AMD Radeon Pro 560 vs NVIDIA T400 4 GB Comparison

The AMD Radeon Pro 560 and NVIDIA T400 4 GB are both professional-grade, low-power graphics cards aimed at compact workstations, but benchmark data shows they deliver nearly identical average performance despite their very different architectures. The NVIDIA T400 4 GB wins both head-to-head tests, taking Geekbench OpenCL by 10.5% and squeaking by in Vulkan by a razor-thin 0.2%. Overall, the Radeon Pro 560 holds a slightly higher average benchmark score of 17,551 versus the T400's 16,792, placing the AMD part at the 61st percentile of all GPUs compared to the NVIDIA's 60th.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most significant performance gap appears in the Geekbench OpenCL test. Here, the NVIDIA T400 4 GB scores 17,320 against the Radeon Pro 560's 15,504, a decisive 10.5% advantage. This is a substantial margin for cards in this class, indicating that NVIDIA's Turing architecture handles OpenCL compute workloads considerably better than AMD's older GCN 4.0 design. The result is more striking when you consider the T400's hardware handicap: it has only 384 shading units and a 64-bit memory bus, while the Radeon Pro 560 boasts 1,024 shading units and a 128-bit bus. Despite fewer resources, the T400's higher boost clock of 1425 MHz and faster 10 Gbps effective memory clearly compensate.

The Vulkan test tells a different story—one of near-perfect parity. The NVIDIA T400 4 GB wins with a score of 16,263 versus 16,232 for the AMD Radeon Pro 560, a delta of just 0.2%. In practical terms, this is a statistical tie; neither card can claim a meaningful advantage in Vulkan workloads. This suggests that while NVIDIA has a lead in raw compute throughput, the Radeon Pro 560's larger shading unit count and wider memory interface help it close the gap in graphics-oriented API tests.

Looking at the broader competitive landscape, the Radeon Pro 560's average score of 17,551 places it just 0.2% behind the AMD Radeon 780M (17,588) and a mere 0.5% ahead of the NVIDIA Tesla K40c (17,468). Meanwhile, the T400's 16,792 average puts it 0.8% behind the NVIDIA Tesla M4 (16,932) and 1.3% behind the AMD Radeon HD 7970M (17,019). These deltas are all within a few percentage points, underscoring that both cards sit in a very crowded mid-pack tier where architectural differences matter less than driver optimization and specific workload characteristics.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs represent fundamentally different design philosophies and manufacturing eras. The AMD Radeon Pro 560 uses the Polaris 21 chip built on GCN 4.0 architecture, fabricated by GlobalFoundries on a 14 nm process. It packs 3,000 million transistors into a 123 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 24.4 million per square millimeter. This is a high-density design that prioritizes parallel compute through a massive array of 1,024 shading units, 64 texture mapping units, and 16 render output units.

The NVIDIA T400 4 GB takes a different approach with the TU117 chip on Turing architecture, built by TSMC on a 12 nm process. It contains 4,700 million transistors across a 200 mm² die, resulting in a slightly lower density of 23.5 million transistors per square millimeter. The T400 is far more conservative in its compute configuration, with only 384 shading units, 24 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. However, its architecture is newer and more efficient per shader, with a base clock of 420 MHz that boosts up to 1425 MHz—a 3.4x boost ratio that AMD's part cannot match since its base and boost clocks are not listed in available data.

Memory configuration is another key differentiator. Both cards feature 4 GB of VRAM, but the Radeon Pro 560 uses GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, delivering 81.28 GB/s of bandwidth. The T400 uses faster GDDR6 memory on a narrower 64-bit bus, achieving 80.00 GB/s—nearly identical bandwidth despite half the bus width. This confirms the efficiency of GDDR6 at 10 Gbps effective speeds versus the Radeon's 5.1 Gbps effective GDDR5.

Power and physical design diverge sharply. The Radeon Pro 560 is rated at 75 W TDP and is an integrated GPU (IGP) with no power connectors, designed for portable devices. The T400 is a 30 W single-slot card that also draws power solely from the PCIe slot, with a suggested PSU of 200 W. The T400 offers three mini-DisplayPort 1.4a outputs, while the Radeon Pro 560's display outputs are listed as "portable device dependent," reflecting its mobile-oriented design.

API support shows NVIDIA's edge in modern standards. The T400 supports DirectX 12_1, Vulkan 1.4, and OpenGL 4.6. The Radeon Pro 560 supports DirectX 12_0, Vulkan 1.3, and OpenGL 4.6. The T400 also has a higher FP16 throughput of 2.189 TFLOPS (2:1 ratio) versus the Radeon's 1.858 TFLOPS (1:1), though the Radeon leads in FP32 with 1.858 TFLOPS against the T400's 1,094.4 GFLOPS.

FAQ

Q: Which card wins in OpenCL performance?

A: The NVIDIA T400 4 GB wins decisively, scoring 17,320 versus 15,504 for the AMD Radeon Pro 560, a 10.5% advantage.

Q: Is there any test where the AMD Radeon Pro 560 comes out ahead?

A: No. In the two head-to-head benchmarks available (Geekbench OpenCL and Geekbench Vulkan), the NVIDIA T400 4 GB wins both, though the Vulkan margin is just 0.2%.

Q: How do their overall average scores compare?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro 560 has a higher average benchmark score of 17,551, compared to 16,792 for the NVIDIA T400 4 GB. This puts the AMD card at the 61st percentile of all GPUs, one point ahead of the NVIDIA's 60th.

Q: Which card has more shading units?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro 560 has 1,024 shading units, while the NVIDIA T400 4 GB has only 384. Despite this 2.7x difference, the T400 wins both benchmark tests.

Q: What are the memory bandwidth specifications?

A: The Radeon Pro 560 has 81.28 GB/s from GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus. The T400 has 80.00 GB/s from GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus. They are effectively tied.

Q: Which card draws less power?

A: The NVIDIA T400 4 GB is rated at 30 W TDP, less than half of the AMD Radeon Pro 560's 75 W TDP. The T400 also has a suggested PSU rating of 200 W.

The Verdict

The data presents a clear choice for different priorities. If raw compute throughput in OpenCL is the primary requirement, the NVIDIA T400 4 GB is the stronger option, delivering a 10.5% performance advantage despite having fewer than half the shading units. Its newer Turing architecture, higher boost clock, and faster GDDR6 memory more than compensate for its narrower memory bus and smaller shader count. The T400 also wins on power efficiency, drawing only 30 W versus 75 W, and offers a more modern feature set with DirectX 12_1 and Vulkan 1.4 support.

The AMD Radeon Pro 560 holds a slight edge in average benchmark score (17,551 vs 16,792) and a one-percentile advantage in overall GPU ranking. Its higher FP32 throughput (1.858 TFLOPS vs 1,094.4 GFLOPS) and larger shader array make it theoretically better suited for raw compute tasks, yet the benchmark results show the T400 outperforming it in both available tests. The Radeon's status as an integrated GPU means it is locked into portable device designs, whereas the T400 is a standalone single-slot card with three mini-DisplayPort outputs, offering greater flexibility in workstation builds.

For users who require the lowest possible power draw and the latest API support in a compact form factor, the NVIDIA T400 4 GB is the data-backed recommendation. For those who prioritize raw FP32 compute or are constrained to AMD's mobile ecosystem, the Radeon Pro 560 remains a capable option, though its benchmark scores suggest it will lag the T400 in most measurable workloads.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Radeon Pro 560 | NVIDIA T400 4 GB |

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

| Architecture | GCN 4.0 | Turing |

| Process Node | 14 nm (GlobalFoundries) | 12 nm (TSMC) |

| Transistors | 3,000 million | 4,700 million |

| Die Size | 123 mm² | 200 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 24.4M / mm² | 23.5M / mm² |

| Boost Clock | Not listed | 1425 MHz |

| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR6 |

| Memory Bus Width | 128 bit | 64 bit |

| Shading Units | 1024 | 384 |

| TMUs | 64 | 24 |

| Pixel Rate | 14.51 GPixel/s | 22.80 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 58.05 GTexel/s | 34.20 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 1.858 TFLOPS | 1,094.4 GFLOPS |

| FP16 | 1.858 TFLOPS (1:1) | 2.189 TFLOPS (2:1) |

| TDP | 75 W | 30 W |

| Slot Width | IGP | Single-slot |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 3.0 x8 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |

| Display Outputs | Portable Device Dependent | 3x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a |

| DirectX Support | 12 (12_0) | 12 (12_1) |

| Vulkan Support | 1.3 | 1.4 |

| Release Date | 2017-04-17 | 2021-05-05 |