AMD Radeon RX 6600 vs NVIDIA T400 4 GB Comparison

The AMD Radeon RX 6600 and NVIDIA T400 4 GB occupy different corners of the GPU market, but the benchmark data in this database shows a clear performance hierarchy between them. The RX 6600, built on RDNA 2.0, delivers dramatically higher compute throughput across every shared test, while the T400 4 GB, a Turing-based workstation card, offers a much lower power footprint and a smaller physical profile. The recorded measurements show the RX 6600 leading by 66.6% in Geekbench OpenCL and by 315.8% in Geekbench Vulkan, making the performance gap substantial. The data suggests these are not direct competitors in practice, but the comparison highlights how architecture generation and target market shape real-world capability.

The Verdict

The AMD Radeon RX 6600 is the clear performance winner in this matchup. It wins both head-to-head benchmarks recorded in the database, with a 66.6% advantage in Geekbench OpenCL (28850 vs 17320) and a 315.8% advantage in Geekbench Vulkan (67623 vs 16263). The RX 6600 also holds a higher average benchmark score of 19036 compared to the T400’s 16792, a difference of roughly 13.4% in aggregate. Its percentile ranking among all GPUs is 63, versus 60 for the T400, indicating that even within the broader database, the RX 6600 sits in a stronger position relative to the entire field.

The NVIDIA T400 4 GB, however, is not without its own rationale. Its TDP is 30 W, compared to 132 W for the RX 6600, and it requires no external power connectors, whereas the RX 6600 needs a single 8-pin connector. The T400 is also a single-slot card, while the RX 6600 is dual-slot. For systems where space and power are severely constrained, such as low-profile workstations or embedded applications, the T400 may be the only viable choice despite its lower compute scores.

The verdict is straightforward: the RX 6600 is for users who need raw graphics and compute performance, as evidenced by its massive Vulkan lead and higher OpenCL score. The T400 is for users who prioritize low power draw, minimal slot width, and a simpler power delivery setup, accepting a significant performance penalty. Neither card is a substitute for the other in their intended roles, but the data clearly shows the RX 6600 as the superior performer in every measured benchmark.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different architecture generations and target different segments. The AMD Radeon RX 6600 uses the Navi 23 chip built on RDNA 2.0, fabricated on a 7 nm process at TSMC. It contains 11,060 million transistors on a 237 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 46.7 million per mm². The NVIDIA T400 4 GB uses the TU117 chip based on the Turing architecture, fabricated on a 12 nm process, also at TSMC. It packs 4,700 million transistors on a 200 mm² die, resulting in a transistor density of 23.5 million per mm². The RX 6600’s node advantage is clear: it crams more than twice the transistors into a slightly larger die, reflecting the newer process technology.

Core resources differ even more sharply. The RX 6600 has 1,792 shading units, 112 texture mapping units, 64 ROPs, and 28 ray tracing cores. The T400 has 384 shading units, 24 TMUs, and 16 ROPs, with no ray tracing cores listed. This means the RX 6600 has roughly 4.7 times the shading units, 4.7 times the TMUs, and 4 times the ROPs of the T400. The RX 6600 also supports ray tracing hardware, a feature entirely absent from the T400’s specifications.

Memory architecture is also divergent. The RX 6600 comes with 8 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 128-bit bus, delivering 224.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The T400 has 4 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 64-bit bus, yielding 80.00 GB/s of bandwidth. The RX 6600’s memory bandwidth is 2.8 times higher, which matters for texture-heavy workloads and higher resolutions. Additionally, the RX 6600 uses a PCIe 4.0 x8 interface, while the T400 uses PCIe 3.0 x16. The newer PCIe generation on the RX 6600 provides higher per-lane bandwidth, though the T400’s wider x16 slot may offer comparable total bandwidth in practice.

Feature support also differs. The RX 6600 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), while the T400 only supports DirectX 12 (12_1). Both support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4. The RX 6600’s DirectX 12 Ultimate designation implies support for features like mesh shaders and variable rate shading, though the specific feature list is not detailed in the data. The RX 6600 also includes ray tracing cores, which the T400 lacks entirely.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher raw compute performance?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 6600. Its FP32 throughput is 8.928 TFLOPS, while the NVIDIA T400 4 GB delivers 1,094.4 GFLOPS, which is roughly 1.09 TFLOPS. The RX 6600 is about 8.2 times faster in FP32 compute.

Q: How much faster is the RX 6600 in Vulkan?

A: In the Geekbench Vulkan test, the RX 6600 scores 67623, while the T400 scores 16263. That is a 315.8% advantage for the RX 6600, meaning it is over four times faster in this workload.

Q: Does the T400 use less power?

A: Yes. The T400 has a TDP of 30 W and requires no external power connectors, while the RX 6600 has a TDP of 132 W and needs one 8-pin power connector. The T400 also suggests a 200 W PSU, versus 300 W for the RX 6600.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference?

A: The RX 6600 has 224.0 GB/s of memory bandwidth, while the T400 has 80.00 GB/s. The RX 6600’s bandwidth is 2.8 times higher, and it also has double the memory capacity (8 GB vs 4 GB).

Q: Which card has ray tracing support?

A: Only the RX 6600. It has 28 ray tracing cores, while the T400 lists no ray tracing cores. The RX 6600 also supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), whereas the T400 only supports DirectX 12 (12_1).

Q: How do their average benchmark scores compare?

A: The RX 6600 has an average benchmark score of 19036, placing it in the 63rd percentile of all GPUs. The T400 has an average score of 16792, placing it in the 60th percentile. The RX 6600 is about 13.4% higher on average.

Specification Differences

The following fields differ between the two cards, based solely on the recorded data:

• Process Node: RX 6600 is 7 nm, T400 is 12 nm.
• Transistors: RX 6600 has 11,060 million, T400 has 4,700 million.
• Die Size: RX 6600 is 237 mm², T400 is 200 mm².
• Transistor Density: RX 6600 is 46.7M / mm², T400 is 23.5M / mm².
• Base Clock: RX 6600 is 1626 MHz, T400 is 420 MHz.
• Boost Clock: RX 6600 is 2491 MHz, T400 is 1425 MHz.
• Game Clock: RX 6600 is 2044 MHz, T400 has no game clock listed.
• Memory Clock: RX 6600 is 1750 MHz (14 Gbps effective), T400 is 1250 MHz (10 Gbps effective).
• Memory Size: RX 6600 is 8 GB, T400 is 4 GB.
• Memory Bus Width: RX 6600 is 128 bit, T400 is 64 bit.
• Memory Bandwidth: RX 6600 is 224.0 GB/s, T400 is 80.00 GB/s.
• Shading Units: RX 6600 has 1,792, T400 has 384.
• TMUs: RX 6600 has 112, T400 has 24.
• ROPs: RX 6600 has 64, T400 has 16.
• Ray Tracing Cores: RX 6600 has 28, T400 has none.
• Pixel Rate: RX 6600 is 159.4 GPixel/s, T400 is 22.80 GPixel/s.
• Texture Rate: RX 6600 is 279.0 GTexel/s, T400 is 34.20 GTexel/s.
• FP32 Performance: RX 6600 is 8.928 TFLOPS, T400 is 1,094.4 GFLOPS.
• FP16 Performance: RX 6600 is 17.86 TFLOPS (2:1), T400 is 2.189 TFLOPS (2:1).
• TDP: RX 6600 is 132 W, T400 is 30 W.
• Slot Width: RX 6600 is dual-slot, T400 is single-slot.
• Power Connectors: RX 6600 has 1x 8-pin, T400 has none.
• Suggested PSU: RX 6600 is 300 W, T400 is 200 W.
• Bus Interface: RX 6600 is PCIe 4.0 x8, T400 is PCIe 3.0 x16.
• Display Outputs: RX 6600 has 1x HDMI 2.1 and 3x DisplayPort 1.4a, T400 has 3x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a.
• DirectX Support: RX 6600 is 12 Ultimate (12_2), T400 is 12 (12_1).
• Release Date: RX 6600 is 2021-10-12, T400 is 2021-05-05.
• Predecessor: RX 6600’s predecessor is Navi, T400’s is Quadro Volta.
• Successor: RX 6600’s successor is Navi III, T400’s is Workstation Ampere.
• Launch MSRP: RX 6600 is 329 USD, T400 has no launch MSRP listed.
• Dimensions: RX 6600 is 190 mm length, 110 mm height, 40 mm width; T400 has no dimensions listed.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database records two head-to-head benchmark results between these GPUs, and the AMD Radeon RX 6600 wins both.

In Geekbench OpenCL, the RX 6600 scores 28850, while the T400 scores 17320. That is a 66.6% advantage for the RX 6600. This test measures general-purpose compute performance across a variety of workloads, and the RX 6600’s higher shading unit count and memory bandwidth likely drive this lead. The 66.6% delta is substantial, indicating that the RX 6600 is roughly two-thirds faster in OpenCL compute tasks.

In Geekbench Vulkan, the gap widens dramatically. The RX 6600 scores 67623, while the T400 scores 16263. That is a 315.8% advantage for the RX 6600, meaning it delivers over four times the Vulkan performance. Vulkan is a low-level graphics and compute API, and the RX 6600’s RDNA 2.0 architecture, with its 28 ray tracing cores and 1,792 shading units, appears to excel in this environment. The T400, with only 384 shading units and no ray tracing hardware, falls far behind.

Beyond the head-to-head tests, the average benchmark scores reinforce this picture. The RX 6600’s average score is 19036, while the T400’s is 16792. This 2,244-point gap represents about a 13.4% difference, though it is worth remembering the T400 only has two recorded benchmarks in the database, while the RX 6600 has eleven. The RX 6600’s percentile ranking of 63 versus 60 for the T400 also suggests that, in the broader database context, the RX 6600 sits higher relative to all other GPUs.

The RX 6600’s nearest rivals in the database include the NVIDIA Quadro K6000 (avg score 19030, delta 0%), the GeForce RTX 4050 Mobile (19049, -0.1%), and the Tesla K20m (19089, -0.3%). These scores are all within a fraction of a percent of the RX 6600’s average, placing it in a performance tier with those cards. The T400’s nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon RX 7600S (16696, 0.6%), the NVIDIA Tesla M4 (16932, -0.8%), and the AMD Radeon HD 7970M (17019, -1.3%). The T400’s average score is slightly below all of these, indicating it sits at the lower end of its performance cluster.

The wins tally is decisive: the RX 6600 wins 2 benchmarks and the T400 wins 0. The data shows no recorded test where the T400 outperforms the RX 6600. This is not a close contest; the RX 6600 dominates in compute and graphics workloads, while the T400’s advantages are limited to power efficiency, physical size, and power connector simplicity. For any user prioritizing performance, the RX 6600 is the only choice based on these measurements. For users with strict power or space limits, the T400 remains functional but at a significant performance cost.