GPU Comparison

The NVIDIA T400 and AMD Radeon Pro 5600M occupy opposite ends of the workstation GPU spectrum, and the benchmark data reflects that starkly. The T400 is a 30 W, single-slot Turing card built for basic display output and light compute, while the 5600M is a 50 W mobile RDNA 1.0 part with 8 GB of HBM2, designed for demanding Mac workloads. In the two shared head-to-head tests, the AMD card wins both by overwhelming margins, but the T400 still holds its own in specific niches. The data shows a clear performance hierarchy: the Radeon Pro 5600M delivers roughly three times the raw compute throughput, making it the obvious choice for any GPU-intensive task, while the T400 remains viable only where its minimal power draw and small footprint are paramount.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon Pro 5600M wins every benchmark where the two cards overlap. In Geekbench OpenCL, it scores 47,783 against the T400’s 17,039, a delta of -64.3% from the AMD card’s perspective. In Geekbench Vulkan, the margin is nearly identical: 46,425 versus 15,976, a -65.6% difference. These are not close contests; the 5600M is in a completely different performance class. Its 5.857 TFLOPS of FP32 compute and 394.2 GB/s of memory bandwidth dwarf the T400’s 1,094.4 GFLOPS and 80.00 GB/s. The 5600M also has 8 GB of HBM2 on a 2048-bit bus, versus 2 GB of GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus for the T400. For any workload that stresses the GPU, rendering, simulation, machine learning inference, the 5600M is the only rational choice.

The NVIDIA T400’s wins are not in raw speed but in efficiency and form factor. It draws only 30 W under load, requires no power connectors, and fits in a single slot. Its 200 W suggested PSU means it can be dropped into nearly any existing system without upgrading the power supply. The T400 also supports PCIe 3.0 x16, while the 5600M uses PCIe 4.0 x16, but that interface advantage is irrelevant for the AMD card since it is an integrated graphics processor (IGP) in a laptop, not a discrete add-in card. The T400’s three mini-DisplayPort 1.4a outputs give it a clear edge in multi-monitor desktop setups, whereas the 5600M’s display outputs are “Portable Device Dependent,” meaning they are tied to the host laptop’s design. The T400 also has a higher boost clock (1425 MHz vs 1144 MHz) and a smaller die (200 mm² vs unspecified), but those specs do not translate into performance wins.

The Verdict

Pick the AMD Radeon Pro 5600M if you need actual graphics performance. The data is unambiguous: it delivers 2.8x the OpenCL score and 2.9x the Vulkan score of the T400. Its 8 GB of HBM2 memory with 394.2 GB/s bandwidth is essential for modern datasets, while the T400’s 2 GB GDDR6 at 80.00 GB/s will bottleneck on anything beyond basic 2D work. The 5600M’s 2560 shading units versus 384, and 160 texture mapping units versus 24, mean it handles complex shaders and high-resolution textures without breaking a sweat. If you are buying for a Mac or any portable workstation, the 5600M is the only viable option here, the T400 is a desktop card with no portable equivalent.

Pick the NVIDIA T400 only if your primary constraint is power and space, not performance. At 30 W with no auxiliary power connector, it is a drop-in solution for office PCs or embedded systems that need GPU acceleration without changing the PSU. Its single-slot design and three mini-DisplayPort outputs make it ideal for multi-monitor financial trading desks or server management consoles. The T400 also has a higher Vulkan API version (1.4 vs 1.3), which could matter for future-proofing in Linux environments. But be clear: you are sacrificing 64-66% of the 5600M’s compute performance to save 20 W of power. For any task that actually uses the GPU, that trade is rarely worth it.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Geekbench OpenCL test shows the full extent of the performance gap. The AMD Radeon Pro 5600M scores 47,783, while the NVIDIA T400 manages 17,039. That is a 64.3% deficit for the T400, meaning the AMD card is roughly 2.8 times faster. This test stresses raw compute throughput, where the 5600M’s 5.857 TFLOPS FP32 and 11.71 TFLOPS FP16 (2:1) vastly outclass the T400’s 1,094.4 GFLOPS and 2.189 TFLOPS. The 5600M’s 64 ROPs and 160 TMUs also give it far higher pixel and texture rates: 73.22 GPixel/s and 183.0 GTexel/s, versus 22.80 GPixel/s and 34.20 GTexel/s for the T400.

The Geekbench Vulkan test tells the same story. The 5600M scores 46,425, the T400 scores 15,976, a 65.6% gap. Vulkan is a low-level API that benefits from raw hardware throughput, and the 5600M’s 2048-bit memory bus delivers 394.2 GB/s of bandwidth, nearly five times the T400’s 80.00 GB/s. This bandwidth advantage is critical for data-heavy workloads like texture streaming or compute shaders. The T400’s 12 nm TU117 chip is simply outmatched by the 7 nm Navi 12, regardless of the API used. There is no scenario in these two tests where the T400 comes close, and the deltaPct values confirm that the 5600M is also competitive with far more expensive cards like the NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell (within 0.3%) and the AMD Radeon RX 5700 XT (within 0.1%).

FAQ

Q: Which card has better OpenCL performance?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro 5600M scores 47,783 in Geekbench OpenCL, versus 17,039 for the NVIDIA T400, a 64.3% advantage for the AMD card.

Q: Is the NVIDIA T400 better for Vulkan workloads?

A: No. The T400 scores 15,976 in Geekbench Vulkan, while the 5600M scores 46,425, making the AMD card 65.6% faster in that test.

Q: Can the T400 drive multiple monitors?

A: Yes, the T400 has three mini-DisplayPort 1.4a outputs, whereas the 5600M relies on “Portable Device Dependent” outputs, which vary by laptop design.

Q: How much memory bandwidth does each card have?

A: The 5600M has 394.2 GB/s over a 2048-bit HBM2 bus, while the T400 has 80.00 GB/s over a 64-bit GDDR6 bus.

Q: Which card has a lower power draw?

A: The T400 has a 30 W TDP and no power connectors, while the 5600M has a 50 W TDP and also uses no power connectors.

Q: Do these cards support hardware ray tracing?

A: Neither card has dedicated RT cores or tensor cores, based on the specifications listed for both.

Architecture Differences

The NVIDIA T400 is built on the Turing architecture using the TU117 chip, fabricated on TSMC’s 12 nm process. It packs 4,700 million transistors into a 200 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 23.5M per mm². The AMD Radeon Pro 5600M uses the RDNA 1.0 architecture with the Navi 12 chip, on TSMC’s 7 nm process. Transistor count and die size are not listed for the 5600M, but the 7 nm node is a generational leap over 12 nm, which explains the AMD card’s superior compute density. The T400 belongs to the Quadro Turing (Tx000) generation, while the 5600M is part of the Radeon Pro Mac (Navi Mobile) generation, reflecting their different target platforms: desktop workstations versus Apple laptops.

The T400 has 384 shading units, 24 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. The 5600M has 2,560 shading units, 160 TMUs, and 64 ROPs, roughly 6.7x, 6.7x, and 4x more, respectively. Neither card has ray tracing cores or tensor cores. The T400’s base clock is 420 MHz with a boost of 1425 MHz, while the 5600M runs at 822 MHz base and 1144 MHz boost. Despite lower clocks, the 5600M’s massive shader count gives it a 5.35x FP32 advantage (5.857 TFLOPS vs 1,094.4 GFLOPS). The T400’s memory is 2 GB GDDR6 at 1250 MHz (10 Gbps effective), while the 5600M uses 8 GB HBM2 at 770 MHz (1540 Mbps effective), but the 2048-bit bus gives the AMD card a 4.93x bandwidth advantage.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ in nearly every measurable specification. The T400 uses a 64-bit memory bus with 2 GB GDDR6, while the 5600M uses a 2048-bit bus with 8 GB HBM2. Bandwidth is 80.00 GB/s versus 394.2 GB/s. The T400 has a 30 W TDP and a single-slot form factor; the 5600M is an IGP with a 50 W TDP. The T400 uses PCIe 3.0 x16, the 5600M uses PCIe 4.0 x16. Display outputs: the T400 has three mini-DisplayPort 1.4a, the 5600M has “Portable Device Dependent” outputs. The T400 has a higher boost clock (1425 MHz vs 1144 MHz) but a lower base clock (420 MHz vs 822 MHz). The T400’s memory clock is 1250 MHz (10 Gbps effective), while the 5600M’s is 770 MHz (1540 Mbps effective). In API support, the T400 lists Vulkan 1.4, while the 5600M lists Vulkan 1.3; both support DirectX 12 (12_1) and OpenGL 4.6. The T400 has a suggested PSU of 200 W; the 5600M has none listed. The T400’s transistor density is 23.5M / mm²; the 5600M’s is not specified. Both cards are end-of-life, with the T400 released in May 2021 and the 5600M in June 2020. The T400’s predecessor is Quadro Volta and its successor is Workstation Ampere; the 5600M has no listed predecessor or successor.