AMD Radeon RX 460 vs NVIDIA T400 4 GB Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a clear overall winner in the two shared benchmark tests. The AMD Radeon RX 460 takes both head-to-head victories, with its largest margin coming in the Vulkan workload. In Geekbench Vulkan, the RX 460 scores 20,198 against the T400’s 16,263, a difference of 24.2%. That is a substantial gap for any graphics card comparison, and it indicates the AMD card handles Vulkan-based titles or compute tasks with significantly more headroom.

The OpenCL result is closer. The RX 460 posts 17,855, while the NVIDIA T400 4 GB manages 17,320. That is a 3.1% advantage for the AMD card, which is a narrow but consistent win. The T400 does not manage to outscore the RX 460 in either of the two benchmarks where both cards have recorded data. This means the T400’s average benchmark score of 16,792 trails the RX 460’s 17,315 average (calculated from its three recorded tests, though the database lists 18,373 as its average benchmark score across all tests). The RX 460 also sits at the 62nd percentile of all GPUs, while the T400 sits at the 60th percentile, a small but notable positioning difference.

The delta between the two in Vulkan is worth emphasizing. A 24.2% lead in any API is not a marginal difference; it suggests the RX 460 has a meaningful architectural advantage in that specific workload. In OpenCL, the 3.1% lead is smaller, but it still keeps the AMD card ahead. The T400’s best recorded score is 17,320 in OpenCL, which is still below the RX 460’s worst recorded score of 17,065 in Geekbench Metal. That is a useful perspective: even the T400’s strongest result does not reach the RX 460’s weakest result.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon RX 460 wins in both direct comparisons, so the use-case split is heavily tilted toward the older card. For users running Vulkan-based applications, the RX 460 is the clear choice. The 24.2% lead in Vulkan means that games or compute workloads using that API will see a notable performance advantage on the AMD card. The RX 460 also holds the edge in OpenCL, which covers a wide range of general-purpose GPU tasks, including video encoding, physics simulations, and some machine learning workloads. Its 3.1% lead there is less dramatic but still consistent.

The NVIDIA T400 4 GB does not win any head-to-head benchmark, but the data does not show it being completely outclassed in every scenario. Its OpenCL score of 17,320 is close enough to the RX 460’s 17,855 that in real-world OpenCL applications, the difference might be within run-to-run variance. The T400 also has a higher pixel rate of 22.80 GPixel/s compared to the RX 460’s 19.20 GPixel/s, which suggests it could be more efficient at fill-rate-bound tasks, such as simple 2D rendering or certain compositing operations, even if the overall compute scores favor the AMD card.

The T400’s advantage in memory capacity (4 GB versus 2 GB) could also matter for workloads that exceed the RX 460’s smaller frame buffer. The database does not include a benchmark that isolates memory capacity, but the 4 GB allocation on the T400 means it can hold larger textures or datasets without spilling to system memory. For professional applications that are memory-hungry but not compute-heavy, the T400 might sustain performance where the RX 460 would hit a wall. The RX 460, however, has higher raw compute throughput, texture rate (67.20 GTexel/s versus 34.20 GTexel/s), and a wider memory bus (128-bit versus 64-bit), which gives it a bandwidth advantage of 112.0 GB/s versus 80.00 GB/s.

Architecture Differences

The two cards come from different architectural eras and foundries. The AMD Radeon RX 460 uses the GCN 4.0 architecture, built on a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries. Its chip, Baffin, contains 3,000 million transistors on a 123 mm² die, resulting in a transistor density of 24.4 million per square millimeter. The NVIDIA T400 4 GB uses the Turing architecture, built on a 12 nm process at TSMC. Its chip, TU117, packs 4,700 million transistors onto a 200 mm² die, giving a density of 23.5 million per square millimeter. The T400 has more total transistors and a larger die, but the RX 460 has a slightly higher transistor density.

The compute configurations differ significantly. The RX 460 has 896 shading units, 56 texture mapping units, and 16 ROPs. The T400 has 384 shading units, 24 TMUs, and also 16 ROPs. This explains the RX 460’s higher texture rate (67.20 GTexel/s versus 34.20 GTexel/s) and its higher FP32 throughput of 2.150 TFLOPS versus 1,094.4 GFLOPS on the T400. The T400 does have a higher pixel rate (22.80 GPixel/s versus 19.20 GPixel/s), which is interesting given the same ROP count, likely due to its higher boost clock of 1425 MHz versus 1200 MHz on the RX 460.

Memory architectures are also distinct. The RX 460 uses 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, delivering 112.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The T400 uses 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus, delivering 80.00 GB/s. The RX 460 has a 40% bandwidth advantage, while the T400 has double the capacity. The FP16 capabilities differ as well: the RX 460 offers 2.150 TFLOPS FP16 with a 1:1 ratio to FP32, while the T400 offers 2.189 TFLOPS FP16 with a 2:1 ratio, meaning the T400 can process FP16 at roughly twice its FP32 rate.

The T400 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), while the RX 460 supports DirectX 12 (12_0). Both support OpenGL 4.6, but the T400 supports Vulkan 1.4 while the RX 460 supports Vulkan 1.3. The T400 also uses a PCIe 3.0 x16 interface, while the RX 460 uses PCIe 3.0 x8. The T400 is a single-slot card with three mini-DisplayPort 1.4a outputs, while the RX 460 is dual-slot with 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 2.0b, and 1x DisplayPort 1.4a. Power consumption is very different: the T400 has a 30 W TDP and a suggested 200 W PSU, while the RX 460 has a 75 W TDP and a suggested 250 W PSU.

FAQ

Q: Which card is faster in Vulkan workloads?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 460 is significantly faster, scoring 20,198 in Geekbench Vulkan compared to 16,263 for the NVIDIA T400 4 GB, a 24.2% advantage.

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

A: The RX 460 leads with a score of 17,855 versus 17,320 for the T400, a 3.1% difference. This is a narrow margin, so real-world OpenCL applications may show only minor differences.

Q: Does the T400 have any memory advantage?

A: Yes, the T400 has 4 GB of GDDR6 memory, double the 2 GB of GDDR5 on the RX 460. However, the RX 460 has a wider 128-bit bus and higher bandwidth of 112.0 GB/s versus 80.00 GB/s.

Q: What are the power requirements for each card?

A: The T400 has a 30 W TDP and suggests a 200 W PSU, while the RX 460 has a 75 W TDP and suggests a 250 W PSU. Neither card requires external power connectors.

Q: Which card has better API support?

A: The T400 supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.4, while the RX 460 supports DirectX 12 (12_0) and Vulkan 1.3. Both support OpenGL 4.6.

Q: How do the cards compare in overall benchmark percentile?

A: The RX 460 sits at the 62nd percentile of all GPUs, while the T400 sits at the 60th percentile. The RX 460’s average benchmark score is 18,373, while the T400’s is 16,792.

The Verdict

The data points to a straightforward recommendation for most users: the AMD Radeon RX 460 is the faster card in the tests where both have recorded results. It wins both head-to-head benchmarks, with a particularly commanding lead in Vulkan. Its higher FP32 throughput (2.150 TFLOPS versus 1,094.4 GFLOPS), higher texture rate (67.20 GTexel/s versus 34.20 GTexel/s), and higher memory bandwidth (112.0 GB/s versus 80.00 GB/s) all support its benchmark superiority. For gamers or general compute users who do not need more than 2 GB of VRAM, the RX 460 is the clear pick.

The NVIDIA T400 4 GB is not without a niche, however. Its 4 GB frame buffer is double the RX 460’s capacity, which matters for workloads that are memory-bound rather than compute-bound. Its higher pixel rate (22.80 GPixel/s) and lower power draw (30 W TDP) make it a better fit for low-profile or power-constrained systems, or for professional use cases that prioritize memory capacity and fill rate over raw compute. The T400 also supports a newer DirectX feature level (12_1) and Vulkan 1.4, which could be relevant for specific applications.

Users who need a card for general-purpose compute, Vulkan-based games, or any workload that leverages the RX 460’s higher throughput should choose the AMD card. Users who require 4 GB of VRAM, need a single-slot low-power solution, or work with fill-rate-limited tasks should consider the T400 despite its lower benchmark scores. The database shows the RX 460 as the overall performance winner, but the T400 wins on capacity, efficiency, and form factor.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Radeon RX 460 | NVIDIA T400 4 GB |

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

| Architecture | GCN 4.0 | Turing |

| Process Node | 14 nm | 12 nm |

| Foundry | GlobalFoundries | TSMC |

| Transistors | 3,000 million | 4,700 million |

| Die Size | 123 mm² | 200 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 24.4M / mm² | 23.5M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 1090 MHz | 420 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 1200 MHz | 1425 MHz |

| Memory Size | 2 GB | 4 GB |

| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR6 |

| Memory Bus Width | 128 bit | 64 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 112.0 GB/s | 80.00 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 896 | 384 |

| TMUs | 56 | 24 |

| ROPs | 16 | 16 |

| Pixel Rate | 19.20 GPixel/s | 22.80 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 67.20 GTexel/s | 34.20 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Performance | 2.150 TFLOPS | 1,094.4 GFLOPS |

| FP16 Performance | 2.150 TFLOPS (1:1) | 2.189 TFLOPS (2:1) |

| TDP | 75 W | 30 W |

| Slot Width | Dual-slot | Single-slot |

| Suggested PSU | 250 W | 200 W |

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

| Display Outputs | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 2.0b, 1x DisplayPort 1.4a | 3x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a |

| DirectX Support | 12 (12_0) | 12 (12_1) |

| OpenGL Support | 4.6 | 4.6 |

| Vulkan Support | 1.3 | 1.4 |

| Release Date | 2016-08-07 | 2021-05-05 |

| Production Status | End-of-life | End-of-life |