AMD Radeon RX 7700 vs NVIDIA T400 Comparison

The data presents a stark contrast between the NVIDIA T400, a low-power entry-level workstation card, and the AMD Radeon RX 7700, a high-performance mainstream GPU. Their average benchmark scores are surprisingly close, but the single head-to-head result reveals a massive gulf in raw compute capability. The following analysis breaks down the available information to clarify where each card stands.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct comparison available is the Geekbench OpenCL test, and it is decisively one-sided. The AMD Radeon RX 7700 scored 106,028 points, while the NVIDIA T400 managed 17,039 points. This represents a delta of -83.9% for the T400, meaning the RX 7700 delivered a performance advantage of over six times in this compute-oriented workload. This is not a marginal difference; it is an order-of-magnitude separation in raw throughput.

Looking at the broader context, the NVIDIA T400's average benchmark score of 16,508 places it in a cluster with the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5090 D V2 (16,504), AMD Radeon PRO W7500 (16,415), and AMD Radeon RX 5700 XT (16,361). The T400 is effectively tied with these cards in aggregate, with deltaPct values of 0%, 0.6%, and 0.9% respectively. This is a peculiar grouping, suggesting that the T400's average is heavily influenced by its specific workload strengths, which do not translate to the OpenCL test where it is utterly outclassed.

In contrast, the AMD Radeon RX 7700's average score of 15,852 is lower than the T400's average, yet its OpenCL score is dramatically higher. Its nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon R9 370X (15,862), AMD Radeon RX 9060 (16,014), and NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3060 Ti (16,129). The RX 7700 sits within 1.7% of these cards based on average score, even though its OpenCL result is far superior. This indicates that its performance profile is uneven across different benchmark types, with a massive peak in compute but perhaps lower scores in other tests that drag its average down.

The data suggests that while the T400 holds its own in an aggregate sense against much newer hardware, it cannot compete with the RX 7700 in a pure compute scenario. The RX 7700's 106,028 OpenCL score is the single most dominant data point in this comparison, far exceeding any result attributed to the T400.

Architecture Differences

The fundamental divide between these two cards begins with their manufacturing process. The NVIDIA T400 is built on a 12 nm node at TSMC, while the AMD Radeon RX 7700 uses a much more advanced 5 nm process, also from TSMC. This translates directly to transistor density: the T400 packs 4,700 million transistors into a 200 mm² die, yielding a density of 23.5M / mm². The RX 7700, by contrast, crams 28,100 million transistors into a 346 mm² die, achieving a density of 81.2M / mm². The RX 7700 has nearly six times the transistor count.

The architectures themselves are from different eras. The NVIDIA T400 is based on the Turing architecture, part of the Quadro Turing (Tx000) generation. The AMD Radeon RX 7700 is built on RDNA 3.0, from the Navi III (RX 7000) generation. This is reflected in their core configurations. The T400 has 384 shading units, 24 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 16 render output units (ROPs). The RX 7700 is far more robust, featuring 2,560 shading units, 160 TMUs, and 96 ROPs. The RX 7700 also includes 40 ray tracing cores, a feature entirely absent from the T400.

Memory architecture reinforces the performance gap. The NVIDIA T400 comes with 2 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 64-bit bus, providing a bandwidth of 80.00 GB/s. The AMD Radeon RX 7700 offers 16 GB of GDDR6 on a 256-bit bus, resulting in a bandwidth of 624.1 GB/s. This is a seven-fold difference in memory capacity and nearly an eight-fold difference in bandwidth. Clock speeds also differ significantly: the T400 has a base of 420 MHz and a boost of 1425 MHz, while the RX 7700 operates at a base of 1900 MHz and boosts to 2459 MHz.

Feature support shows a similar divide. The T400 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), while the RX 7700 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2). Both support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4. The RX 7700 also has a more modern PCIe 4.0 x16 interface, compared to the T400's PCIe 3.0 x16. The power envelope is another major differentiator, with the T400 rated at 30 W TDP and the RX 7700 at 200 W, though specific cooler requirements are not part of this data.

The Verdict

The choice between these two cards depends entirely on the workload. The data shows the AMD Radeon RX 7700 is the superior compute and rendering solution by a wide margin. Its OpenCL score of 106,028 dwarfs the T400's 17,039, and its architectural advantages—more cores, more memory, higher bandwidth, and a newer process node—make it the clear choice for any task demanding raw graphics or compute horsepower. For applications that leverage ray tracing or require substantial VRAM, the RX 7700 is the only viable option in this pairing.

The NVIDIA T400, however, is not without a purpose. Its 30 W TDP and single-slot design suggest a focus on power efficiency and physical footprint. It also has a higher percentile rank among all GPUs (60th) compared to the RX 7700 (58th), and a slightly higher average benchmark score (16,508 vs 15,852). This indicates that in the aggregate of all benchmark results, the T400 performs admirably relative to its class. A user with a constrained power budget or a need for a minimal physical footprint might find the T400 suitable, provided their workloads do not demand the compute performance where the RX 7700 excels. The data does not support any claim of the T400 being a competitive alternative for gaming or heavy 3D rendering.

FAQ

Q: Which card has a higher Geekbench OpenCL score?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 7700 has a significantly higher score of 106,028, compared to the NVIDIA T400's 17,039.

Q: What is the difference in memory bandwidth between the two cards?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 7700 offers a bandwidth of 624.1 GB/s, which is substantially higher than the NVIDIA T400's 80.00 GB/s.

Q: Do both cards support the same version of DirectX?

A: No. The NVIDIA T400 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), while the AMD Radeon RX 7700 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2).

Q: Which GPU has more shading units?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 7700 has 2,560 shading units, while the NVIDIA T400 has 384.

Q: What is the TDP of each card?

A: The NVIDIA T400 has a TDP of 30 W, and the AMD Radeon RX 7700 has a TDP of 200 W.

Q: Which card includes ray tracing cores?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 7700 includes 40 ray tracing cores, while the NVIDIA T400 has none.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon RX 7700 wins in every performance-critical category measured. It dominates the OpenCL compute benchmark, has a vastly larger memory pool (16 GB vs 2 GB), higher bandwidth (624.1 GB/s vs 80.00 GB/s), more shading units, and a higher texture rate (393.4 GTexel/s vs 34.20 GTexel/s). Its pixel rate of 236.1 GPixel/s is also over ten times that of the T400's 22.80 GPixel/s. It is the clear winner for gaming, 3D rendering, machine learning inference, and any GPU-accelerated compute task.

The NVIDIA T400 has no benchmark wins in the head-to-head data, but it does have a few points in its favor. Its average benchmark score (16,508) is higher than the RX 7700's (15,852), and it holds a better percentile rank (60th vs 58th). It draws significantly less power (30 W vs 200 W) and requires only a single slot, with no power connectors. Its smaller physical footprint and lower power draw make it a candidate for basic display output in a low-power server or a legacy workstation, where its compute limitations are not the primary concern. The data does not show any win for the T400 in raw performance tests.

Specification Differences

This section highlights only the fields where the two cards differ, showing the NVIDIA T400 on the left and the AMD Radeon RX 7700 on the right.

| Specification | NVIDIA T400 | AMD Radeon RX 7700 |

| :--- | :--- | :--- |

| Chip | TU117 | Navi 32 |

| Architecture | Turing | RDNA 3.0 |

| Codename | null | Wheat Nas |

| Generation | Quadro Turing (Tx000) | Navi III (RX 7000) |

| Process Node | 12 nm | 5 nm |

| Transistors | 4,700 million | 28,100 million |

| Die Size | 200 mm² | 346 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 23.5M / mm² | 81.2M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 420 MHz | 1900 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 1425 MHz | 2459 MHz |

| Game Clock | null | 2041 MHz |

| Memory Size | 2 GB | 16 GB |

| Memory Bus Width | 64 bit | 256 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 80.00 GB/s | 624.1 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 384 | 2560 |

| TMUs | 24 | 160 |

| ROPs | 16 | 96 |

| RT Cores | null | 40 |

| Pixel Rate | 22.80 GPixel/s | 236.1 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 34.20 GTexel/s | 393.4 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Performance | 1,094.4 GFLOPS | 25.18 TFLOPS |

| FP16 Performance | 2.189 TFLOPS (2:1) | 25.18 TFLOPS (1:1) |

| TDP | 30 W | 200 W |

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

| Power Connectors | None | 2x 8-pin |

| Suggested PSU | 200 W | 550 W |

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

| Display Outputs | 3x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a | 1x HDMI 2.1a, 2x DisplayPort 2.1, 1x USB Type-C |

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

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

| Release Date | 2021-05-05 | 2025-09-17 |

| Predecessor | Quadro Volta | Navi II |

| Successor | Workstation Ampere | Navi IV |