NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060 SUPER vs NVIDIA T400 4 GB Comparison

# NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060 SUPER vs NVIDIA T400 4 GB

The GeForce RTX 2060 SUPER and the T400 4 GB are both built on NVIDIA's Turing architecture and fabricated on TSMC's 12 nm process, but the resemblance ends there. These two cards occupy opposite ends of NVIDIA's product spectrum: the RTX 2060 SUPER is a full-featured consumer gaming GPU with ray tracing and tensor cores, while the T400 is a low-profile workstation adapter designed for basic multi-display output. Head-to-head benchmark data shows the RTX 2060 SUPER dominates the T400 in every tested workload, but the T400's value proposition relies on its radically different power envelope and physical footprint. The data reveals a 375.9% gap in Vulkan performance and a 344.3% gap in OpenCL performance, making this comparison less about competition and more about contrasting design philosophies.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only two benchmark tests shared between these cards are Geekbench's OpenCL and Vulkan compute workloads, and in both cases the RTX 2060 SUPER delivers overwhelming victories. In Geekbench OpenCL, the RTX 2060 SUPER scores 76,957 points against the T400's 17,320 points, representing a 344.3% delta in favor of the larger card. The Vulkan test shows an even wider margin: 77,402 for the RTX 2060 SUPER versus 16,263 for the T400, a 375.9% advantage. These deltas are so large that they suggest the T400 is not merely slower but operates in a different performance class entirely.

To contextualize these numbers, the RTX 2060 SUPER's average benchmark score of 18,093 places it just 0.4% behind the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3060 Mobile (18,159) and 0.5% behind the AMD Radeon Pro 5700 (18,189). The T400's average score of 16,792 sits 0.6% above the AMD Radeon RX 7600S (16,696) and 0.8% below the NVIDIA Tesla M4 (16,932). Interestingly, the RTX 2060 SUPER's nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon RX 460 and Intel Arc A770M, with deltas of -1.5% and -1.6% respectively, meaning the RTX 2060 SUPER is actually slightly below those cards in average score despite its massive lead over the T400.

The RTX 2060 SUPER's wins are not marginal — they are categorical. A 344.3% advantage in OpenCL means the T400 would need to multiply its performance by roughly 4.4 times just to match the RTX 2060 SUPER. In Vulkan, the gap is even steeper at 375.9%. This is not a close contest by any measure.

Where Each One Wins

The RTX 2060 SUPER wins both head-to-head benchmarks, giving it a 2-0 record in this comparison. Its strengths lie in compute-heavy workloads where the massive disparity in shading units, texture mapping units, and memory bandwidth becomes decisive. The RTX 2060 SUPER's 7.181 TFLOPS FP32 throughput dwarfs the T400's 1,094.4 GFLOPS, and its 448.0 GB/s memory bandwidth is 5.6 times the T400's 80.00 GB/s. These specifications translate directly into the benchmark results, where the RTX 2060 SUPER excels at parallel compute tasks that stress both the GPU cores and the memory subsystem.

The T400 wins in categories not captured by these benchmarks: physical size, power consumption, and display flexibility. It is a single-slot card drawing 30 W with no power connectors, whereas the RTX 2060 SUPER is a dual-slot card drawing 175 W and requiring a single 8-pin connector. The T400's three mini-DisplayPort 1.4a outputs support multi-monitor workstation setups, while the RTX 2060 SUPER offers a mix of DVI, HDMI 2.0, two DisplayPort 1.4a, and one USB Type-C output. For users running a small form factor workstation with limited power delivery, the T400's 30 W TDP and single-slot design are decisive advantages that no benchmark score can capture.

The RTX 2060 SUPER also holds the edge in API support, featuring DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) versus the T400's DirectX 12 (12_1). This means the RTX 2060 SUPER supports the full DirectX 12 Ultimate feature set including ray tracing and mesh shaders, while the T400 lacks these capabilities entirely due to its absence of RT and tensor cores.

Architecture Differences

Both GPUs use NVIDIA's Turing architecture, but they implement it very differently. The RTX 2060 SUPER is built on the TU106 chip, which contains 10,800 million transistors on a 445 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 24.3 million transistors per square millimeter. The T400 uses the TU117 chip, a much smaller design with 4,700 million transistors on a 200 mm² die, resulting in a density of 23.5 million transistors per square millimeter. Both chips are fabricated by TSMC on a 12 nm process, so the density difference is modest, but the absolute scale is not.

The RTX 2060 SUPER features 2,176 shading units, 136 texture mapping units, and 64 ROPs, along with 34 RT cores and 272 tensor cores. The T400 has 384 shading units, 24 TMUs, and 16 ROPs, with no RT cores or tensor cores at all. This structural difference is fundamental: the RTX 2060 SUPER is designed for real-time ray tracing and AI-accelerated workloads, while the T400 is a pure rasterization and compute card with no hardware acceleration for these emerging workloads.

Memory architectures also diverge sharply. The RTX 2060 SUPER uses 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 256-bit bus, achieving 448.0 GB/s bandwidth. The T400 uses 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus, achieving only 80.00 GB/s. The memory clock rates differ as well: the RTX 2060 SUPER runs at 1750 MHz (14 Gbps effective), while the T400 runs at 1250 MHz (10 Gbps effective). The RTX 2060 SUPER's pixel rate of 105.6 GPixel/s and texture rate of 224.4 GTexel/s compare to the T400's 22.80 GPixel/s and 34.20 GTexel/s, respectively.

Specification Differences

The clock speeds reveal an interesting contrast. The RTX 2060 SUPER has a base clock of 1470 MHz and a boost clock of 1650 MHz, while the T400 has a much lower base clock of 420 MHz but a boost clock of 1425 MHz. This unusual base clock disparity suggests the T400 is aggressively power-managed at idle but can ramp up significantly under load. The T400's low base clock helps it achieve its 30 W TDP, while the RTX 2060 SUPER's higher sustained clocks contribute to its 175 W TDP.

Memory configurations differ in capacity, bus width, and bandwidth as covered above. The RTX 2060 SUPER also offers more display outputs (five total) compared to the T400's three, with the RTX 2060 SUPER adding DVI, HDMI 2.0, and USB Type-C options alongside two DisplayPort 1.4a outputs. Both cards use a PCIe 3.0 x16 bus interface, and both support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4. The RTX 2060 SUPER's DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) support exceeds the T400's DirectX 12 (12_1) in feature level.

Physical dimensions differ substantially: the RTX 2060 SUPER measures 229 mm in length, 113 mm in height, and 35 mm in width, occupying two slots. The T400's dimensions are not provided in the data, but it is confirmed as a single-slot card. Power requirements follow suit: the RTX 2060 SUPER needs a 450 W suggested PSU and one 8-pin connector, while the T400 needs only a 200 W PSU and no external power connectors.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher FP32 performance?

A: The RTX 2060 SUPER delivers 7.181 TFLOPS FP32, which is over 6.5 times the T400's 1,094.4 GFLOPS. This massive difference explains the substantial benchmark gaps.

Q: Do both cards support the same DirectX version?

A: No. The RTX 2060 SUPER supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), while the T400 is limited to DirectX 12 (12_1). The RTX 2060 SUPER's 12_2 feature level enables advanced features like ray tracing and mesh shaders that the T400 cannot access.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference?

A: The RTX 2060 SUPER has 448.0 GB/s bandwidth from 8 GB GDDR6 on a 256-bit bus, while the T400 has 80.00 GB/s from 4 GB GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus. The RTX 2060 SUPER offers 5.6 times the memory bandwidth.

Q: Which card consumes less power?

A: The T400 has a 30 W TDP and requires no external power connectors, whereas the RTX 2060 SUPER has a 175 W TDP and needs one 8-pin connector. The T400 also suggests a 200 W PSU versus the RTX 2060 SUPER's 450 W recommendation.

Q: Are there any benchmark tests where the T400 wins?

A: In the head-to-head data, the RTX 2060 SUPER wins both Geekbench OpenCL and Vulkan tests. The T400 records zero wins in the shared benchmarks.

Q: How do their average benchmark scores compare to competitors?

A: The RTX 2060 SUPER's average score of 18,093 places it near the RTX 3060 Mobile (-0.4%), Radeon Pro 5700 (-0.5%), RX 460 (-1.5%), and Arc A770M (-1.6%). The T400's 16,792 average is close to the RX 7600S (+0.6%), Tesla M4 (-0.8%), HD 7970M (-1.3%), and GTX 690 (-1.4%).

The Verdict

The data clearly indicates that the RTX 2060 SUPER is the superior performer in every measured dimension. Its 344.3% OpenCL and 375.9% Vulkan leads over the T400 are not incremental improvements but generational leaps. For any workload involving compute performance, gaming, or GPU-accelerated rendering, the RTX 2060 SUPER is the obvious choice. Its 62nd percentile ranking among all GPUs, compared to the T400's 60th percentile, reflects a higher overall standing despite the T400's lower power draw.

However, the T400 serves a distinct purpose that the RTX 2060 SUPER cannot fulfill. Its 30 W TDP, single-slot design, and absence of power connectors make it suitable for constrained environments where the RTX 2060 SUPER's 175 W TDP and dual-slot footprint would be impossible to accommodate. The T400's three mini-DisplayPort outputs are tailored for multi-display professional setups, and its 12 nm TU117 chip is efficient enough to run without active cooling in many chassis.

Users who need raw compute performance, gaming capability, or ray tracing support should choose the RTX 2060 SUPER without hesitation. Users who need a low-profile, low-power card for basic workstation display output or simple compute tasks in space-constrained systems should consider the T400. The data does not suggest these cards compete for the same buyer — they serve different markets, and the benchmark results simply quantify how far apart those markets are. The RTX 2060 SUPER's 8 GB memory, 2176 shading units, and RT/tensor cores make it a versatile performer, while the T400's 4 GB memory, 384 shading units, and minimal feature set define it as a utility card for specific professional use cases.