AMD Radeon RX 6600 vs NVIDIA T400 Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The recorded data splits cleanly between these two cards, and the split is not subtle. The AMD Radeon RX 6600 wins every head-to-head benchmark available in the database, taking both recorded tests. The NVIDIA T400, by contrast, does not win a single comparison in this dataset.

Looking at the use-case implications, the RX 6600 is built for throughput. Its Geekbench OpenCL score of 28,850 and Vulkan score of 67,623 indicate a card that handles compute-heavy and graphics-API workloads with substantial headroom. The T400, scoring 17,039 in OpenCL and 15,976 in Vulkan, occupies a different tier entirely. The data suggests the T400 is aimed at workloads where its 30 W power envelope and single-slot footprint matter more than raw performance.

The percentile rankings reinforce this. The RX 6600 sits at the 63rd percentile of all GPUs, while the T400 sits at the 60th. That two-point gap in percentiles understates the actual performance difference, because the T400's average benchmark score of 16,508 is well below the RX 6600's 19,036. The RX 6600's nearest rivals include the RTX 4050 Mobile (0.1% ahead) and Tesla K20m (0.3% ahead), placing it in a competitive mid-range bracket. The T400's nearest rivals include the RTX 5090 D V2 (0.0% delta) and RX 5700 XT (0.9% behind), which is a strange grouping; those cards score similarly in aggregate but likely for very different reasons.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap here is generational and fundamental. The RX 6600 uses the Navi 23 chip on RDNA 2.0, built on a 7 nm TSMC process. The T400 uses the TU117 chip on Turing, built on a 12 nm process. That process difference shows up in transistor density: the RX 6600 packs 46.7 million transistors per square millimeter across 237 mm², for a total of 11,060 million. The T400 has 23.5 million per square millimeter across 200 mm², for a total of 4,700 million. The RX 6600 fits more than twice the transistors into a slightly larger die.

The RX 6600 also brings hardware features the T400 lacks entirely. It has 28 ray tracing cores; the T400 has none. Both cards lack tensor cores, so AI acceleration is not a differentiator here. The API support differs: the RX 6600 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), while the T400 only reaches DirectX 12 (12_1). OpenGL and Vulkan versions match at 4.6 and 1.4 respectively.

Memory architecture also diverges. The RX 6600 uses 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus, delivering 224.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The T400 uses 2 GB of GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus, delivering 80.00 GB/s. That is a 144 GB/s bandwidth advantage for the RX 6600, which directly feeds its higher pixel and texture rates. The RX 6600 also runs a PCIe 4.0 x8 interface, while the T400 uses PCIe 3.0 x16.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database records two direct comparisons, and both go the same way. In Geekbench OpenCL, the RX 6600 scores 28,850 against the T400's 17,039, a 69.3% advantage. That is a decisive win for compute workloads that scale across shading units, and the RX 6600 has 1,792 shading units to the T400's 384.

The Vulkan result is even more lopsided. The RX 6600 scores 67,623 against the T400's 15,976, a 323.3% advantage. That delta is so large it suggests the T400 is not well suited to modern Vulkan workloads at all, or that its 2 GB memory capacity becomes a bottleneck in API-level tests. The RX 6600's 8 GB frame buffer and 224.0 GB/s bandwidth likely explain much of this gap.

Texture and pixel rates tell the same story. The RX 6600 achieves 279.0 GTexel/s and 159.4 GPixel/s. The T400 manages 34.20 GTexel/s and 22.80 GPixel/s. The RX 6600 is roughly 8x faster in texture fill and 7x faster in pixel fill, which aligns with the Vulkan delta. FP32 compute also favors the AMD card: 8.928 TFLOPS versus 1,094.4 GFLOPS, an 8.2x difference.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Radeon RX 6600 | NVIDIA T400 |

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

| Chip | Navi 23 | TU117 |

| Architecture | RDNA 2.0 | Turing |

| Process node | 7 nm | 12 nm |

| Transistors | 11,060 million | 4,700 million |

| Die size | 237 mm² | 200 mm² |

| Transistor density | 46.7M / mm² | 23.5M / mm² |

| Base clock | 1626 MHz | 420 MHz |

| Boost clock | 2491 MHz | 1425 MHz |

| Memory clock | 1750 MHz (14 Gbps effective) | 1250 MHz (10 Gbps effective) |

| Memory size | 8 GB | 2 GB |

| Memory bus width | 128 bit | 64 bit |

| Memory bandwidth | 224.0 GB/s | 80.00 GB/s |

| Shading units | 1792 | 384 |

| TMUs | 112 | 24 |

| ROPs | 64 | 16 |

| Ray tracing cores | 28 | None |

| Pixel rate | 159.4 GPixel/s | 22.80 GPixel/s |

| Texture rate | 279.0 GTexel/s | 34.20 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 8.928 TFLOPS | 1,094.4 GFLOPS |

| FP16 | 17.86 TFLOPS (2:1) | 2.189 TFLOPS (2:1) |

| TDP | 132 W | 30 W |

| Slot width | Dual-slot | Single-slot |

| Power connectors | 1x 8-pin | None |

| Suggested PSU | 300 W | 200 W |

| Bus interface | PCIe 4.0 x8 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |

| DirectX | 12 Ultimate (12_2) | 12 (12_1) |

| Release date | 2021-10-12 | 2021-05-05 |

The T400 is a 30 W card with no power connectors. The RX 6600 draws 132 W and requires a single 8-pin connector. That is the core trade: the T400 fits in environments with severe power and space constraints, while the RX 6600 demands a proper power supply (300 W suggested) and dual-slot clearance.

FAQ

Q: Which card is faster in Vulkan workloads?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 6600, by a massive margin. It scores 67,623 in Geekbench Vulkan versus the NVIDIA T400's 15,976, a 323.3% difference.

Q: Does the NVIDIA T400 support ray tracing?

A: No. The T400 has no ray tracing cores, while the RX 6600 has 28.

Q: How much memory bandwidth does each card provide?

A: The RX 6600 provides 224.0 GB/s over a 128-bit bus, while the T400 provides 80.00 GB/s over a 64-bit bus.

Q: What is the power consumption difference?

A: The RX 6600 has a 132 W TDP and needs one 8-pin connector. The T400 has a 30 W TDP and needs no power connectors.

Q: Which card has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The RX 6600 averages 19,036 across all recorded benchmarks, versus 16,508 for the T400. The RX 6600 also ranks at the 63rd percentile of all GPUs, three points above the T400's 60th.

Q: Are these cards from the same generation?

A: No. The RX 6600 is from the Radeon RX 6000 series using RDNA 2.0, released 2021-10-12. The T400 is from the Quadro Turing (Tx000) generation, released 2021-05-05.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear hierarchy. The AMD Radeon RX 6600 outperforms the NVIDIA T400 in every recorded benchmark, often by margins measured in multiples rather than percentages. If the task involves Vulkan, compute, high-resolution textures, or any workload that benefits from 8 GB of memory and 224.0 GB/s of bandwidth, the RX 6600 is the only sensible choice from these two.

The NVIDIA T400 has one advantage that the benchmark scores do not capture: it draws 30 W, needs no external power, and fits in a single slot. That makes it suitable for systems where the RX 6600 simply cannot fit, either physically or thermally. The T400's 2 GB memory and 80.00 GB/s bandwidth limit it to lightweight display or compute tasks, but those tasks may be all a constrained environment allows.

The percentile data places both cards in the lower half of the GPU distribution, with the RX 6600 at 63 and the T400 at 60. The RX 6600's nearest rivals include the RTX 4050 Mobile and Tesla K20m, which are respectable mid-range performers. The T400's nearest rivals include the RX 5700 XT, a card with far higher raw specs, which suggests the T400's aggregate score benefits from efficient driver behavior or specific workload tuning.

For a user choosing between these two, the decision is not about performance. The RX 6600 wins that outright. The decision is about whether the system can support a 132 W, dual-slot card with an 8-pin connector. If it can, the RX 6600 is the clear pick. If it cannot, the T400 is a functional fallback, but its 2 GB memory and 384 shading units will limit modern workloads severely. The recorded data offers no scenario where the T400 wins a benchmark, only scenarios where its power draw and physical footprint are the deciding factors.