AMD Radeon RX 7600S vs NVIDIA T400 4 GB Comparison

NVIDIA T400 4 GB and AMD Radeon RX 7600S sit at opposite ends of the GPU spectrum, yet their average benchmark scores are nearly identical. The T400 is an end-of-life, 30 W workstation card from 2021 built on the 12 nm Turing architecture, while the RX 7600S is an active, 75 W mobile RDNA 3.0 part from 2023. Their overall average scores differ by only 0.6% (16792 vs 16696), placing both at the 60th percentile among all GPUs. However, this parity in aggregate hides a massive divergence in raw compute power and feature sets, as the RX 7600S delivers over 14x the FP32 throughput and nearly 3.2x the memory bandwidth. The data suggests these cards serve entirely different workloads, with the T400 optimized for professional display tasks and the RX 7600S built for general-purpose and gaming performance.

FAQ

Q: How do the two cards compare in raw compute performance?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 7600S is vastly superior in raw compute. It delivers 15.77 TFLOPS of FP32 performance compared to the NVIDIA T400's 1,094.4 GFLOPS. Similarly, the RX 7600S achieves 31.54 TFLOPS FP16 performance versus the T400's 2.189 TFLOPS. In Geekbench OpenCL, the RX 7600S scores 68012 against the T400's 17320, a 74.5% advantage for AMD.

Q: Which card has better memory specifications?

A: The RX 7600S has the clear advantage. It comes with 8 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 128-bit bus, delivering 256.0 GB/s bandwidth. The T400 has 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus, providing only 80.00 GB/s. The RX 7600S offers 3.2x the memory bandwidth and double the capacity.

Q: Are these cards comparable for gaming workloads?

A: The RX 7600S is designed for gaming and general compute, featuring 1792 shading units and support for DirectX 12 Ultimate. The T400 is a workstation card with only 384 shading units and DirectX 12 (12_1) support. The T400's nearest rivals include the Tesla M4 and HD 7970M, indicating it targets professional visualization rather than gaming.

Q: What are the power consumption differences?

A: The T400 has a 30 W TDP and requires a 200 W suggested PSU, making it suitable for low-power systems. The RX 7600S has a 75 W TDP with no suggested PSU listed, typical for laptop integration. The T400 is single-slot with no power connectors, while the RX 7600S is an integrated graphics processor (IGP) with no power connectors.

Q: Which card is more recent and still in production?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 7600S is the newer card, released on 2023-01-03, and its production status is listed as Active. The NVIDIA T400 was released on 2021-05-05 and is now End-of-life. The RX 7600S belongs to the Radeon RX 7000 series, while the T400 is part of the Quadro Turing generation.

Q: How does the transistor density compare between the two?

A: The RX 7600S uses a 6 nm process with 13,300 million transistors on a 204 mm² die, resulting in a density of 65.2M / mm². The T400 uses a 12 nm process with 4,700 million transistors on a 200 mm² die, giving a density of 23.5M / mm². The AMD chip is nearly 2.8x more transistor-dense.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two GPUs is generational. The NVIDIA T400 is built on the Turing architecture using a 12 nm process at TSMC, featuring the TU117 chip with 4,700 million transistors on a 200 mm² die. It belongs to the Quadro Turing generation, succeeding Quadro Volta and preceding Workstation Ampere. This architecture focuses on professional workstation tasks, with no ray tracing cores or tensor cores listed. The T400 provides 384 shading units, 24 texture mapping units, and 16 ROPs, with support for DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4.

In contrast, the AMD Radeon RX 7600S uses the RDNA 3.0 architecture with the Navi 33 chip, codenamed "Hotpink Bonefish," manufactured on a 6 nm process at TSMC. It packs 13,300 million transistors into a 204 mm² die, achieving a transistor density of 65.2M / mm². This is a mobile-first design, belonging to the Navi Mobile (RX 7000M) generation with a predecessor of Polaris Mobile. The RX 7600S features 1792 shading units, 112 TMUs, 64 ROPs, and 28 ray tracing cores. It supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), which includes hardware ray tracing and mesh shaders, a capability the T400 lacks entirely.

The clock behavior differs significantly. The T400 runs at a conservative 420 MHz base and 1425 MHz boost, reflecting its low-power 30 W design. The RX 7600S operates at 1500 MHz base, 1865 MHz game clock, and 2200 MHz boost, enabling much higher throughput despite its 75 W TDP. The memory subsystems are also architecturally distinct: the T400 uses a 64-bit bus with 10 Gbps effective GDDR6, while the RX 7600S uses a 128-bit bus with 16 Gbps effective GDDR6. The RX 7600S also supports PCIe 4.0 x16, doubling the interface bandwidth of the T400's PCIe 3.0 x16.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA T400 wins in scenarios requiring minimal power draw and professional display output. Its 30 W TDP makes it suitable for systems with limited power budgets, and it offers three mini-DisplayPort 1.4a outputs for multi-monitor workstation setups. The T400's nearest rivals include the Tesla M4 (0.8% faster) and GTX 690 (1.4% faster), positioning it as a low-profile compute card. Its average benchmark score of 16792 is virtually identical to the RX 7600S's 16696, but the T400 achieves this with only 384 shading units and 80 GB/s bandwidth, indicating it excels at specific professional workloads that don't scale with raw compute.

The AMD Radeon RX 7600S wins overwhelmingly in performance-heavy tasks. It dominates the Geekbench OpenCL test with a score of 68012 versus the T400's 17320, a 74.5% margin. In Geekbench Vulkan, it scores 73868 against 16263, a 78% advantage. The RX 7600S also has massive wins in texture rate (246.4 GTexel/s vs 34.20 GTexel/s) and pixel rate (140.8 GPixel/s vs 22.80 GPixel/s). With 28 ray tracing cores, it handles DirectX 12 Ultimate workloads that the T400 cannot process. The RX 7600S's 8 GB memory and 256.0 GB/s bandwidth make it suitable for modern games and compute applications, while its active production status ensures ongoing driver support.

The T400 wins in the efficiency-per-watt category, though the data doesn't provide a direct metric. Its 30 W TDP versus the RX 7600S's 75 W TDP means the T400 uses 40% less power, making it the clear choice for always-on or low-power systems. The T400 is also single-slot, whereas the RX 7600S is classified as an IGP, meaning the T400 can be installed in standard desktop slots while the RX 7600S is typically soldered to laptop motherboards.

Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA T400 4 GB | AMD Radeon RX 7600S |

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

| Architecture | Turing | RDNA 3.0 |

| Process Node | 12 nm | 6 nm |

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

| Die Size | 200 mm² | 204 mm² |

| Base Clock | 420 MHz | 1500 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 1425 MHz | 2200 MHz |

| Memory Size | 4 GB | 8 GB |

| Memory Bus | 64 bit | 128 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 80.00 GB/s | 256.0 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 384 | 1792 |

| TMUs | 24 | 112 |

| ROPs | 16 | 64 |

| Ray Tracing Cores | None | 28 |

| FP32 Performance | 1,094.4 GFLOPS | 15.77 TFLOPS |

| FP16 Performance | 2.189 TFLOPS | 31.54 TFLOPS |

| TDP | 30 W | 75 W |

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

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

| Release Date | 2021-05-05 | 2023-01-03 |

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

The remaining specifications are identical or not applicable. Both use GDDR6 memory, have no power connectors, support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4, and have no listed dimensions or launch MSRP. The T400 offers three mini-DisplayPort 1.4a outputs, while the RX 7600S's display outputs are listed as "Portable Device Dependent."

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head data shows two tests, both won decisively by the AMD Radeon RX 7600S. In Geekbench OpenCL, the RX 7600S scores 68012 against the T400's 17320, a delta of -74.5% from the AMD card's perspective (meaning the T400 is 74.5% slower). This is a difference of 50692 points, reflecting the RX 7600S's 14.4x higher FP32 throughput and 3.2x memory bandwidth. OpenCL is a general-purpose compute benchmark, so this result indicates the RX 7600S is dramatically better for compute-heavy workloads like rendering, simulation, or data processing.

In Geekbench Vulkan, the RX 7600S achieves 73868 versus the T400's 16263, a 78% delta in AMD's favor. The gap of 57605 points is even larger than in OpenCL, suggesting the RX 7600S's newer architecture and ray tracing support give it an additional edge in graphics API workloads. The T400's Vulkan score of 16263 is only 6% lower than its OpenCL score, showing consistent performance across APIs, but the RX 7600S's Vulkan score is 8.6% higher than its OpenCL score, indicating better optimization for modern graphics interfaces.

The aggregate benchmark data shows the T400 has an average score of 16792 across two tests (Geekbench OpenCL and Vulkan), while the RX 7600S has an average of 16696 across ten tests, including 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 (1888), Passmark G3D (15408), and Passmark GPU Compute (6520). This means the RX 7600S's average is pulled down by lower scores in tests like Passmark DirectX 9 (211) and DirectX 10 (74), which may not be optimized for RDNA 3.0. The T400's average is based solely on Geekbench tests, so the comparison is skewed. In the only shared tests, the RX 7600S wins by 74.5% and 78%, respectively.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the AMD Radeon RX 7600S is the superior performer in every head-to-head comparison and most specification categories. It wins both shared benchmarks by margins exceeding 74%, offers 14.4x the FP32 compute, 3.2x the memory bandwidth, and adds hardware ray tracing with 28 cores. For any workload involving modern gaming, compute, or graphics rendering, the RX 7600S is the clear choice. Its 8 GB memory capacity and PCIe 4.0 interface future-proof it better than the T400's 4 GB and PCIe 3.0.

The NVIDIA T400 4 GB retains relevance only in specific professional scenarios. Its 30 W TDP and single-slot design make it ideal for low-power workstations or server environments where space and heat are constrained. The three mini-DisplayPort 1.4a outputs provide flexible multi-monitor capabilities, and its workstation lineage (Quadro Turing) suggests it's optimized for professional display tasks rather than raw compute. If a system requires a discrete GPU solely for outputting to multiple monitors or running legacy workstation applications, the T400's lower power draw is a practical advantage.

However, the T400 is end-of-life, while the RX 7600S is active and newer by nearly two years. The RX 7600S's nearest rivals include the T400 (0.6% slower), the T400 (1.1% slower), and the RTX 5090 D V2 (1.2% slower), showing it sits in a competitive performance band despite its much higher theoretical specs. This suggests the RX 7600S's average score is skewed by legacy API tests that penalize its modern architecture. For a builder choosing between these two, the RX 7600S wins on every performance metric, while the T400 wins only on power efficiency and dedicated display outputs. Choose the RX 7600S for performance, or the T400 for ultra-low-power professional display duty.