AMD Radeon Pro 5700 vs NVIDIA T400 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a decisive performance gap between these two workstation-oriented GPUs. Across the two shared benchmark tests, the AMD Radeon Pro 5700 wins both, and the margins are substantial. In Geekbench OpenCL, the AMD card scores 52,787 against the NVIDIA T400's 17,039, a delta of 209.8%. That means the Radeon Pro 5700 more than triples the T400's compute throughput in this cross-vendor API. The Vulkan result is even more lopsided: 51,289 versus 15,976, a 221% advantage for the AMD part. For any workload that scales across these APIs, the Radeon Pro 5700 is in a different performance class.

These are not marginal wins, and the average benchmark scores reinforce the hierarchy. The Radeon Pro 5700 posts an average score of 18,189 across all its recorded tests, while the T400 averages 16,508. That is a roughly 10% overall gap, but the head-to-head numbers show how far apart they are in compute-heavy tasks. The T400's nearest rivals in the database include the NVIDIA RTX 5090 D V2 (16,504, 0% delta), the AMD Radeon PRO W7500 (16,415, 0.6% behind), and the NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell (16,408, 0.6% behind). The Radeon Pro 5700, by contrast, sits near the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3060 Mobile (18,159, 0.2% ahead) and the RTX 2060 SUPER (18,093, 0.5% ahead). So while the T400 trades blows with high-end Blackwell and Ampere parts in the database's overall scoring, the Radeon Pro 5700 is closer to mid-range gaming laptop GPUs in raw compute.

Looking at the individual benchmark suite for the AMD card, the strengths are consistent. Passmark G3D gives it 11,583, while its Passmark GPU compute score is 4,961. The T400 lacks those specific Passmark entries, but its Geekbench results are far lower, which aligns with the head-to-head data. The Radeon Pro 5700 also has a strong Geekbench Metal score of 60,126, a test the T400 does not appear in. That Metal result is particularly relevant for macOS environments, given the AMD card's "Radeon Pro Mac (Navi Series)" generation label. The T400, with its Quadro Turing lineage, is more oriented toward Windows and Linux professional workflows, but the numbers still favor AMD in the shared tests.

The percentile rankings tell a similar story. The Radeon Pro 5700 sits at the 62nd percentile among all GPUs in the database, while the T400 is at the 60th. That is a narrow gap in percentile terms, but percentiles compress the distribution at the mid-range. The raw score differences are what matter: the AMD part's 6.221 TFLOPS FP32 throughput dwarfs the T400's 1,094.4 GFLOPS. That is a 5.7x difference in theoretical single-precision compute, which explains why the OpenCL and Vulkan deltas exceed 200%. The T400's boost clock of 1425 MHz is actually higher than the AMD card's 1350 MHz boost, but the T400 has only 384 shading units versus 2,304 on the Radeon Pro 5700. More than five times the shader count, combined with a wider 256-bit memory bus versus 64-bit, drives the performance separation.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU wins in Geekbench OpenCL?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro 5700 wins decisively with a score of 52,787 versus the NVIDIA T400's 17,039, a 209.8% advantage.

Q: How do the two cards compare in Vulkan performance?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro 5700 scores 51,289 in Geekbench Vulkan, while the NVIDIA T400 scores 15,976. That is a 221% delta in favor of AMD.

Q: What is the average benchmark score for each card?

A: The Radeon Pro 5700 has an average benchmark score of 18,189, while the T400 averages 16,508. The AMD card also ranks at the 62nd percentile versus the T400's 60th percentile.

Q: Does the NVIDIA T400 have any benchmark where it beats the AMD card?

A: No. In the head-to-head data, the T400 records zero wins across the two shared tests. The database shows 2 wins for the AMD Radeon Pro 5700 and 0 for the T400.

Q: Which card has higher memory bandwidth?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro 5700 offers 384.0 GB/s bandwidth, compared to the NVIDIA T400's 80.00 GB/s. The AMD card also has 8 GB of GDDR6 memory versus 2 GB on the T400.

Q: Are both GPUs still in production?

A: No. The AMD Radeon Pro 5700 is end-of-life with a release date of 2020-08-03, and the NVIDIA T400 is also end-of-life, released on 2021-05-05.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different architectural generations and design philosophies. The AMD Radeon Pro 5700 uses the Navi 10 chip built on RDNA 1.0 architecture, fabricated on TSMC's 7 nm process. The NVIDIA T400 uses the TU117 chip based on Turing architecture, also made by TSMC but on a 12 nm process. That process gap is significant: the AMD chip packs 10,300 million transistors into a 251 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 41.0M per mm². The NVIDIA chip has 4,700 million transistors on a 200 mm² die, a density of 23.5M per mm². The RDNA 1.0 design is clearly more efficient in terms of transistor packing, which contributes to its higher compute throughput despite a lower boost clock.

The memory subsystems are fundamentally different. The Radeon Pro 5700 uses an 8 GB GDDR6 configuration on a 256-bit bus, delivering 384.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The T400 has 2 GB of GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus, which limits bandwidth to 80.00 GB/s. That 4.8x bandwidth advantage for AMD matters for texture-heavy workloads and large datasets. The AMD card also runs its memory at 12 Gbps effective, while the T400's memory runs at 10 Gbps effective. Wider bus and faster memory combine to give the Radeon Pro 5700 a massive data throughput edge.

The compute resources differ by a similar magnitude. The Radeon Pro 5700 has 2,304 shading units, 144 texture mapping units, and 64 ROPs. The T400 has 384 shading units, 24 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. That is a 6x difference in shader count and a 6x difference in TMUs, with a 4x difference in ROPs. Neither GPU has dedicated ray tracing cores or tensor cores, so both rely on traditional shader-based rendering. The AMD card achieves 86.40 GPixel/s pixel rate and 194.4 GTexel/s texture rate, while the T400 manages 22.80 GPixel/s and 34.20 GTexel/s. The FP32 throughput is 6.221 TFLOPS for AMD versus 1,094.4 GFLOPS for NVIDIA. FP16 performance also favors AMD: 12.44 TFLOPS versus 2.189 TFLOPS, both using a 2:1 ratio.

The bus interface differs as well. The Radeon Pro 5700 uses PCIe 4.0 x16, while the T400 uses PCIe 3.0 x16. That doubles the theoretical bandwidth to the host system for the AMD card, which can matter for data transfer in professional applications. The T400 does have display outputs, specifically 3x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a, while the Radeon Pro 5700 has no outputs at all. This reflects their intended roles: the AMD card is an integrated GPU (IGP) for Apple Mac systems, while the NVIDIA card is a standalone single-slot workstation adapter.

Specification Differences

The two cards diverge across nearly every measurable specification. Process node: 7 nm for AMD versus 12 nm for NVIDIA. Transistor count: 10,300 million versus 4,700 million. Die size: 251 mm² versus 200 mm². Transistor density: 41.0M / mm² versus 23.5M / mm². The AMD card has a base clock of 1243 MHz and boost of 1350 MHz, while the T400 has a base clock of 420 MHz and boost of 1425 MHz. The NVIDIA part boosts higher, but its shader count is far lower.

Memory: 8 GB GDDR6 on a 256-bit bus with 384.0 GB/s bandwidth for AMD, versus 2 GB GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus with 80.00 GB/s for NVIDIA. Effective memory speed is 12 Gbps versus 10 Gbps. The AMD card has 2,304 shading units, 144 TMUs, and 64 ROPs, while the T400 has 384 shading units, 24 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. Pixel rate is 86.40 GPixel/s versus 22.80 GPixel/s. Texture rate is 194.4 GTexel/s versus 34.20 GTexel/s. FP32 compute is 6.221 TFLOPS versus 1,094.4 GFLOPS. FP16 is 12.44 TFLOPS versus 2.189 TFLOPS.

Power and physical characteristics also differ. The AMD Radeon Pro 5700 has a TDP of 130 W and a suggested PSU of 300 W, while the NVIDIA T400 has a TDP of 30 W and a suggested PSU of 200 W. The AMD card is an IGP with no power connectors and no display outputs. The T400 is a single-slot card with no power connectors but includes 3x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a outputs. The AMD card uses PCIe 4.0 x16, while the T400 uses PCIe 3.0 x16. Both support DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The AMD card adds Geekbench Metal support, which the T400 does not have. Release dates differ: the Radeon Pro 5700 launched on 2020-08-03, and the T400 launched on 2021-05-05. The T400's predecessor is Quadro Volta and its successor is Workstation Ampere; the AMD card has no listed predecessor or successor.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear split by use case. If the workload is compute-heavy, runs on OpenCL or Vulkan, and lives in a Mac environment, the AMD Radeon Pro 5700 is the obvious choice. Its 209.8% OpenCL advantage and 221% Vulkan advantage over the T400 are not subtle. The 6.221 TFLOPS FP32 throughput, 384.0 GB/s memory bandwidth, and 8 GB VRAM make it suitable for large datasets and GPU-accelerated tasks. Its 62nd percentile ranking and average score of 18,189 place it above the T400's 60th percentile and 16,508 average.

The NVIDIA T400 has its own appeal, but it is not for raw speed. Its 30 W TDP and single-slot design make it a low-power, compact option for basic workstation graphics. The 3x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a outputs give it immediate multi-monitor capability, which the AMD card entirely lacks. The T400 is also newer, with a 2021 release date versus the AMD card's 2020 date. For legacy Quadro software stacks, the Turing architecture may offer better driver support in specific professional applications, though the database does not capture those differences.

The verdict from the recorded measurements is straightforward: the AMD Radeon Pro 5700 wins on performance by a wide margin, while the NVIDIA T400 wins on power efficiency, physical footprint, and display connectivity. There is no scenario where the T400 matches the AMD card in compute throughput, and there is no scenario where the AMD card matches the T400's low power draw or output options. Users who need maximum compute in a Mac or PCIe 4.0 system should choose the Radeon Pro 5700. Users who need a low-profile, low-power card with multiple display outputs for basic workstation duties should choose the T400. The database shows 2 wins for AMD and 0 for NVIDIA in head-to-head tests, which settles the performance question. The rest comes down to form factor and feature priorities.