AMD Radeon RX 6400 vs NVIDIA T600 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a clear split between these two cards across the nine shared benchmark tests. The AMD Radeon RX 6400 takes six wins, while the NVIDIA T600 manages three. The margin of victory, however, tells a more nuanced story than the raw win count.

The most dramatic difference appears in the Geekbench Vulkan test. The NVIDIA T600 scores 25,580 against the RX 6400's 16,372, a 56.2% advantage. This is the single largest delta in either direction across the entire comparison. The T600's Vulkan result is exceptional, especially considering its overall position in the database.

The AMD card answers back in Geekbench OpenCL, scoring 32,011 versus 27,875, a 12.9% lead. This is a substantial gap, but it is far smaller than the Vulkan deficit the RX 6400 suffers. The OpenCL result aligns with the RX 6400's higher compute throughput, but the Vulkan result suggests the T600 has a significant software or driver advantage in that particular API path.

Moving to DirectX tests, the AMD RX 6400 dominates. In DirectX 10, it scores 54 against 32, a 40.7% advantage. In DirectX 11, the scores are 70 versus 49, a 30% lead. The DirectX 12 test shows a smaller gap at 30 versus 25, a 16.7% edge for AMD. The pattern here is consistent: the RX 6400 is faster across all three modern DirectX versions, but the margin shrinks as the API becomes more recent.

The DirectX 9 test flips the result. The NVIDIA T600 scores 114, while the RX 6400 manages 93, a 22.6% win for NVIDIA. This is notable because DirectX 9 remains relevant for legacy applications and certain game engines. The T600's strength in this older API suggests its driver stack retains strong support for legacy workloads.

The 2D graphics test (PassMark G2D) goes to NVIDIA by a narrow margin: 756 versus 722, a 4.7% difference. This is the closest result in the entire set and indicates near-parity for desktop composition and 2D acceleration tasks.

The two most important overall metrics favor AMD. In PassMark G3D, the RX 6400 scores 7,673 against 6,479, a 15.6% lead. In PassMark GPU Compute, AMD leads 2,812 versus 2,402, a 14.6% advantage. The G3D result is particularly relevant as it represents a broad synthetic gaming and 3D rendering workload. The compute result shows AMD's advantage in general-purpose GPU computation.

The average benchmark scores in the database place the T600 at 7,035 with a 39th percentile ranking among all GPUs. The RX 6400 has an average score of 6,001 and sits at the 35th percentile. This is an interesting inversion: the T600 has the higher average despite losing the head-to-head G3D test. The reason is that the T600's nearest rivals include the GeForce GTX 970 (average 7,157, 1.7% higher) and GTX 680M (7,023, 0.2% lower), while the RX 6400's rivals cluster around 6,000 with deltas under 0.3%. The average score pulls in different benchmark sets beyond the shared nine, so the head-to-head results and the overall averages tell different stories.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA T600 is the clear choice for Vulkan-centric workloads. The 56.2% advantage in Geekbench Vulkan is decisive and suggests that applications built on Vulkan will see substantially better performance on the T600. This is reinforced by its DirectX 9 win (22.6%), which matters for older software libraries and compatibility scenarios. The T600 also edges out the RX 6400 in 2D desktop tasks, though the margin is small.

The AMD Radeon RX 6400 wins across the board in OpenCL, DirectX 10, DirectX 11, DirectX 12, and both the G3D and GPU Compute PassMark tests. The largest win is DirectX 10 at 40.7%, followed by DirectX 11 at 30%. These are significant margins that indicate the RX 6400 handles legacy and current DirectX titles with more headroom. The G3D and compute wins at 15.6% and 14.6% respectively confirm that the RX 6400 is the stronger all-around 3D performer in most scenarios.

The practical split is straightforward: if the target software uses Vulkan or legacy DirectX 9, the NVIDIA T600 is preferable. If the workload involves OpenCL, DirectX 10 through 12, or general 3D rendering and compute, the AMD RX 6400 holds the advantage. The data does not show any scenario where the two cards are close enough to call it a tie, except the 2D test where the difference is under 5%.

FAQ

Q: Which card has the higher average benchmark score in the database?

A: The NVIDIA T600 has an average benchmark score of 7,035, while the AMD Radeon RX 6400 averages 6,001. The T600 also ranks higher overall at the 39th percentile versus the RX 6400's 35th percentile.

Q: What is the largest performance gap between the two cards?

A: The largest gap is in the Geekbench Vulkan test, where the NVIDIA T600 scores 25,580 against the RX 6400's 16,372, a 56.2% advantage for NVIDIA.

Q: How do the cards compare in DirectX 11 performance?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 6400 scores 70 in PassMark DirectX 11, while the NVIDIA T600 scores 49. AMD leads by 30%.

Q: Which card wins in OpenCL compute workloads?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 6400 wins in Geekbench OpenCL with 32,011 points versus 27,875 for the NVIDIA T600, a 12.9% advantage.

Q: Does the NVIDIA T600 win any DirectX tests?

A: Yes, the T600 wins the DirectX 9 test with 114 points versus 93 for the RX 6400, a 22.6% lead. It loses DirectX 10, 11, and 12 tests.

Q: What is the transistor count difference between the two GPUs?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 6400 has 5,400 million transistors, while the NVIDIA T600 has 4,700 million. The RX 6400 uses a smaller 107 mm² die versus 200 mm² for the T600.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ across nearly every core specification. The AMD Radeon RX 6400 uses the Navi 24 chip built on TSMC's 6 nm process, while the NVIDIA T600 uses the TU117 chip on a 12 nm process. The RX 6400 packs 5,400 million transistors into a 107 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 50.5 million per mm². The T600 has 4,700 million transistors on a 200 mm² die, at 23.5 million per mm².

Clock speeds differ substantially. The RX 6400 has a base clock of 1,923 MHz and a boost clock of 2,321 MHz, with a game clock of 2,039 MHz. The T600 runs at 735 MHz base and 1,335 MHz boost. Memory clocks also differ: the RX 6400 runs at 2,000 MHz (16 Gbps effective), while the T600 runs at 1,250 MHz (10 Gbps effective).

Memory configuration shows a key difference. Both cards have 4 GB of GDDR6, but the RX 6400 uses a 64-bit bus with 128.0 GB/s bandwidth, while the T600 uses a 128-bit bus with 160.0 GB/s bandwidth. The T600 has higher bandwidth despite slower memory clocks.

Compute resources favor AMD. The RX 6400 has 768 shading units, 48 texture mapping units, and 32 ROPs. The T600 has 640 shading units, 40 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. The RX 6400 also includes 12 ray tracing cores, while the T600 has none. Neither card has tensor cores.

The RX 6400's pixel rate is 74.27 GPixel/s and texture rate is 111.4 GTexel/s. The T600's pixel rate is 42.72 GPixel/s and texture rate is 53.40 GTexel/s. FP32 performance is 3.565 TFLOPS for AMD versus 1.709 TFLOPS for NVIDIA. FP16 is 7.130 TFLOPS versus 3.418 TFLOPS.

Power figures differ: the RX 6400 has a TDP of 53 W and a suggested PSU of 250 W, while the T600 has a TDP of 40 W and a suggested PSU of 200 W. Both are single-slot cards with no power connectors.

The bus interface differs: the T600 uses PCIe 3.0 x16, while the RX 6400 uses PCIe 4.0 x4. Display outputs also differ: the T600 has 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a, while the RX 6400 has 1x HDMI 2.1 and 1x DisplayPort 1.4a.

The RX 6400 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) and has a launch MSRP of 159 USD. The T600 supports DirectX 12 (12_1). Both support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4. The RX 6400 was released on 2022-01-18, while the T600 was released on 2021-04-11. Both are end-of-life products.

Architecture Differences

The architectural split is between NVIDIA's Turing and AMD's RDNA 2.0. The T600 is part of the Quadro Turing (Tx000) generation, succeeding Quadro Volta and preceding Workstation Ampere. The RX 6400 belongs to the Radeon RX 6000 series, the Navi II generation, succeeding Navi and preceding Navi III.

The manufacturing process is a major differentiator. AMD uses a 6 nm TSMC process with a transistor density of 50.5 million per mm², which is more than double the T600's 23.5 million per mm² on a 12 nm process. This density advantage allows the RX 6400 to fit more transistors on a smaller die, which explains its higher clock speeds and compute throughput.

The RX 6400 includes 12 ray tracing cores, a feature entirely absent from the T600. This is a generational difference: RDNA 2.0 includes dedicated ray tracing hardware, while Turing's TU117 chip does not. The DirectX 12 Ultimate support on the RX 6400 reflects this capability, as does its 12_2 feature level versus the T600's 12_1.

The shading unit count differs by 128 units: 768 on the RX 6400 versus 640 on the T600. Texture units also differ, with 48 on AMD versus 40 on NVIDIA. The ROP count is identical at 32, which means pixel throughput differences come from clock speeds rather than ROP count.

The memory architecture differs significantly. The T600 uses a 128-bit bus, providing 160.0 GB/s bandwidth. The RX 6400 uses a 64-bit bus, providing 128.0 GB/s. This means the T600 has 25% more memory bandwidth, which can benefit bandwidth-sensitive workloads. However, the RX 6400's faster memory clock (16 Gbps effective versus 10 Gbps) partially compensates for the narrower bus.

The FP32 and FP16 performance figures show AMD's advantage is roughly 2.1x in both. This aligns with the RX 6400's higher shading unit count and much higher clock speeds. The RX 6400's FP16 figure of 7.130 TFLOPS is more than double the T600's 3.418 TFLOPS.

The bus interface difference is worth noting: the T600 uses PCIe 3.0 x16, while the RX 6400 uses PCIe 4.0 x4. The RX 6400's PCIe 4.0 connection offers higher per-lane bandwidth, but the x4 width means total bandwidth is lower than a full x16 slot. This can matter in bandwidth-bound scenarios, though the database results do not isolate this variable.