Intel Arc A770M vs NVIDIA T400 4 GB Comparison

Intel Arc A770M and NVIDIA T400 4 GB represent fundamentally different segments of the GPU market, and the benchmark data reflects that divide. The Intel part is a high-end mobile graphics solution with a 62nd percentile ranking among all GPUs, while the NVIDIA T400 is a low-profile workstation card sitting at the 60th percentile. The average benchmark scores tell a similar story: the Arc A770M posts 18,383 points, while the T400 manages 16,792, a gap that places the Intel part 416.7% ahead in OpenCL and 357.6% ahead in Vulkan in direct head-to-head testing. These are not close competitors in raw throughput, but their intended roles differ sharply, and the data shows where each part justifies its existence.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Arc A770M wins decisively in every recorded benchmark category, but the nature of those wins reveals its strengths. In Geekbench OpenCL, the Arc A770M scores 89,494 against the T400’s 17,320, a 416.7% advantage. This is a compute-heavy workload, and the Arc’s 16.79 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, backed by 4,096 shading units and 256 TMUs, crushes the T400’s 1,094.4 GFLOPS from 384 shading units. The Vulkan result is similarly lopsided: 74,422 versus 16,263, a 357.6% lead. Vulkan is a modern graphics API that scales with parallel hardware, and the Arc’s 128 ROPs and 512.0 GB/s of memory bandwidth provide the resources needed to feed that many execution units.

The T400’s only arena is efficiency and physical footprint, though the data does not quantify those directly. It draws a 30 W TDP against the Arc’s 120 W, and it fits in a single slot with no external power connectors, requiring only a 200 W suggested PSU. The Arc is an IGP-class mobile part, meaning it is soldered to the board, while the T400 is a standalone single-slot card with three mini-DisplayPort 1.4a outputs. For a user who needs a discreet GPU in a small form factor workstation, the T400 offers a path, but its performance ceiling is low. The recorded benchmarks show it only in OpenCL and Vulkan, both of which it loses by a wide margin. There is no scenario in the data where the T400 wins a performance comparison.

The Verdict

The data supports a clear split: choose the Intel Arc A770M if you need raw compute and graphics throughput, and choose the NVIDIA T400 4 GB only if your constraints are power, size, and legacy compatibility. The Arc A770M is 416.7% faster in OpenCL and 357.6% faster in Vulkan, which makes it the only choice for any workload that stresses the GPU. Its 16 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 256-bit bus delivers 512.0 GB/s, versus the T400’s 4 GB on a 64-bit bus at 80.00 GB/s. The Arc also supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), while the T400 is limited to DirectX 12 (12_1), a meaningful difference for modern games and ray-traced content.

However, the T400 has its own rationale. It is a 30 W part with no power connectors, suited for systems where a 120 W GPU is not feasible. It is end-of-life, as is the Arc, but its Turing architecture supports OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4, matching the Arc in those APIs. The T400’s release date of 2021-05-05 gives it a defined lifecycle, and its predecessor and successor are listed in the database as Quadro Volta and Workstation Ampere, respectively. For professional environments that require a specific driver certification or a minimal physical footprint, the T400 remains a viable entry, but the benchmark data shows it is not a performance part. The Arc A770M is the pick for anyone who prioritizes speed, while the T400 is the pick for anyone who prioritizes simplicity and low power draw.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The direct comparisons in the database are limited to two tests, but both are decisive. In Geekbench OpenCL, the Intel Arc A770M scores 89,494, and the NVIDIA T400 4 GB scores 17,320. The delta is 416.7% in favor of Intel. This test exercises general-purpose compute, and the Arc’s architecture, with 4096 shading units and 33.59 TFLOPS of FP16 performance, simply has more parallel resources. The T400’s 384 shading units and 2.189 TFLOPS FP16 are a fraction of that. The OpenCL result is not a close contest; it is an order-of-magnitude difference.

In Geekbench Vulkan, the Arc scores 74,422, and the T400 scores 16,263, a 357.6% lead for Intel. Vulkan is a low-overhead graphics API that rewards raw throughput, and the Arc’s 262.4 GPixel/s pixel rate and 524.8 GTexel/s texture rate dwarf the T400’s 22.80 GPixel/s and 34.20 GTexel/s. The T400’s 16 ROPs and 24 TMUs are enough for light 2D or basic 3D, but they cannot feed a high-resolution or high-refresh-rate display with complex scenes. The Arc’s 128 ROPs and 256 TMUs, combined with 512.0 GB/s of bandwidth, allow it to sustain far higher fill rates.

The average benchmark scores reinforce these head-to-head results. The Arc’s average is 18,383, which places it 0.1% above the AMD Radeon RX 460 and 1.2% above the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3060 Mobile in the nearest rivals list. The T400’s average is 16,792, which is 0.6% above the AMD Radeon RX 7600S and 1.4% below the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 690. The Arc’s nearest rivals are all faster or similar parts, while the T400’s rivals include older mobile and desktop GPUs, indicating its performance class is much lower.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in OpenCL?

A: The Intel Arc A770M scores 89,494 in Geekbench OpenCL, which is 416.7% higher than the NVIDIA T400 4 GB’s 17,320.

Q: Does the NVIDIA T400 4 GB support DirectX 12 Ultimate?

A: No, the T400 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), while the Intel Arc A770M supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2).

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference between the two GPUs?

A: The Intel Arc A770M has 512.0 GB/s of bandwidth from 16 GB of GDDR6 on a 256-bit bus. The NVIDIA T400 4 GB has 80.00 GB/s from 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus.

Q: Which GPU has a lower power consumption?

A: The NVIDIA T400 4 GB has a TDP of 30 W, compared to the Intel Arc A770M’s 120 W. The T400 also requires no external power connectors and has a suggested PSU of 200 W.

Q: Are these GPUs still in production?

A: No, both are listed as end-of-life in the database. The Intel Arc A770M is from the Alchemist generation, and the NVIDIA T400 4 GB is from the Quadro Turing generation.

Q: How does the Intel Arc A770M compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The Arc A770M’s average benchmark score of 18,383 is 0.1% above the AMD Radeon RX 460, 1.1% above the AMD Radeon Pro 5700, and 1.2% above the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3060 Mobile. It is 0.8% below the AMD FirePro D500.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs are built on different architectures and process nodes, which explains their performance gap. The Intel Arc A770M uses the Xe-HPG architecture, specifically the DG2-512 chip, fabricated on a 6 nm process at TSMC. It contains 21,700 million transistors on a 406 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 53.4M per mm². The NVIDIA T400 4 GB uses the Turing architecture, specifically the TU117 chip, fabricated on a 12 nm process at TSMC. It contains 4,700 million transistors on a 200 mm² die, with a density of 23.5M per mm². The Intel part has over four times the transistor count and twice the die area, but the 6 nm node gives it a density advantage that contributes to its higher clock speeds.

The clock behavior also differs. The Arc A770M has a base clock of 1650 MHz and a boost clock of 2050 MHz, while the T400 has a base clock of 420 MHz and a boost clock of 1425 MHz. The Intel part runs much faster, and its memory operates at 2000 MHz with 16 Gbps effective data rate, compared to the T400’s 1250 MHz with 10 Gbps effective. The memory interface is the biggest architectural divide: the Arc uses a 256-bit bus, the T400 a 64-bit bus. That alone explains the 512.0 GB/s versus 80.00 GB/s bandwidth gap.

The execution resources are similarly lopsided. The Arc A770M has 4,096 shading units, 256 TMUs, 128 ROPs, and 32 ray tracing cores. The T400 has 384 shading units, 24 TMUs, and 16 ROPs, with no ray tracing cores. The Arc’s FP32 throughput is 16.79 TFLOPS, while the T400’s is 1,094.4 GFLOPS. The Arc also has a 2:1 FP16 ratio at 33.59 TFLOPS, versus the T400’s 2.189 TFLOPS. The T400 is a cut-down Turing part designed for basic 3D and compute, not for high-end rendering. The Arc, by contrast, is a full Alchemist mobile implementation with hardware ray tracing and DirectX 12 Ultimate support.

The T400’s advantage lies in its physical and electrical design. It is a single-slot card with no power connectors, a 30 W TDP, and three mini-DisplayPort 1.4a outputs. The Arc A770M is an IGP, meaning it is integrated into the motherboard, with display outputs dependent on the portable device. The T400 also uses PCIe 3.0 x16, while the Arc uses PCIe 4.0 x16, offering twice the bus bandwidth. In terms of API support, both offer OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4, but the Arc adds DirectX 12 Ultimate, which the T400 lacks. The T400’s release date of 2021-05-05 and its predecessor/successor lineage (Quadro Volta, Workstation Ampere) place it in a specific professional product cycle, while the Arc A770M is a mobile-first part with no listed release date. The data shows two different design philosophies: one maximizing throughput at higher power, the other minimizing power and footprint at the cost of performance.