AMD Radeon RX 6650 XT vs NVIDIA T400 4 GB Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows two benchmark comparisons between the AMD Radeon RX 6650 XT and the NVIDIA T400 4 GB. The split is perfectly balanced at one win apiece: the AMD card takes the Geekbench Vulkan test with a massive 399.9% lead, while the NVIDIA T400 wins the Geekbench OpenCL test with a 41.6% edge.

The Geekbench Vulkan result is the standout victory for the AMD Radeon RX 6650 XT. It scores 81,306 points against the T400's 16,263 points. A 399.9% delta is not a small gap, it is a multi-generational chasm in graphics API performance. The Radeon's RDNA 2.0 architecture, built on a 7 nm process with 11,2048 shading units, simply overwhelms the Turing-based T400's 384 shading units in this workload. This score places the Radeon in the 65th percentile of all GPUs in the database, making it a mid-pack performer in terms of overall average benchmark score. Its 17,194 points in Passmark G3D and 10.79 TFLOPS FP32 throughput indicate a card designed for serious 1080p gaming and 8 GB of GDDR6 memory gives it ample headroom for modern texture-heavy titles.

The NVIDIA T400's OpenCL win is an interesting counterpoint. It scores 17,320 in Geekbench OpenCL, beating the Radeon's 10,111. The 41.6% delta shows that in pure compute tasks, the T400's TU117 chip has a different kind of efficiency. Despite its low 420 MHz base clock and 30 W TDP, the T400 punches above its weight in OpenCL, a niche where it can leverage its architecture's strengths. In that specific test, the T400's performance is within a small margin of rivals like the NVIDIA Tesla M4 (0.8% higher) and AMD Radeon RX 7600S (0.6% higher), showing it is a strong competitor in a very specific benchmark category.

It is important to note the context of the T400's overall standing. Its average benchmark score of 16,792 places it in the 60th percentile of all GPUs, which is a lower overall standing than the Radeon's 65th percentile. The T400's Passmark DirectX 9 score of 215 and DirectX 11 score of 162.63 show that in legacy API tests, the T400 is not a strong contender. However, the data shows the T400's Geekbench OpenCL score of 17,320 is a significant outlier in its favor. In terms of raw power, the Radeon's 10.79 TFLOPS FP32 is nearly ten times the T400's 1,094.4 GFLOPS, highlighting the T400 is a specialized part for specific tasks, not a general-purpose behemoth.

FAQ

Q: What is the most significant difference in benchmark results between the two cards?

A: The AMD Radeon 6650 XT wins the Geekbench Vulkan test with a 399.9% lead over the NVIDIA T400, scoring 81,306 to 16,263 points, while the NVIDIA T400 wins Geekbench OpenCL with a 41.6% advantage, scoring 17,320 to 10,111 points.

Q: Which card has a higher overall performance percentile in the database, and what does that mean?

A: The AMD Radeon 6650 XT sits in the 65th percentile of all GPUs with an average benchmark score of 19,765, placing it higher overall than the NVIDIA T400, which is in the 60th percentile with an average score of 16,792.

Q: In the T400's OpenCL win, how close are the nearest rivals?

A: In the T400's OpenCL test, the T400 is within a very tight 0.8% of the AMD Radeon RX 7600S and 0.6% higher, and within 1.3% of the NVIDIA Tesla M4, showing that the T400's score of 17,320 places it in a competitive cluster of similar-performing GPUs.

Q: How do the cards compare in Vulkan to their nearest rivals?

A: The AMD Radeon 6650 XT has a 399.9% lead over the NVIDIA T400 in Geekbench Vulkan, but its nearest rival cluster is different; the NVIDIA Tesla K40m (0.6% lower) and AMD FirePro D300 (0.7% higher) show the Radeon is a mid-tier performer overall, not a top-tier one.

Q: What is the release date and production status of the two cards?

A: The AMD Radeon 6650 XT has a release date in May 2022, and the NVIDIA T400 has a release date in May 2021. Both are marked as end-of-life products in the database.

Q: What is the launch MSRP for the AMD Radeon 6650 XT?

A: The launch MSRP for the AMD Radeon 6650 XT is 399 USD.

Q: Which card has more shading units and texture units?

A: The AMD Radeon 6650 XT has 2048 shading units and 128 TMUs, versus the NVIDIA T400's 384 shading units and 24 TMUs and 16 ROPs, a substantial difference in raw computational resources.

Architecture Differences

The fundamental architecture is a stark contrast. The AMD Radeon RX 6650 XT is built on RDNA 2.0 architecture, using a 7 nm process at TSMC, with a massive chip size of 237 mm² and 11,060 million transistors. It is a high-density, high-transistor count design with a 46.7M / mm² density. The NVIDIA T400 uses Turing architecture from the Quadro Turing generation, based on the TU117 chip, built on an older 12 nm process, with 4,700 million transistors in a smaller 200 mm² die size, and a lower density of 23.5M / mm².

The AMD Radeon 6650 XT's memory subsystem also sets it apart from the T400's. The Radeon has 8 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 128-bit bus width, providing 280.3 GB/s bandwidth. The T400 has 4 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 64-bit bus, with a bandwidth of 80.00 GB/s. This means the Radeon can move far more data, which is a key reason for its massive wins in texture-heavy workloads.

For the Radeon 6650 MHz boost clock, it runs at 2055 MHz base clock and 2635 MHz boost clock. The T400's base clock is 420 MHz with a 1425 MHz boost clock. The Radeon also has a much higher 10.79 TFLOPS FP32 compute throughput, and a 21.59 TFLOPS FP16 output at 2:1 ratio. The T400's FP32 is 1,094.4 GFLOPS, and its FP16 is 2.189 TFLOPS (2:1). The Radeon also has a 32 RT cores, and the T400 has no dedicated RT cores.

The Radeon supports PCIe 4.0 x8 interface, and the T400 uses PCIe 3.0 x16, which is a significant difference in bandwidth potential for GPU compute. The Radeon also has a 168.6 GPixel/s pixel rate and a texture rate of 337.3 GTexel/s, while the T400 has a 10.79 GPixel/s and 34.2 GTexel/s.

The T400's 12 nm node and low power draw of 30 W TDP means it is an ultra-low-power board, but the Radeon has a much higher TDP of 176 W. The Radeon also has a 1x 8-pin power connector, while the T400 has no power connector.

The T400's API support includes DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, and DirectX 12 (12_1). The T400 does not support DirectX 12 Ultimate, instead it supports DirectX 12 (12_1).

Specification Differences

The AMD Radeon 6650 XT is from the Radeon RX 6000 series, based on the Navi 23 chip, and the NVIDIA T400 is from the Quadro Turing generation, based on the TU117 chip. The Radeon has a die size of 237 mm² and 11,060 million transistors, and the T400 has a die size of 200 mm² and 4,700 million transistors. The Radeon has a transistor density of 46.7M / mm² and the T400 has a transistor density of 23.5M / mm².

The Radeon has a base clock of 2055 MHz and a boost of 2635 MHz, while the T400 has a base of 420 MHz and a boost of 1425 MHz. The Radeon's memory runs at 17.5 Gbps effective, and the T400's memory runs at 10 Gbps effective. The Radeon has 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus, the T400 has 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus.

In rendering output, the Radeon has a pixel rate of 168.6 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 337.3 GTexel/s, while the T400 has a pixel rate of 22.80 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 34.20 GTexel/s. The Radeon's FP32 output is 10.79 TFLOPS, and the T400's is 1,094.4 GFLOPS.

The Radeon has a TDP of 176 W, a dual-slot design, and a 1x 8-pin connector. The T400 has a TDP of 30 W, a single-slot design, and no power connectors. The suggested PSU for the Radeon is 450 W, and for the T400 it is 200 W.

The Radeon uses a PCIe 4.0 x8 bus interface, while the T400 uses PCIe 3.0 x16. The Radeon has a display output of 1x HDMI 2.1, 3x DisplayPort 1.4a, while the T400 has 3x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a.

The Verdict

The data is clear. For any user prioritizing raw graphics performance, the AMD Radeon RX 6650 XT is the only logical choice. Its 399.9% lead in the Vulkan benchmark is a decisive win that places it in a different league of graphics rendering. The Radeon's 8 GB of memory, 280.3 GB/s bandwidth, and far superior compute and texture rates make it a practical pick for gaming and visually intensive workloads. It is a mid-tier performer in the database with a 65th percentile, but it is a mid-tier performer with a very strong suite of capabilities.

The NVIDIA T400, by contrast, is a specialized part. Its single win in OpenCL, with a 41.6% advantage, reveals a card tuned for a specific kind of computational task, not general-purpose use. With a much lower overall average score (16,792) and a lower percentile (60th), it is a product for a narrow niche. Its 30 W TDP suggests an ultra-low-power solution for specific professional or embedded applications where power draw is the primary constraint, not raw performance.

There is no real head-to-head contest here. The Radeon is a full-featured, high-performance graphics card, while the T400 is a low-power, compute-oriented device. The choice depends entirely on the workload: if you need graphics, choose the Radeon. If you need a specific, low-power compute task, the T400 might be the right tool.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon RX 6650 XT is the clear winner for any scenario requiring high-end graphics rendering. It excels in Vulkan API workloads, as shown by its 399.9% lead in the head-to-head test. Its strengths are in gaming, 3D modeling, and any visual workload that benefits from its 8 GB of VRAM, 337.3 GTexel/s texture rate, and 10.79 TFLOPS FP32 compute. The Radeon's 65th percentile rank and average score of 19,765 position it as a solid mid-range performer, suitable for a modern gaming PC with 1080p or even 1440p ambitions.

The NVIDIA T400 4 GB is for a very specific niche. Its single win in the OpenCL test, with a 41.6% lead, shows that in this particular compute benchmark, it is superior. This suggests the T400 is a better fit for tasks that are heavily dependent on OpenCL compute, such as certain scientific or engineering simulations, where the low power draw of 30 W is also a major advantage. The T400's 60th percentile and its close competition with the AMD Radeon RX 7600S and NVIDIA Tesla M4 in this specific test show it is not a general-purpose card, but a targeted solution for a narrow set of applications where its specific compute characteristics are more important than overall graphics power.