GPU Comparison

The data presents a stark contrast between two professional workstation GPUs: the NVIDIA T400 and the AMD Radeon Pro W5500. While the T400 is positioned as an entry-level, low-power solution, the W5500 is engineered for substantially heavier compute workloads. Benchmark results indicate a decisive performance gap, with the AMD card dominating in every head-to-head test, yet the T400's unique characteristics may still serve specific use cases. This analysis will dissect the numbers, explore the architectural underpinnings, and determine which professional should choose which card based strictly on the available data.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head data shows a single, unidirectional outcome: the AMD Radeon Pro W5500 comprehensively outperforms the NVIDIA T400 in every recorded test. There are no benchmark wins for the T400, with the W5500 securing both of the available head-to-head victories.

In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the W5500 scores a massive 45,615 points, while the T400 manages only 17,039. This represents a delta of -62.6% for the T400, meaning the AMD card is roughly 2.7 times faster in this compute-heavy workload. This is not a marginal difference; it is a chasm in raw processing power. The OpenCL benchmark is a strong indicator of general-purpose GPU compute performance, suggesting the W5500 can handle tasks like rendering, simulation, and data processing at a pace the T400 simply cannot match.

The results are similar for the Geekbench Vulkan test. Here, the W5500 again takes a commanding lead with a score of 42,021, compared to the T400’s 15,976, a delta of -62%. Vulkan is a low-overhead graphics API, and this score suggests that even in modern gaming or real-time rendering workloads, the W5500 provides a dramatically smoother and more capable experience.

The average benchmark score paints the same picture. The T400 has an average score of 16,508, while the W5500’s average is 15,679. This is an interesting data point; despite losing the head-to-head tests by a wide margin, the T400’s average score is actually slightly higher than the W5500’s. This is likely due to the different suites of benchmarks included in each card's respective average. The W5500 has far more benchmark results, including several Passmark tests where it scores low (e.g., 47 in DirectX 10, 56 in DirectX 11), which pulls its average down. The T400, with only two high-scoring Geekbench results, maintains a higher average. This highlights the importance of looking at specific test results rather than aggregated scores. The head-to-head tests, which are directly comparable, leave no doubt about the performance hierarchy.

The Verdict

The data is unequivocal: the AMD Radeon Pro W5500 is the superior performer for any task that demands significant GPU compute power. Its wins in both OpenCL and Vulkan benchmarks, with deltas exceeding 60%, establish it as the clear choice for professionals who need to render complex scenes, run simulations, or process large datasets. The W5500 also offers substantially more memory, which is critical for large textures and models.

However, the NVIDIA T400 is not without its place. Its data tells a story of efficiency and simplicity. With a significantly lower TDP of 30 W compared to the W5500’s 125 W, the T400 is designed for environments where power consumption and heat are primary concerns. It requires no power connectors and suggests a 200 W PSU, making it a true plug-and-play solution for basic multi-monitor setups in compact or densely populated systems. For a professional whose primary need is to drive several displays for productivity, financial trading, or software development, the T400’s capabilities are sufficient, and its low power draw is a significant advantage.

The verdict depends on the workload. For compute-intensive tasks, the W5500 is the only logical choice. For basic display output and low-power environments, the T400’s efficiency makes it a viable, if limited, option. The data does not suggest the T400 is a competitor to the W5500 in performance; it is a different class of product entirely.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in OpenCL compute tasks?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro W5500 is decisively faster, scoring 45,615 compared to the NVIDIA T400's 17,039 in the Geekbench OpenCL test, a difference of 62.6%.

Q: Does the NVIDIA T400 win any benchmark against the W5500?

A: No, according to the head-to-head benchmark data, the W5500 wins both of the two recorded tests (Geekbench OpenCL and Geekbench Vulkan). The T400 has zero wins.

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

A: The NVIDIA T400 has an average benchmark score of 16,508, while the AMD Radeon Pro W5500 has an average of 15,679. It is important to note that the W5500 has a larger pool of benchmark results, including some low-scoring Passmark tests, which affects this aggregate figure.

Q: How much memory does each GPU have?

A: The NVIDIA T400 has 2 GB of GDDR6 memory, while the AMD Radeon Pro W5500 has 8 GB of GDDR6 memory. The W5500 also has a wider 128-bit memory bus, resulting in a bandwidth of 224.0 GB/s compared to the T400's 80.00 GB/s.

Q: What are the power requirements for these cards?

A: The NVIDIA T400 has a TDP of 30 W and requires no power connectors, with a suggested PSU of 200 W. The AMD Radeon Pro W5500 has a TDP of 125 W and requires a single 6-pin power connector, with a suggested PSU of 300 W.

Q: When was each product released?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro W5500 was released on 2020-02-09, while the NVIDIA T400 was released later, on 2021-05-05. Both are now listed as end-of-life products.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ across nearly every core specification, reinforcing their distinct market positions. The most obvious difference is in memory: the T400 offers 2 GB of GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus, yielding 80.00 GB/s of bandwidth, while the W5500 provides 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus, achieving 224.0 GB/s. This 2.8x bandwidth advantage is crucial for data-heavy workloads.

The compute units tell a similar story. The T400 has 384 shading units, 24 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. In contrast, the W5500 features 1408 shading units, 88 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. This translates to a massive difference in theoretical performance: the W5500's FP32 throughput is 5.224 TFLOPS versus the T400's 1,094.4 GFLOPS, and its pixel rate is 59.36 GPixel/s versus 22.80 GPixel/s. The clock speeds also differ significantly, with the W5500 boosting to 1855 MHz compared to the T400's 1425 MHz.

Power and physical characteristics also diverge. The T400 has a 30 W TDP, requires no power connectors, and suggests a 200 W PSU, while the W5500 has a 125 W TDP, a single 6-pin connector, and suggests a 300 W PSU. The bus interface differs as well, with the T400 using PCIe 3.0 x16 and the W5500 using PCIe 4.0 x8. The W5500 is also a longer card at 241 mm, while the T400's length is not specified. Finally, the W5500 offers four DisplayPort 1.4a outputs, whereas the T400 has three mini-DisplayPort 1.4a outputs.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap is as wide as the performance gap. The NVIDIA T400 is built on the Turing architecture, using the TU117 chip, and is fabricated on a 12 nm process at TSMC. This chip contains 4,700 million transistors on a 200 mm² die, resulting in a transistor density of 23.5M / mm². It represents the entry point of the Quadro Turing generation.

The AMD Radeon Pro W5500, conversely, is based on the RDNA 1.0 architecture, using the Navi 14 chip. It is manufactured on a more advanced 7 nm process, also at TSMC, which allows for 6,400 million transistors on a smaller 158 mm² die, achieving a much higher transistor density of 40.5M / mm². This generational leap in manufacturing is a primary reason for its superior performance and efficiency. The W5500 is part of the Radeon Pro Navi series.

Neither card features dedicated ray tracing or tensor cores, as both have null values for these fields. They both support DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, so software feature support is similar at the API level. The core architectural differences, however, are profound: Turing is a mature, power-efficient architecture for basic professional use, while RDNA 1.0 is a high-performance architecture designed to deliver substantial compute throughput.

Where Each One Wins

The "win" for each card is defined by different metrics. The AMD Radeon Pro W5500 wins on raw performance. It is the definitive choice for any professional whose work is bottlenecked by GPU compute. This includes 3D rendering in applications that leverage OpenCL or Vulkan, complex video editing and effects, scientific computing, and any task that requires large amounts of memory bandwidth and VRAM. The data shows it is 62%+ faster in compute benchmarks, and its 8 GB of memory ensures larger scenes and datasets can be handled without swapping to system memory. The W5500 is for the power user who needs results, not just display output.

The NVIDIA T400 wins on efficiency and deployment simplicity. Its 30 W TDP means it can be installed in systems with minimal power supply headroom. It requires no auxiliary power connectors, simplifying installation in small form factor or pre-existing workstations. Its primary function is to provide professional-grade multi-display support (up to three monitors) with reliable drivers. For a professional who spends their day in spreadsheets, code editors, or financial trading platforms, the T400 provides the necessary visual outputs without the heat, noise, and power demands of a high-performance card. It is not a compute workhorse; it is a quiet, efficient engine for visual productivity. The data shows it is not a competitor to the W5500 in performance, but in its specific niche of low-power, multi-display output, it is a clear winner.