for OpenCL compute, while the Pro 460 is the more balanced performer with a slight overall edge.