AMD Radeon RX 560X vs NVIDIA T400 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a split decision between these two cards. The NVIDIA T400 wins one benchmark, and the AMD Radeon RX 560X wins the other, but the magnitude of those victories is wildly different. In Geekbench OpenCL, the T400 scores 17039 against the RX 560X's 17020, a margin of just 0.1%. That is effectively a tie, a statistical dead heat where the difference is within measurement noise. The RX 560X's 17020 trails by a razor-thin 19 points, so any workload that favors OpenCL compute will see these two cards behave almost identically.

The Vulkan result tells a completely different story. The AMD Radeon RX 560X posts 20231 in Geekbench Vulkan, while the NVIDIA T400 manages 15976. That is a 26.6% lead for the RX 560X, a dominant margin that separates the two cards by over 4,200 points. This is not a close contest; the RX 560X is decisively ahead in Vulkan-based workloads. The data indicates that the RX 560X's GCN architecture, with its 1024 shading units and 64 texture mapping units, scales far better under Vulkan's explicit multi-threading model. The T400, with only 384 shading units, cannot keep pace.

Looking at the broader database context, the RX 560X holds a 62nd percentile rank among all GPUs, while the T400 sits at the 60th percentile. Their average benchmark scores reflect this close overall standing: the RX 560X averages 18626, and the T400 averages 16508. That is a 2,118 point gap in the database's aggregate metric, driven almost entirely by the Vulkan result. The OpenCL near-tie drags the T400's average up relative to its Vulkan showing, but the RX 560X's Vulkan strength lifts its aggregate score well above its rival.

When placed against their nearest rivals, both cards occupy similar performance tiers. The RX 560X's nearest rival, the AMD Radeon Pro 5700 XT, scores 18685, a delta of -0.3% relative to the RX 560X. The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2070 scores 18789, putting it 0.9% ahead. The T400's nearest rivals include the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5090 D V2 at 16504, a 0% delta, and the AMD Radeon PRO W7500 at 16415, which is 0.6% behind. These figures confirm that the RX 560X sits in a slightly higher performance bracket, but both cards are firmly in the entry-level to mid-range compute segment.

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide between these two cards is substantial. The AMD Radeon RX 560X uses the Polaris 21 chip built on GCN 4.0 architecture, manufactured on a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries. The NVIDIA T400 uses the TU117 chip based on Turing architecture, built on a 12 nm process at TSMC. The process node difference matters: TSMC's 12 nm node allows for a higher transistor density in raw terms, though the density figures are close, 24.4M per mm² for AMD versus 23.5M per mm² for NVIDIA.

The transistor counts diverge significantly. The RX 560X packs 3,000 million transistors on a 123 mm² die. The T400 contains 4,700 million transistors on a 200 mm² die. That is 1,700 million more transistors for NVIDIA, but the T400's die is 77 mm² larger. The RX 560X's smaller die and lower transistor count reflect its older GCN design, which is less complex per transistor. The T400's Turing architecture includes dedicated hardware for graphics and compute features that GCN 4.0 lacks, but the database records no RT cores or tensor cores for either card.

Memory configurations differ sharply. The RX 560X has 4 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus, delivering 112.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The T400 has 2 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 64-bit bus, delivering 80.00 GB/s. The RX 560X holds a 32 GB/s bandwidth advantage, a 40% lead in raw memory throughput. However, the T400's GDDR6 memory runs at 10 Gbps effective, compared to the RX 560X's 7 Gbps effective. The T400's memory clock is higher, but its narrow bus halves the data path, limiting overall bandwidth.

The compute configurations tell a story of parallelism versus efficiency. The RX 560X fields 1024 shading units, 64 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. The T400 fields 384 shading units, 24 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. The RX 560X has nearly three times the shading units and TMUs, which explains its Vulkan dominance. Yet the T400 achieves a higher pixel rate, 22.80 GPixel/s versus 20.40 GPixel/s, because its boost clock reaches 1425 MHz against the RX 560X's 1275 MHz. The T400's base clock is much lower at 420 MHz, but its boost behavior compensates in pixel throughput.

The FP32 compute figures reflect the shading unit disparity. The RX 560X delivers 2.611 TFLOPS, while the T400 delivers 1,094.4 GFLOPS (roughly 1.09 TFLOPS). That is a 2.39x advantage for AMD in single-precision compute. However, the T400's FP16 throughput is 2.189 TFLOPS, achieved via a 2:1 ratio, meaning it processes half-precision at double the rate of FP32. The RX 560X offers FP16 at 2.611 TFLOPS with a 1:1 ratio, so it does not gain any throughput advantage from reduced precision. For mixed-precision workloads, the T400's architecture is more flexible, but for pure FP32, the RX 560X is far ahead.

FAQ

Q: Which card has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 560X averages 18626 across recorded benchmarks, while the NVIDIA T400 averages 16508. The RX 560X leads by 2,118 points.

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

A: The RX 560X scores 20231 in Geekbench Vulkan, which is 26.6% higher than the T400's 15976. This is the largest performance gap between the two cards.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference?

A: The RX 560X has 112.0 GB/s of bandwidth from 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus. The T400 has 80.00 GB/s from 2 GB of GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus. The RX 560X offers 32 GB/s more bandwidth.

Q: Which card has more shading units?

A: The RX 560X has 1024 shading units, compared to the T400's 384. This gives the RX 560X a substantial advantage in parallel compute workloads.

Q: What are the power requirements for each card?

A: The RX 560X has a TDP of 75 W with a suggested PSU of 250 W. The T400 has a TDP of 30 W with a suggested PSU of 200 W. Both cards require no additional power connectors.

Q: Which card supports a newer Vulkan version?

A: The T400 supports Vulkan 1.4, while the RX 560X supports Vulkan 1.3. Both cards support DirectX 12 and OpenGL 4.6, but the T400's DirectX feature level is 12_1, while the RX 560X's is 12_0.

The Verdict

The benchmark data makes a clear recommendation based on workload type. For Vulkan-centric applications, the AMD Radeon RX 560X is the superior choice, delivering a 26.6% performance advantage. Its 1024 shading units and 64 TMUs provide the parallel throughput that Vulkan exploits, and its 4 GB memory buffer offers more headroom for texture-heavy scenes. The RX 560X's 62nd percentile ranking and 18626 average score place it higher in the database's overall hierarchy.

For OpenCL workloads, the choice is effectively arbitrary. The T400's 17039 and the RX 560X's 17020 are separated by only 0.1%, a margin that will not translate into perceptible real-world differences. The T400's advantage in this test is negligible, and the database records it as a statistical tie.

The T400's case rests on efficiency and form factor, not raw performance. Its 30 W TDP is less than half the RX 560X's 75 W, and its single-slot design contrasts with the RX 560X's dual-slot footprint. The T400 also supports Vulkan 1.4, a newer API version than the RX 560X's 1.3, and its DirectX 12_1 feature level is a higher tier than 12_0. The T400's 2:1 FP16 ratio, delivering 2.189 TFLOPS, offers a compute path that the RX 560X lacks, since the RX 560X's FP16 runs at 1:1 with no throughput gain.

The verdict is workload-dependent. The RX 560X wins on raw compute and memory bandwidth, while the T400 wins on power efficiency, API support, and physical footprint. For users prioritizing Vulkan gaming or OpenCL compute at 4 GB capacity, the RX 560X is the data-backed pick. For users with constrained power budgets, single-slot chassis, or a need for the latest API versions, the T400 is the rational selection.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ across nearly every major specification category. The process nodes differ: the RX 560X uses 14 nm at GlobalFoundries, while the T400 uses 12 nm at TSMC. Transistor counts differ by 1,700 million, with the T400 at 4,700 million versus the RX 560X's 3,000 million. Die sizes also differ, with the T400 at 200 mm² versus the RX 560X's 123 mm², though the transistor densities are close at 23.5M per mm² for NVIDIA and 24.4M per mm² for AMD.

Clock speeds diverge significantly. The RX 560X has a base clock of 1175 MHz and a boost clock of 1275 MHz. The T400 has a base clock of 420 MHz but a boost clock of 1425 MHz. The T400's boost clock is 150 MHz higher, but its base clock is 755 MHz lower, reflecting a wider dynamic range.

Memory specifications are completely different. The RX 560X uses 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus at 1750 MHz, yielding 7 Gbps effective and 112.0 GB/s bandwidth. The T400 uses 2 GB of GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus at 1250 MHz, yielding 10 Gbps effective and 80.00 GB/s bandwidth. The RX 560X has double the memory capacity and a 32 GB/s bandwidth advantage.

Compute unit counts differ across the board. The RX 560X has 1024 shading units, 64 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. The T400 has 384 shading units, 24 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. The RX 560X has 640 more shading units and 40 more TMUs, but both cards have equal ROP counts. The pixel rates favor the T400 at 22.80 GPixel/s versus 20.40 GPixel/s, while the texture rates favor the RX 560X at 81.60 GTexel/s versus 34.20 GTexel/s.

The FP32 figures favor the RX 560X at 2.611 TFLOPS versus 1,094.4 GFLOPS for the T400. The FP16 figures favor the T400 in ratio terms, with 2.189 TFLOPS at 2:1, while the RX 560X offers 2.611 TFLOPS at 1:1. Power consumption differs, with the RX 560X drawing 75 W and the T400 drawing 30 W. The suggested PSU ratings are 250 W for the RX 560X and 200 W for the T400.

The physical designs differ, with the RX 560X being dual-slot and the T400 being single-slot. The RX 560X has a length of 170 mm (6.7 inches), while the T400 has no recorded dimensions. The RX 560X offers 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 2.0b, and 1x DisplayPort 1.4a outputs, while the T400 offers 3x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a outputs. The bus interfaces differ, with the RX 560X using PCIe 3.0 x8 and the T400 using PCIe 3.0 x16.

API support differs in version numbers. The RX 560X supports DirectX 12 (12_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3. The T400 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The release dates are also different, with the RX 560X launching on 2018-04-10 and the T400 launching on 2021-05-05.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon RX 560X wins in scenarios that demand parallel compute throughput. Its 26.6% Vulkan advantage is the single largest recorded delta between the two cards, making it the default choice for Vulkan-based applications. The 4 GB memory capacity is double the T400's 2 GB, allowing for larger textures and datasets without spillover. The 112.0 GB/s bandwidth and 2.611 TFLOPS FP32 compute are both significantly higher than the T400's figures, so any workload that saturates memory bandwidth or requires raw single-precision math will favor the RX 560X. Its 62nd percentile ranking and 18626 average score place it in a higher overall performance tier.

The NVIDIA T400 wins in efficiency and compatibility scenarios. Its 30 W TDP allows for deployment in systems with minimal power delivery, and its single-slot design fits in chassis that cannot accommodate dual-slot cards. The T400's Vulkan 1.4 support and DirectX 12_1 feature level are both newer API versions than the RX 560X's offerings, making it the better choice for software that requires those specific features. The 2:1 FP16 ratio, delivering 2.189 TFLOPS, provides a half-precision compute path that the RX 560X cannot match, since the RX 560X's FP16 runs at 1:1 with no throughput benefit. The T400's higher pixel rate of 22.80 GPixel/s also gives it an edge in fill-rate-limited scenes, despite its lower texture rate.

The OpenCL benchmark is a wash, with the T400 leading by 0.1%. Neither card has a meaningful advantage in that API, so other factors should drive the decision. The RX 560X is the performance pick for compute-heavy workloads, while the T400 is the efficiency pick for constrained environments. The data does not support a universal winner; it supports a workload-specific choice.