AMD Radeon Pro 5600M vs NVIDIA T400 4 GB Comparison

The NVIDIA T400 4 GB and AMD Radeon Pro 5600M occupy different corners of the workstation GPU market, and the benchmark data reflects a decisive performance gulf between them. While the T400 is a low-profile, power-efficient Turing-based entry card, the Radeon Pro 5600M is a mobile-first RDNA 1.0 part with substantially more compute resources. Across the two shared benchmarks, the AMD card wins both, with margins that are impossible to ignore. The following analysis breaks down those results, architectural differences, and the specific use cases where each card holds an advantage.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The data shows a complete sweep for the AMD Radeon Pro 5600M in the two directly comparable tests. In Geekbench OpenCL, the Radeon Pro 5600M scores 47,783 against the T400’s 17,320. That is a delta of -63.8% for the NVIDIA card, meaning the AMD GPU delivers roughly 2.76 times the raw OpenCL compute throughput. The Vulkan test tells a similar story: the Radeon Pro 5600M hits 46,425 while the T400 manages only 16,263, a -65% delta. In both cases, the AMD card’s advantage is overwhelming and consistent, suggesting a fundamental difference in compute capability rather than a workload-specific quirk.

It is worth remembering the T400’s average benchmark score across all its recorded tests is 16,792, while the Radeon Pro 5600M’s average is 16,351. This is counterintuitive given the head-to-head results, but it stems from the fact that the AMD card’s average includes a much broader set of tests, including several Passmark scores that are very low. For example, the Radeon Pro 5600M scores only 39 in Passmark DirectX 12 and 62 in Passmark DirectX 10, which drag down its average despite its strong Geekbench results. The T400, by contrast, only has two Geekbench scores recorded, both in the 16,000–17,000 range, so its average is not diluted by legacy API tests.

The percentile rankings reinforce this nuance. The T400 sits at the 60th percentile among all GPUs, while the Radeon Pro 5600M is at the 59th percentile. Despite the massive head-to-head losses, the T400 edges out the AMD card in overall percentile placement, which indicates that the T400’s consistent mid-range performance across its limited test set places it slightly higher than the AMD card’s more erratic profile. However, for any user running OpenCL or Vulkan workloads, the Radeon Pro 5600M is the clear winner. The T400 has zero wins in the head-to-head comparison; the AMD card takes both.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher Geekbench OpenCL score, and by how much?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro 5600M scores 47,783, which is 63.8% higher than the NVIDIA T400’s 17,320. This is the largest margin of victory in any shared benchmark.

Q: Are these two cards comparable in overall performance ranking?

A: Yes, they are very close. The NVIDIA T400 is at the 60th percentile of all GPUs, while the AMD Radeon Pro 5600M is at the 59th percentile. Their average benchmark scores are also within 2.6% of each other (16,792 vs 16,351), despite the lopsided head-to-head results.

Q: Why does the Radeon Pro 5600M have a lower average score than the T400 if it wins both shared tests?

A: The Radeon Pro 5600M’s average includes eight additional Passmark tests, several of which are very low (e.g., 39 in DirectX 12, 59 in DirectX 11). The T400 only has two Geekbench scores, both in the 16,000–17,000 range, so its average is not affected by legacy API performance.

Q: What is the memory configuration difference between the two cards?

A: The NVIDIA T400 has 4 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 64-bit bus, yielding 80.00 GB/s bandwidth. The AMD Radeon Pro 5600M has 8 GB of HBM2 memory on a 2048-bit bus, yielding 394.2 GB/s bandwidth — nearly five times the bandwidth.

Q: Which card has a higher boost clock?

A: The NVIDIA T400 has a boost clock of 1425 MHz, which is higher than the AMD Radeon Pro 5600M’s boost clock of 1144 MHz. However, the AMD card’s higher shading unit count and memory bandwidth more than compensate for the lower clock speed.

Q: What is the power draw difference?

A: The NVIDIA T400 has a TDP of 30 W, while the AMD Radeon Pro 5600M has a TDP of 50 W. The T400 is also single-slot and requires no power connectors, whereas the Radeon Pro 5600M is an integrated GPU (IGP) with no power connectors.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs are built on different architectures from different eras. The NVIDIA T400 uses the Turing architecture with the TU117 chip, manufactured on a 12 nm process at TSMC. The chip contains 4,700 million transistors on a 200 mm² die, giving it a transistor density of 23.5M per mm². Turing is a mature architecture that supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4.

The AMD Radeon Pro 5600M uses the RDNA 1.0 architecture with the Navi 12 chip, manufactured on a 7 nm process, also at TSMC. The transistor count and die size are not listed in the data, but the 7 nm node is significantly more advanced than the 12 nm node used by the T400. RDNA 1.0 is optimized for gaming and compute efficiency, and it supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3 — the Vulkan version is slightly older than the T400’s 1.4.

The compute resources differ dramatically. The T400 has 384 shading units, 24 texture mapping units, and 16 ROPs. The Radeon Pro 5600M has 2,560 shading units, 160 TMUs, and 64 ROPs. That is over six times the shading units and over six times the texture units. The pixel rate tells the story: the T400 achieves 22.80 GPixel/s, while the Radeon Pro 5600M achieves 73.22 GPixel/s. Texture rate is similarly lopsided at 34.20 GTexel/s vs 183.0 GTexel/s.

Neither card has dedicated ray tracing cores or tensor cores, so that is not a differentiator. The FP32 compute performance is also vastly different: the T400 delivers 1,094.4 GFLOPS, while the Radeon Pro 5600M delivers 5.857 TFLOPS. The FP16 performance follows the same pattern, with the T400 at 2.189 TFLOPS (2:1) and the AMD card at 11.71 TFLOPS (2:1).

Specification Differences

The most obvious specification difference is the memory subsystem. The T400 uses 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus, providing 80.00 GB/s of bandwidth. The Radeon Pro 5600M uses 8 GB of HBM2 on a 2048-bit bus, providing 394.2 GB/s — a 5x advantage in bandwidth and double the capacity. The memory clock also differs: the T400 runs at 1250 MHz (10 Gbps effective), while the AMD card runs at 770 MHz (1540 Mbps effective). The lower clock on the AMD card is offset by the vastly wider bus.

The core clocks are also different. The T400 has a base clock of 420 MHz and a boost clock of 1425 MHz. The Radeon Pro 5600M has a base clock of 822 MHz and a boost clock of 1144 MHz. The T400’s boost clock is higher, but the AMD card’s base clock is nearly double, which helps sustained performance in compute workloads.

Power consumption is another clear divider. The T400 has a TDP of 30 W, while the Radeon Pro 5600M has a TDP of 50 W. The T400 is a single-slot card with no power connectors and a suggested PSU of 200 W. The Radeon Pro 5600M is an IGP (integrated GPU) with no power connectors and no suggested PSU listed. The T400 uses a PCIe 3.0 x16 interface, while the AMD card uses PCIe 4.0 x16 — a newer standard with double the bandwidth per lane.

Display outputs also differ. The T400 has three mini-DisplayPort 1.4a outputs, making it suitable for multi-monitor setups. The Radeon Pro 5600M’s display outputs are listed as "Portable Device Dependent," meaning they vary based on the laptop or mobile device it is integrated into.

The release dates are close but not identical: the T400 was released on May 5, 2021, while the Radeon Pro 5600M was released on June 14, 2020. The T400 is part of the Quadro Turing (Tx000) generation, with a predecessor in Quadro Volta and a successor in Workstation Ampere. The Radeon Pro 5600M is part of the Radeon Pro Mac (Navi Mobile) generation, with no predecessor or successor listed.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon Pro 5600M wins decisively in raw compute benchmarks. In both Geekbench OpenCL and Vulkan, it outperforms the T400 by over 60%. This makes it the clear choice for any workload that leverages OpenCL or Vulkan compute, such as GPU-accelerated rendering, scientific simulation, or machine learning inference. Its 5.857 TFLOPS of FP32 performance is over five times that of the T400, and its 394.2 GB/s of memory bandwidth is nearly five times higher. For users who need to move large datasets or run compute-heavy tasks, the Radeon Pro 5600M is the superior hardware.

The NVIDIA T400’s advantages are more situational. It has a higher boost clock (1425 MHz vs 1144 MHz) and a lower TDP (30 W vs 50 W), which makes it a more power-efficient option for compact or passively cooled systems. Its single-slot form factor and three mini-DisplayPort 1.4a outputs make it well-suited for multi-display workstation setups where space is at a premium. The T400 also supports Vulkan 1.4, which is a newer version than the Radeon Pro 5600M’s Vulkan 1.3, potentially offering better compatibility with the latest Vulkan applications.

In terms of overall percentile ranking, the T400 sits at the 60th percentile, just above the Radeon Pro 5600M’s 59th percentile. This is largely due to the AMD card’s poor Passmark DirectX scores, which are not representative of its compute capabilities. If you are running legacy DirectX 9/10/11/12 workloads, the data suggests the T400 may be more consistent, but the Radeon Pro 5600M’s Passmark G3D score of 9,279 and GPU compute score of 4,031 still indicate strong general performance.

For users who prioritize maximum compute throughput, memory bandwidth, and capacity, the AMD Radeon Pro 5600M is the definitive winner. For users who prioritize power efficiency, a compact form factor, and multi-display output, the NVIDIA T400 4 GB offers a compelling if less powerful alternative. The data does not support any scenario where the T400 beats the Radeon Pro 5600M in raw compute; the only question is whether the T400’s efficiency and form factor advantages matter more than the AMD card’s overwhelming performance lead.