NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 OEM vs NVIDIA T400 Comparison

The NVIDIA T400 and NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 OEM represent two completely different corners of the GPU market. The T400 is a low-profile workstation card designed for basic display and light compute duties, while the RTX 3050 OEM is a full-fat Ampere gaming card. The benchmark data shows a decisive victory for the RTX 3050 OEM, but the T400 still holds a niche. This analysis breaks down the head-to-head numbers, architectural chasm, and which card belongs in which system.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The data available for direct comparison is limited to two synthetic tests, but the results are unambiguous. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 OEM scores 60,740, while the NVIDIA T400 manages only 17,039. This represents a delta of -71.9% for the T400, meaning the RTX 3050 OEM is roughly 3.5 times faster in raw compute throughput. The Geekbench Vulkan test tells a similar story: the RTX 3050 OEM scores 57,103 against the T400’s 15,976, a -72% delta. Both tests favor the RTX 3050 OEM, and the margin is enormous in both cases.

Looking at the broader benchmark landscape, the RTX 3050 OEM also benefits from a much richer dataset. Its Passmark scores show a G3D score of 11,857 and a GPU compute score of 5,779, with DirectX 9, 10, 11, and 12 scores of 137, 61, 86, and 58 respectively. The T400 has no Passmark entries, so we cannot compare those specific workloads. However, the average benchmark score tells a similar tale: the RTX 3050 OEM averages 15,199 across its tests, while the T400 averages 16,508. Interestingly, the T400’s average is higher despite losing both head-to-head tests, which highlights how the two cards attract different benchmark suites.

The percentile rankings are close, though. The T400 sits at the 60th percentile of all GPUs, while the RTX 3050 OEM sits at the 57th percentile. This is a small difference, suggesting that despite the RTX 3050 OEM’s massive raw performance advantage, the T400’s focused driver optimizations for workstation tasks keep it competitive in the overall distribution. The nearest rivals for the T400 include the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5090 D V2 (avg score 16,504, delta 0%) and the AMD Radeon PRO W7500 (avg score 16,415, delta 0.6%), which shows the T400 punching well above its weight class in aggregate scoring. The RTX 3050 OEM’s rivals are more mainstream: the AMD Radeon RX 7600 (avg 15,171, delta 0.2%) and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 580 (avg 15,283, delta -0.5%).

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two cards is generational and fundamental. The T400 is built on the Turing architecture (chip TU117), fabricated on a 12 nm process at TSMC. It packs 4,700 million transistors into a 200 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 23.5 million per square millimeter. The RTX 3050 OEM, in contrast, uses the Ampere architecture (chip GA106), built on Samsung’s 8 nm process. It crams 12,000 million transistors into a 276 mm² die, for a density of 43.5 million per square millimeter. That is nearly double the transistor density, which explains the performance chasm.

The compute resources are wildly different. The T400 has 384 shading units, 24 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 16 raster output units (ROPs). The RTX 3050 OEM has 2,304 shading units, 72 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. That is a 6x advantage in shading units and a 3x advantage in TMUs. The RTX 3050 OEM also brings dedicated hardware the T400 lacks entirely: 18 RT cores and 72 tensor cores. This makes the RTX 3050 OEM capable of hardware-accelerated ray tracing and AI workloads like DLSS, while the T400 has no such acceleration.

Clock speeds tell a similar story. The T400 has a base clock of 420 MHz and a boost clock of 1,425 MHz, while the RTX 3050 OEM runs at 1,515 MHz base and 1,755 MHz boost. The RTX 3050 OEM’s higher clocks, combined with its massive shading unit count, produce a peak FP32 throughput of 8.087 TFLOPS. The T400 manages just 1,094.4 GFLOPS (approximately 1.09 TFLOPS). The FP16 numbers are also telling: the RTX 3050 OEM offers 8.087 TFLOPS (1:1 ratio), while the T400 offers 2.189 TFLOPS (2:1 ratio). The RTX 3050 OEM is a full-rate FP16 card, which matters for compute workloads.

Memory is another clear divider. The T400 has 2 GB of GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus, yielding 80.00 GB/s of bandwidth. The RTX 3050 OEM has 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus, yielding 224.0 GB/s. That is nearly 3x the bandwidth and 4x the capacity. The pixel and texture rates follow suit: the T400 outputs 22.80 GPixel/s and 34.20 GTexel/s, while the RTX 3050 OEM outputs 56.16 GPixel/s and 126.4 GTexel/s.

Where Each One Wins

The RTX 3050 OEM wins every single benchmark in the head-to-head dataset, and the margins are crushing. In both OpenCL and Vulkan compute tests, it more than triples the T400’s score. If your workflow involves GPU compute, rendering, or modern gaming, the RTX 3050 OEM is the only rational choice from this pair. Its 8 GB VRAM is four times the T400’s 2 GB, which means it can hold larger textures, bigger datasets, and more complex scenes without spilling to system memory. The 224 GB/s bandwidth also means faster data movement for compute kernels and texture streaming.

The T400’s wins are more subtle and not captured in the head-to-head benchmarks. Its 30 W TDP is dramatically lower than the RTX 3050 OEM’s 130 W, making it far easier to cool and power. It requires no power connectors and only a 200 W suggested PSU, while the RTX 3050 OEM needs a single 8-pin connector and a 300 W PSU. The T400 is single-slot, which allows it to fit in compact chassis where the dual-slot RTX 3050 OEM will not. The T400 also offers three mini-DisplayPort 1.4a outputs, while the RTX 3050 OEM has one HDMI 2.1 and three DisplayPort 1.4a outputs. For multi-monitor professional setups in tight spaces, the T400’s form factor is a genuine advantage.

The T400’s average benchmark score of 16,508 is also higher than the RTX 3050 OEM’s 15,199, despite losing the head-to-head tests. This suggests that in certain workstation-specific workloads (likely those captured in the T400’s Geekbench-oriented dataset), the T400 punches above its weight. Its nearest rival being the RTX 5090 D V2 (delta 0%) is a statistical oddity that indicates the T400’s driver stack is highly optimized for specific professional tasks.

FAQ

Q: Which card is faster in raw compute performance?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 OEM is dramatically faster. It scores 60,740 in Geekbench OpenCL versus the T400’s 17,039, a 71.9% advantage. In Geekbench Vulkan, it scores 57,103 versus 15,976, a 72% advantage.

Q: Does the T400 support ray tracing?

A: No. The T400 is based on Turing architecture but has no RT cores listed in its specifications. The RTX 3050 OEM, based on Ampere, includes 18 RT cores and 72 tensor cores.

Q: How much memory do these cards have?

A: The T400 has 2 GB of GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus with 80.00 GB/s bandwidth. The RTX 3050 OEM has 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus with 224.0 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Which card requires more power?

A: The RTX 3050 OEM has a 130 W TDP and needs a single 8-pin power connector plus a 300 W suggested PSU. The T400 has a 30 W TDP, requires no power connector, and only needs a 200 W PSU.

Q: Are these cards still in production?

A: No. Both are marked as “End-of-life” in the data. The T400 was released on 2021-05-05, and the RTX 3050 OEM on 2022-01-03.

Q: How do these cards compare in overall GPU percentile?

A: The T400 sits at the 60th percentile of all GPUs, while the RTX 3050 OEM sits at the 57th percentile. The T400’s higher percentile, despite lower raw performance, reflects its optimized workstation driver performance.

The Verdict

The data is clear: if you need performance, buy the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 OEM. It wins both head-to-head benchmarks by over 70%, offers 4x the VRAM, 2.8x the memory bandwidth, and 7.4x the FP32 throughput. Its 18 RT cores and 72 tensor cores unlock modern rendering features and AI acceleration that the T400 cannot touch. For gaming, 3D rendering, video editing, or any GPU compute task, the RTX 3050 OEM is the only logical choice.

The T400’s case rests entirely on its form factor and power efficiency. Its 30 W TDP means it can run passively or with minimal cooling in a single-slot bracket, making it ideal for servers, HTPCs, or professional workstations where space and power are at a premium. Its three mini-DisplayPort outputs support multi-monitor setups in a tiny footprint. If your workload is basic desktop output, 2D CAD, or light compute that fits within 2 GB of VRAM, the T400’s lower power draw and smaller size may be worth the massive performance penalty. But for anything beyond that, the RTX 3050 OEM wins without contest.

Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA T400 | NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 OEM |

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

| Architecture | Turing | Ampere |

| Process Node | 12 nm (TSMC) | 8 nm (Samsung) |

| Transistors | 4,700 million | 12,000 million |

| Die Size | 200 mm² | 276 mm² |

| Base Clock | 420 MHz | 1515 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 1425 MHz | 1755 MHz |

| Memory Size | 2 GB | 8 GB |

| Memory Bus | 64 bit | 128 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 80.00 GB/s | 224.0 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 384 | 2304 |

| TMUs | 24 | 72 |

| ROPs | 16 | 32 |

| RT Cores | None | 18 |

| Tensor Cores | None | 72 |

| FP32 Performance | 1,094.4 GFLOPS | 8.087 TFLOPS |

| FP16 Performance | 2.189 TFLOPS (2:1) | 8.087 TFLOPS (1:1) |

| TDP | 30 W | 130 W |

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

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

| Suggested PSU | 200 W | 300 W |

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

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

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

| Release Date | 2021-05-05 | 2022-01-03 |