AMD Radeon Pro W5500 vs NVIDIA T400 4 GB Comparison

The NVIDIA T400 4 GB and AMD Radeon Pro W5500 are both end-of-life, single-slot workstation cards, but they occupy very different performance tiers. The benchmark data shows the AMD card is decisively faster in every shared test, while the NVIDIA card’s only advantages are its lower power draw and physical footprint. The choice is straightforward: the T400 is for basic display and light compute tasks where power is critical, while the W5500 is for actual 3D rendering and compute workloads that demand memory and throughput.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous. In the two benchmarks both cards share, the AMD Radeon Pro W5500 wins outright. The Geekbench OpenCL score for the W5500 is 45,615, a 62% lead over the T400’s 17,320. The Vulkan result tells the same story: 42,021 versus 16,263, a 61.3% margin. The W5500’s average benchmark score of 15,679 also exceeds the T400’s 16,792? No — the T400’s average is higher at 16,792, but that figure is skewed by the W5500’s Passmark DirectX 9 and 2D tests dragging its average down. The head-to-head results are what matter, and there the W5500 wins both.

Choose the NVIDIA T400 only if your workload is limited to basic multi-monitor output and you have a strict power envelope. Its 30 W TDP requires no power connector, while the W5500 demands a 125 W TDP and a 6-pin connector. The T400’s suggested PSU is 200 W versus 300 W for the AMD card. For anything involving 3D acceleration, OpenCL compute, or Vulkan rendering, the W5500 is the only rational pick. Its 8 GB memory is double the T400’s 4 GB, and its bandwidth of 224.0 GB/s is 2.8 times higher. The T400 sits at the 60th percentile of all GPUs, while the W5500 sits at the 58th — but that percentile is based on average score, which the T400 inflates because it lacks the W5500’s low-scoring legacy DirectX tests. The head-to-head data overrides the percentile ranking.

FAQ

Q: Which card has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA T400 has an average benchmark score of 16,792, compared to the AMD Radeon Pro W5500’s 15,679. However, this is misleading because the W5500’s average includes low-scoring Passmark DirectX 9 (126) and DirectX 10 (47) tests, while the T400 only has two Geekbench scores. In the shared OpenCL and Vulkan tests, the W5500 leads by over 60%.

Q: What is the memory capacity difference?

A: The W5500 has 8 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 128-bit bus, yielding 224.0 GB/s bandwidth. The T400 has 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus, yielding 80.00 GB/s. The AMD card has twice the capacity and nearly three times the bandwidth.

Q: Do both cards support the same APIs?

A: Yes. Both support DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The T400 also supports CUDA implicitly through its NVIDIA architecture, but the API list is identical.

Q: Which card requires more power from the system?

A: The W5500 has a 125 W TDP and requires a 6-pin power connector, with a suggested PSU of 300 W. The T400 has a 30 W TDP, no power connector, and a suggested PSU of 200 W. The T400 can run in nearly any prebuilt system; the W5500 needs a proper power supply.

Q: How do the cards compare in pixel and texture throughput?

A: The W5500 achieves 59.36 GPixel/s and 163.2 GTexel/s, versus the T400’s 22.80 GPixel/s and 34.20 GTexel/s. The AMD card has a 2.6x pixel rate advantage and a 4.8x texture rate advantage.

Q: What is the launch price of the W5500?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro W5500 had a launch MSRP of 399 USD. The T400 has no listed launch MSRP.

Architecture Differences

The two cards come from fundamentally different GPU generations and designs. The NVIDIA T400 uses the TU117 chip, based on the Turing architecture, built on a 12 nm process at TSMC. It packs 4,700 million transistors into a 200 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 23.5M per mm². This is a low-power, entry-level workstation chip. The AMD Radeon Pro W5500 uses the Navi 14 chip, based on RDNA 1.0, built on a 7 nm process, also at TSMC. It packs 6,400 million transistors into a smaller 158 mm² die, achieving a transistor density of 40.5M per mm². The 7 nm node allows AMD to fit 36% more transistors in 21% less die area.

The shading unit counts differ dramatically. The T400 has 384 shading units, 24 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 16 raster output units (ROPs). The W5500 has 1,408 shading units, 88 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. That is a 3.7x difference in shading units, a 3.7x difference in TMUs, and a 2x difference in ROPs. Neither card has dedicated ray tracing or tensor cores — both rely on traditional shader-based rendering. The clock speeds also reflect the node advantage: the T400’s base clock is 420 MHz with a boost of 1425 MHz, while the W5500’s base is 1744 MHz and boost is 1855 MHz. The AMD card’s base clock is higher than the NVIDIA card’s boost clock.

Memory architecture is another major divider. The T400 uses a 64-bit memory bus, which is narrow even for entry-level cards, while the W5500 uses a 128-bit bus. The memory clocks also differ: 1250 MHz (10 Gbps effective) for NVIDIA versus 1750 MHz (14 Gbps effective) for AMD. The result is the 80.00 GB/s versus 224.0 GB/s bandwidth gap. The T400 is a PCIe 3.0 x16 card, while the W5500 is PCIe 4.0 x8 — the AMD card’s interface provides double the per-lane bandwidth, though the x8 width reduces total lanes.

Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA T400 4 GB | AMD Radeon Pro W5500 |

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

| Chip | TU117 | Navi 14 |

| Architecture | Turing | RDNA 1.0 |

| Process Node | 12 nm | 7 nm |

| Transistors | 4,700 million | 6,400 million |

| Die Size | 200 mm² | 158 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 23.5M / mm² | 40.5M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 420 MHz | 1744 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 1425 MHz | 1855 MHz |

| Memory Size | 4 GB | 8 GB |

| Memory Bus Width | 64 bit | 128 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 80.00 GB/s | 224.0 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 384 | 1408 |

| TMUs | 24 | 88 |

| ROPs | 16 | 32 |

| FP32 Performance | 1,094.4 GFLOPS | 5.224 TFLOPS |

| FP16 Performance | 2.189 TFLOPS (2:1) | 10.45 TFLOPS (2:1) |

| Pixel Rate | 22.80 GPixel/s | 59.36 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 34.20 GTexel/s | 163.2 GTexel/s |

| TDP | 30 W | 125 W |

| Power Connectors | None | 1x 6-pin |

| Suggested PSU | 200 W | 300 W |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 4.0 x8 |

| Display Outputs | 3x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a | 4x DisplayPort 1.4a |

| Release Date | 2021-05-05 | 2020-02-09 |

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Geekbench OpenCL test is the clearest indicator of raw compute throughput. The T400 scores 17,320, while the W5500 scores 45,615. That is a 62% deficit for the NVIDIA card. The delta is exactly what the FP32 specs predict: the W5500’s 5.224 TFLOPS versus the T400’s 1,094.4 GFLOPS (approximately 1.094 TFLOPS) is a 4.8x theoretical gap, though real-world OpenCL shows a 2.6x gap. The W5500’s larger memory bandwidth (224.0 GB/s vs 80.00 GB/s) helps sustain compute workloads without stalling.

The Geekbench Vulkan test shows a similar pattern. The T400 scores 16,263, the W5500 scores 42,021, a 61.3% lead for AMD. Vulkan is a lower-level API that benefits from raw shader throughput and memory bandwidth. The W5500’s 1,408 shading units and 88 TMUs are far better equipped for the draw calls and texture sampling that Vulkan workloads generate. The T400’s 384 shading units and 24 TMUs are simply outclassed.

The W5500 also brings additional benchmark data that the T400 lacks. Its Passmark scores show a G3D score of 8,978 and a GPU compute score of 4,804. The DirectX 12 score is 39, while the DirectX 11 score is 56. These legacy DirectX scores are low compared to modern cards, but they still represent performance the T400 cannot match. The W5500’s Metal score of 54,302 is notably strong, indicating excellent Apple ecosystem performance, though the T400 has no Metal benchmark data. In the two tests where both cards compete, the W5500 wins by a margin between 61% and 62%. There are zero wins for the T400.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon Pro W5500 wins every performance category that matters for workstation use. Its FP32 compute of 5.224 TFLOPS is nearly 5x the T400’s 1,094.4 GFLOPS, which translates directly to faster simulation, rendering, and data processing. The 8 GB memory capacity is essential for larger textures, point clouds, and AI inference batches that would overflow the T400’s 4 GB. The 224.0 GB/s bandwidth is critical for memory-bound workloads like video editing, where the T400’s 80.00 GB/s will bottleneck. The W5500 also wins in display connectivity with 4x DisplayPort 1.4a outputs versus 3x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a on the T400.

The NVIDIA T400 wins only in power efficiency and compactness. Its 30 W TDP is 95 W lower than the W5500’s 125 W, meaning it can run in systems without a 6-pin power connector and with a 200 W PSU instead of 300 W. The T400’s lack of a power connector is a real advantage for small form factor builds or legacy workstations with limited power headers. Its PCIe 3.0 x16 interface is also more universally compatible than the W5500’s PCIe 4.0 x8, though the latter works fine in PCIe 3.0 slots. The T400’s transistor density of 23.5M / mm² is lower, but that is irrelevant to the buyer.

For practical workstation use, the W5500 is the answer for anyone doing 3D modeling, GPU-accelerated rendering, or compute tasks. The T400 is suitable only for basic office tasks, multi-monitor setup, or as a display adapter in a server where the 30 W draw is acceptable. The data shows no scenario where the T400’s compute performance is competitive — its only wins are in the power and physical specification columns. If you need a card that renders, the W5500 is worth the extra power and size. If you need a card that outputs display signals with minimal power draw, the T400 suffices. There is no middle ground in the benchmark results.