GPU Comparison

The NVIDIA T400 and AMD Radeon PRO W7500 occupy very different corners of the professional graphics market, despite their average benchmark scores landing within 0.6% of each other. The data reveals a fundamental split: the T400 is a legacy entry-point card built for basic display and light workloads, while the W7500 is a modern, high-throughput compute engine. Their near-identical aggregate scores mask a colossal performance gulf in raw compute, making the choice between them a question of workload scale rather than generational preference.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon PRO W7500 wins decisively in every benchmark category where both cards have data. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the W7500 scores 58,213 versus the T400’s 17,039, a margin of 70.7%. The Vulkan gap is even wider: 68,634 versus 15,976, putting the W7500 ahead by 76.7%. These are not incremental gains; they represent a fourfold to fivefold advantage in raw compute throughput.

The T400’s only “win” is in the aggregate percentile ranking, where it sits at the 60th percentile of all GPUs versus the W7500’s 59th percentile. This is a statistical artifact of the benchmark database’s weighting, not a real performance advantage. The T400’s average benchmark score of 16,508 is actually 0.6% higher than the W7500’s 16,415, but this is misleading, the T400’s average derives from just two Geekbench tests, while the W7500’s includes nine tests spanning DirectX 9 through 12, 2D, 3D, and compute workloads.

For real-world use, the W7500 wins on every front that involves actual rendering or computation. It has a 2D score of 1,174 in Passmark G2D, a 3D score of 13,368 in G3D, and a compute score of 5,910. The T400 has no corresponding data, but its low shading unit count and 2 GB memory cap suggest it is suited only for basic multi-display setups or as a placeholder card. The W7500’s DirectX scores, 65 in D10, 125 in D11, 46 in D12, and 200 in D9, indicate broad API compatibility, albeit with modest absolute numbers that reflect its workstation-oriented tuning rather than gaming performance.

Architecture Differences

The two cards are separated by two full architecture generations and a manufacturing process leap. The T400 uses NVIDIA’s Turing architecture on a 12 nm TSMC node, with a TU117 chip containing 4,700 million transistors on a 200 mm² die. The W7500 uses AMD’s RDNA 3.0 architecture on a 6 nm TSMC node, with a Navi 33 chip (codenamed “Hotpink Bonefish”) packing 13,300 million transistors into a similar 204 mm² die. This is the core story: the W7500 fits nearly three times the transistors into the same physical space, yielding a transistor density of 65.2M per mm² versus the T400’s 23.5M per mm².

The compute resources reflect this density advantage. The T400 has 384 shading units, 24 texture mapping units, and 16 raster operation units. The W7500 has 1,792 shading units, 112 TMUs, and 64 ROPs, roughly 4.7x, 4.7x, and 4x more, respectively. The W7500 also includes 28 ray tracing cores, a feature entirely absent from the T400, which has no RT cores and no tensor cores. Memory configurations differ sharply: the T400 has 2 GB of GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus delivering 80 GB/s, while the W7500 has 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus delivering 256 GB/s, three times the bandwidth and four times the capacity.

Clock speeds tell a similar tale. The T400 runs at a 420 MHz base and 1425 MHz boost, while the W7500 runs at 1500 MHz base and 1700 MHz boost. Memory clocks are 1250 MHz (10 Gbps effective) for the T400 and 2000 MHz (16 Gbps effective) for the W7500. The API support also differs: the T400 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), while the W7500 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), a newer feature set. Both support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4.

FAQ

Q: Which card has better raw compute performance?

A: The AMD Radeon PRO W7500 is overwhelmingly faster. In Geekbench OpenCL, it scores 58,213 versus the T400’s 17,039, a 70.7% lead. In Vulkan, it scores 68,634 versus 15,976, a 76.7% lead.

Q: Why do the average benchmark scores look so close?

A: The T400’s average benchmark score is 16,508, and the W7500’s is 16,415, a 0.6% difference. However, the T400 is based on only two Geekbench tests, while the W7500’s average incorporates nine tests including multiple DirectX versions and compute workloads, making the aggregate comparison misleading.

Q: What memory capacity and bandwidth do these cards offer?

A: The T400 has 2 GB of GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus with 80 GB/s bandwidth. The W7500 has 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus with 256 GB/s bandwidth, four times the capacity and three times the bandwidth.

Q: Do these cards support ray tracing?

A: The AMD Radeon PRO W7500 includes 28 ray tracing cores. The NVIDIA T400 has no ray tracing cores, as it is based on the older Turing architecture without RT hardware.

Q: Which card has more display outputs and what types?

A: The T400 has three mini-DisplayPort 1.4a outputs. The W7500 has four DisplayPort 2.1 outputs, offering both one more output and a newer connector standard.

Q: What are the power requirements for each card?

A: The T400 has a TDP of 30 W and requires a 200 W suggested PSU. The W7500 has a TDP of 70 W and requires a 250 W suggested PSU. Neither card uses external power connectors.

Specification Differences

The most striking differences are in compute capacity and memory. The W7500’s FP32 throughput is 12.19 TFLOPS versus the T400’s 1,094.4 GFLOPS, an 11.1x advantage. FP16 performance is 24.37 TFLOPS versus 2.189 TFLOPS. Pixel rate is 108.8 GPixel/s versus 22.80 GPixel/s, and texture rate is 190.4 GTexel/s versus 34.20 GTexel/s.

The memory subsystem is another major divider. The W7500’s 8 GB capacity and 256 GB/s bandwidth dwarf the T400’s 2 GB and 80 GB/s. The process node differs by a full 6 nm (12 nm vs 6 nm), and the transistor count is 13,300 million versus 4,700 million. The T400 uses PCIe 3.0 x16, while the W7500 uses PCIe 4.0 x8, a newer standard with higher per-lane bandwidth. Physical dimensions are known for the W7500 (216 mm length, 115 mm height, 20 mm width) but not for the T400. The T400 is end-of-life with a successor in Workstation Ampere, while the W7500 is active with no successor listed. Release dates differ by over two years: the T400 launched in May 2021, the W7500 in August 2023.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The two Geekbench tests tell a consistent story of AMD dominance. In OpenCL, the W7500 scores 58,213 against the T400’s 17,039, a delta of -70.7% from the T400’s perspective. This means the T400 delivers less than a third of the W7500’s compute output. The Vulkan test is even more lopsided: 68,634 versus 15,976, a delta of -76.7%. The W7500’s Vulkan score is over four times higher in absolute terms.

These deltas are the largest in the head-to-head data, and they align with the architectural gaps. The W7500’s 1,792 shading units versus 384, its 12.19 TFLOPS versus 1.0944 TFLOPS, and its 256 GB/s versus 80 GB/s bandwidth all point to the same conclusion: the T400 is not a compute competitor. The W7500’s additional benchmarks, Passmark DirectX 10 (65), DirectX 11 (125), DirectX 12 (46), DirectX 9 (200), G2D (1,174), G3D (13,368), and GPU Compute (5,910), show a balanced profile across legacy and modern APIs, while the T400 has no such data to compare.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous for compute-intensive professional workloads: the AMD Radeon PRO W7500 is the only choice. It leads by 70.7% in OpenCL and 76.7% in Vulkan, offers 8 GB of memory versus 2 GB, and includes ray tracing cores that the T400 lacks entirely. For anyone running rendering, simulation, or GPU-accelerated compute, the T400’s 1,094.4 GFLOPS FP32 throughput is a bottleneck that the W7500’s 12.19 TFLOPS simply removes.

The NVIDIA T400 retains a narrow niche for basic display output and legacy compatibility. Its 30 W TDP and lack of external power connectors make it easy to install in constrained systems, and its 3x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a outputs support multi-monitor setups. The T400’s end-of-life status and 60th percentile ranking suggest it is a stopgap, not a long-term solution. Its 0.6% higher average benchmark score versus the W7500 is a statistical quirk, not a performance endorsement.

The W7500’s 59th percentile ranking, despite its massive compute lead, reflects the database’s inclusion of gaming and consumer GPUs in the percentile calculation. In professional terms, the W7500’s 28 RT cores, 4x DisplayPort 2.1 outputs, and 256 GB/s bandwidth make it a modern workstation card. The T400’s 12 nm Turing node and 2 GB memory cap are artifacts of an earlier era. The verdict: for any task that touches shaders, textures, or compute, pick the W7500. For a low-power display adapter with no compute aspirations, the T400 still functions, but its 0 wins out of 2 head-to-head benchmarks speaks for itself.