AMD Radeon RX 7600 vs NVIDIA T400 Comparison

The NVIDIA T400 and AMD Radeon RX 7600 occupy entirely different corners of the GPU market. The T400 is a low-profile, 30 W workstation card built for basic display output and light compute. The RX 7600 is a mainstream gaming card with substantial horsepower. The benchmark data confirms this is not a close contest: the RX 7600 wins both head-to-head tests decisively, but the T400’s efficiency and professional positioning give it a reason to exist. Below is a breakdown based strictly on the supplied data.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon RX 7600 wins every benchmark category in which both cards have recorded scores. In the two shared tests — Geekbench OpenCL and Geekbench Vulkan — the RX 7600 dominates outright. The data shows the RX 7600 scores 88,051 in Geekbench OpenCL versus the T400’s 17,039, a gap of 80.6%. In Geekbench Vulkan, the RX 7600 posts 34,401 against the T400’s 15,976, a 53.6% advantage. There is no workload in the head-to-head results where the T400 comes out ahead.

The NVIDIA T400’s only “win” is conceptual. With a 30 W TDP and no power connectors, it can run in systems where the RX 7600’s 165 W TDP and 8-pin connector would be impossible. The T400’s single-slot design and 3x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a outputs make it suitable for multi-display office setups or as a basic compute accelerator in a low-power chassis. The RX 7600, by contrast, is a dual-slot card with a 1x 8-pin connector and a suggested 450 W PSU, targeting gamers and creators who need real rendering throughput.

The RX 7600 also wins on versatility. Its benchmark suite includes PassMark tests for DirectX 9, 10, 11, 12, and GPU compute, plus 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12. The T400 only has Geekbench OpenCL and Vulkan results. While the T400’s limited benchmark presence doesn’t prove inferiority in those unlisted tests, the available data strongly suggests the RX 7600 is the more capable card for graphics-heavy tasks.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs are generations apart in design philosophy. The NVIDIA T400 uses the TU117 chip on a 12 nm TSMC process, with 4,700 million transistors on a 200 mm² die. The AMD Radeon RX 7600 uses the Navi 33 chip on a 6 nm TSMC process, packing 13,300 million transistors into a 204 mm² die. The transistor density difference is stark: the RX 7600 achieves 65.2M transistors per mm² versus the T400’s 23.5M. This explains why the RX 7600 can fit nearly three times the transistor count into a similar physical area.

The RX 7600 belongs to the RDNA 3.0 architecture, while the T400 is based on Turing. This generational gap shows in feature support. The RX 7600 has 32 ray tracing cores, which the T400 lacks entirely. The RX 7600 also supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), while the T400 maxes out at DirectX 12 (12_1). Both cards support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4, but the RX 7600’s newer architecture brings modern rendering features to the table.

Memory configuration differs significantly. The T400 has 2 GB of GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus, delivering 80.00 GB/s bandwidth. The RX 7600 has 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus, delivering 288.0 GB/s. That’s 3.6 times the bandwidth and four times the capacity. The RX 7600’s base clock of 1720 MHz and boost clock of 2655 MHz dwarf the T400’s 420 MHz base and 1425 MHz boost. The RX 7600 also has a game clock of 2250 MHz, a figure the T400 doesn’t have.

The compute pipeline is equally lopsided. The RX 7600 has 2048 shading units, 128 texture mapping units, and 64 ROPs. The T400 has 384 shading units, 24 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. The RX 7600’s FP32 throughput is 21.75 TFLOPS versus the T400’s 1,094.4 GFLOPS — a 20x difference. The RX 7600 also handles FP16 at the same 21.75 TFLOPS rate (1:1), while the T400’s FP16 is 2.189 TFLOPS via a 2:1 ratio.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Geekbench OpenCL test shows the RX 7600 with a score of 88,051 against the T400’s 17,039. The delta is -80.6% from the RX 7600’s perspective, meaning the T400 scores roughly one-fifth of the RX 7600. This is a massive gap for compute workloads, aligning with the raw FP32 and memory bandwidth differences. The RX 7600’s 8 GB frame buffer and 288.0 GB/s bandwidth allow it to handle large datasets that would exhaust the T400’s 2 GB capacity.

The Geekbench Vulkan test narrows the gap somewhat but still favors the RX 7600 overwhelmingly. The RX 7600 scores 34,401 versus the T400’s 15,976, a 53.6% deficit for the T400. Vulkan is a lower-level API that can sometimes reduce architectural overhead, but the RX 7600’s superior shader count and clock speeds still carry the day. The T400’s 384 shading units at 1425 MHz boost simply cannot compete with 2048 shading units at 2655 MHz.

The RX 7600’s additional benchmark results show consistent strength across API generations. Its PassMark G3D score is 16,634, with DirectX 9 scoring 226, DirectX 11 scoring 172, and DirectX 12 scoring 58. The GPU compute score is 8,790. These numbers don’t have T400 counterparts, but they establish the RX 7600 as a well-rounded card for both legacy and modern graphics workloads. The 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 2,310 further confirms its capability in current-generation titles.

FAQ

Q: Is the NVIDIA T400 faster than the AMD Radeon RX 7600 in any test?

A: No. In the two head-to-head benchmarks available (Geekbench OpenCL and Geekbench Vulkan), the RX 7600 wins both. The T400 has no recorded wins in the head-to-head data.

Q: Why does the T400 have fewer transistors but a similar die size?

A: The T400 uses a 12 nm process with 4,700 million transistors on a 200 mm² die. The RX 7600 uses a 6 nm process with 13,300 million transistors on a 204 mm² die. The newer process allows the RX 7600 to fit roughly 2.8 times more transistors in nearly the same area.

Q: Does the T400 support ray tracing?

A: No. The T400’s specification list shows no RT cores. The RX 7600 includes 32 ray tracing cores, which is a significant feature difference for modern games.

Q: What is the memory capacity difference?

A: The T400 has 2 GB of GDDR6, while the RX 7600 has 8 GB of GDDR6. The RX 7600 also has a wider 128-bit bus versus the T400’s 64-bit bus, resulting in 288.0 GB/s bandwidth versus 80.00 GB/s.

Q: Which card has a higher boost clock?

A: The RX 7600 boosts to 2655 MHz, while the T400 boosts to 1425 MHz. The RX 7600’s base clock of 1720 MHz is also higher than the T400’s boost clock.

Q: Can the T400 run on a system without a power supply upgrade?

A: The T400 has a 30 W TDP and requires no power connectors, with a suggested PSU of 200 W. The RX 7600 has a 165 W TDP, requires a 1x 8-pin connector, and suggests a 450 W PSU.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the AMD Radeon RX 7600 is the superior performer in every measured category. Its Geekbench OpenCL score is 80.6% higher than the T400’s, and its Vulkan score is 53.6% higher. The RX 7600 also has 8 GB of memory versus 2 GB, 2048 shading units versus 384, and a boost clock nearly double that of the T400. For gaming, content creation, or any compute-heavy task, the RX 7600 is the clear choice.

The NVIDIA T400 is not without a use case, but that use case is narrow. Its 30 W TDP, single-slot design, and lack of power connectors make it suitable for low-power workstations or embedded systems where the RX 7600 physically cannot fit. The T400’s 3x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a outputs support multi-monitor setups, and its Turing architecture provides basic Vulkan and OpenGL support. However, its 2 GB memory and 80.00 GB/s bandwidth severely limit its usefulness beyond simple display output or light compute.

For anyone building a gaming PC or a workstation that will handle real 3D workloads, the RX 7600 is the only rational pick from this comparison. Its 21.75 TFLOPS FP32 performance and ray tracing capability put it in a completely different class. The T400 is best left for office PCs or legacy systems where power draw is the primary constraint. The benchmark results do not support any other conclusion.

Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA T400 | AMD Radeon RX 7600 |

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

| Architecture | Turing | RDNA 3.0 |

| Process Node | 12 nm | 6 nm |

| Transistors | 4,700 million | 13,300 million |

| Die Size | 200 mm² | 204 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 23.5M / mm² | 65.2M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 420 MHz | 1720 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 1425 MHz | 2655 MHz |

| Game Clock | — | 2250 MHz |

| Memory Size | 2 GB | 8 GB |

| Memory Type | GDDR6 | GDDR6 |

| Memory Bus Width | 64 bit | 128 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 80.00 GB/s | 288.0 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 384 | 2048 |

| TMUs | 24 | 128 |

| ROPs | 16 | 64 |

| RT Cores | — | 32 |

| FP32 Performance | 1,094.4 GFLOPS | 21.75 TFLOPS |

| FP16 Performance | 2.189 TFLOPS (2:1) | 21.75 TFLOPS (1:1) |

| TDP | 30 W | 165 W |

| Slot Width | Single-slot | Dual-slot |

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

| Suggested PSU | 200 W | 450 W |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 4.0 x8 |

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

| Display Outputs | 3x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a | 1x HDMI 2.1a, 3x DisplayPort 2.1 |

| Release Date | 2021-05-05 | 2023-05-24 |

| Production Status | End-of-life | Active |

| Launch MSRP | — | 269 USD |