AMD Radeon Pro 5700 XT vs NVIDIA T400 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark database records two direct comparisons between the AMD Radeon Pro 5700 XT and the NVIDIA T400: Geekbench OpenCL and Geekbench Vulkan. In both tests, the AMD Radeon Pro 5700 XT is the decisive winner, and the recorded deltas are substantial.

In Geekbench OpenCL, the AMD Radeon Pro 5700 XT scores 59,467, while the NVIDIA T400 scores 17,039. This results in a delta of 249% in favor of the AMD card. The AMD card delivers more than three times the compute performance in this workload, a gap that reflects a fundamental difference in the scale of each GPU.

The Geekbench Vulkan test shows a similar pattern. The AMD Radeon Pro 5700 XT scores 56,593, and the NVIDIA T400 scores 15,976. The delta here is 254.2%, slightly larger than the OpenCL margin. This indicates that the AMD card maintains its advantage across different compute APIs, not just in a single optimized path.

It is importantly the NVIDIA T400 has no recorded scores for Geekbench Metal or any Passmark tests in the database, whereas the AMD Radeon Pro 5700 XT has a full suite of results. The head-to-head data, therefore, is limited to the two compute tests where both cards have entries. In those two tests, the AMD card wins both, giving it a 2-0 record in direct comparisons.

The magnitude of these wins is not marginal. A 249% delta in OpenCL and a 254.2% delta in Vulkan place the AMD card in a different performance tier entirely. The data shows that for any workload relying on raw compute throughput, the AMD Radeon Pro 5700 XT is overwhelmingly ahead of the NVIDIA T400.

Architecture Differences

The two cards come from different manufacturers and different architectural generations. The AMD Radeon Pro 5700 XT uses the Navi 10 chip built on the RDNA 1.0 architecture, fabricated on a 7 nm process at TSMC. The NVIDIA T400 uses the TU117 chip based on the Turing architecture, also fabricated by TSMC but on a 12 nm process.

The transistor counts differ significantly. The AMD chip houses 10,300 million transistors on a die size of 251 mm², yielding a transistor density of 41.0M per mm². The NVIDIA chip contains 4,700 million transistors on a 200 mm² die, for a density of 23.5M per mm². The AMD chip is both larger in absolute transistor count and denser per square millimeter.

Clock behavior also differs. The AMD Radeon Pro 5700 XT has a base clock of 1243 MHz and a boost clock of 1499 MHz. The NVIDIA T400 has a much lower base clock of 420 MHz but a boost clock of 1425 MHz. The low base clock on the T400 suggests a power-conscious design that ramps up only when needed.

Memory configurations are starkly different. The AMD card has 16 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 256-bit bus, providing 384.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The NVIDIA T400 has 2 GB of GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus, delivering 80.00 GB/s. This is a 4.8x difference in bandwidth, which directly impacts memory-bound workloads.

Compute resources follow the same pattern. The AMD Radeon Pro 5700 XT has 2,560 shading units, 160 texture mapping units, and 64 render output units. The NVIDIA T400 has 384 shading units, 24 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. Pixel rate on the AMD card is 95.94 GPixel/s versus 22.80 GPixel/s on the NVIDIA card. Texture rate is 239.8 GTexel/s versus 34.20 GTexel/s.

FP32 performance is listed as 7.675 TFLOPS for the AMD card and 1,094.4 GFLOPS (approximately 1.09 TFLOPS) for the NVIDIA card. FP16 rates are 15.35 TFLOPS (2:1) for AMD and 2.189 TFLOPS (2:1) for NVIDIA. Neither card has dedicated ray tracing or tensor cores.

Power and physical specifications also diverge. The AMD card has a TDP of 130 W and is listed as an integrated graphics processor (IGP) with no power connectors and a suggested PSU of 300 W. The NVIDIA T400 has a TDP of 30 W, is a single-slot card, also has no power connectors, and suggests a 200 W PSU. The T400 provides 3x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a outputs, while the AMD card has no display outputs listed.

Interface differences exist as well: the AMD card uses PCIe 4.0 x16, while the NVIDIA card uses PCIe 3.0 x16. Both support DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon Pro 5700 XT wins in every benchmark category where both cards have recorded data. In Geekbench OpenCL, it is ahead by 249%, and in Geekbench Vulkan, it is ahead by 254.2%. This makes the AMD card the clear choice for compute-heavy tasks such as GPU-accelerated rendering, scientific simulation, or any workload that leverages OpenCL or Vulkan compute.

The NVIDIA T400 does not win any direct benchmark comparison in the database. Its strengths lie elsewhere, specifically in physical attributes rather than performance. It consumes only 30 W versus 130 W, requires a smaller PSU (200 W versus 300 W), and is a single-slot card rather than an IGP. For systems with tight power budgets or limited physical space, the T400 may be easier to integrate.

The T400 also has display outputs (3x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a), while the AMD Radeon Pro 5700 XT has no outputs listed. This means the T400 can drive displays directly, whereas the AMD card appears designed for compute-only or server environments where display output is handled elsewhere.

Memory capacity favors the AMD card heavily: 16 GB versus 2 GB. For workloads that need to hold large datasets in VRAM, the AMD card is the only practical option between these two. The T400's 2 GB limit will constrain model sizes or texture loads in memory-intensive applications.

FAQ

Q: Which card is faster in Geekbench OpenCL?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro 5700 XT scores 59,467 versus 17,039 for the NVIDIA T400, a delta of 249% in favor of AMD.

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

A: The AMD Radeon Pro 5700 XT has 16 GB of GDDR6, while the NVIDIA T400 has 2 GB of GDDR6.

Q: Does the NVIDIA T400 have any display outputs?

A: Yes, the NVIDIA T400 has 3x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a outputs. The AMD Radeon Pro 5700 XT has no display outputs listed.

Q: What is the TDP of each card?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro 5700 XT has a TDP of 130 W, and the NVIDIA T400 has a TDP of 30 W.

Q: Which card has a higher transistor count?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro 5700 XT has 10,300 million transistors, compared to 4,700 million for the NVIDIA T400.

Q: What are the boost clocks for each card?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro 5700 XT boosts to 1499 MHz, and the NVIDIA T400 boosts to 1425 MHz.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the AMD Radeon Pro 5700 XT is the superior card in raw performance. It wins both head-to-head benchmarks by wide margins, offers 8x the memory capacity, and has nearly 7x the FP32 throughput. For any user prioritizing compute performance, the AMD card is the correct choice.

However, the NVIDIA T400 has a legitimate role in specific scenarios. Its 30 W TDP, single-slot footprint, and integrated display outputs make it a candidate for low-power workstations or systems where the GPU must drive monitors directly. The T400's 2 GB memory and lower compute throughput will limit it to lighter tasks, but for basic 2D display output or low-intensity compute, it may suffice.

The percentile rankings support the performance gap. The AMD Radeon Pro 5700 XT sits at the 63rd percentile among all GPUs, while the NVIDIA T400 sits at the 60th percentile. The AMD card's average benchmark score is 18,685, and the T400's is 16,508. The nearest rival data for the AMD card includes the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2070 at 18,789 (a -0.6% delta) and the AMD Radeon RX 560X at 18,626 (a 0.3% delta). The T400's nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon RX 5700 XT at 16,361 (a 0.9% delta) and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5090 D V2 at 16,504 (a 0% delta).

In short, the AMD Radeon Pro 5700 XT should be selected for compute-heavy workloads, large memory footprints, and maximum performance. The NVIDIA T400 should be selected only when power draw, physical size, or display output requirements dominate the decision, and where the substantial performance deficit is acceptable.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Radeon Pro 5700 XT | NVIDIA T400 |

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

| Architecture | RDNA 1.0 | Turing |

| Process Node | 7 nm | 12 nm |

| Transistors | 10,300 million | 4,700 million |

| Die Size | 251 mm² | 200 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 41.0M / mm² | 23.5M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 1243 MHz | 420 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 1499 MHz | 1425 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 1500 MHz, 12 Gbps effective | 1250 MHz, 10 Gbps effective |

| Memory Size | 16 GB | 2 GB |

| Memory Bus Width | 256 bit | 64 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 384.0 GB/s | 80.00 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 2560 | 384 |

| TMUs | 160 | 24 |

| ROPs | 64 | 16 |

| Pixel Rate | 95.94 GPixel/s | 22.80 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 239.8 GTexel/s | 34.20 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Performance | 7.675 TFLOPS | 1,094.4 GFLOPS |

| FP16 Performance | 15.35 TFLOPS (2:1) | 2.189 TFLOPS (2:1) |

| TDP | 130 W | 30 W |

| Slot Width | IGP | Single-slot |

| Suggested PSU | 300 W | 200 W |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 4.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |

| Display Outputs | No outputs | 3x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a |

| Release Date | 2020-08-03 | 2021-05-05 |