NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 OEM vs NVIDIA T400 4 GB Comparison

The NVIDIA T400 4 GB and NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 OEM occupy very different tiers of the graphics market, and the benchmark data reflects that divide clearly. In the two recorded head-to-head tests, the RTX 3050 OEM wins decisively, but the T400’s strengths lie elsewhere, particularly in its efficiency and workstation-oriented feature set. This analysis breaks down the recorded performance, architecture, and specifications to determine which card fits which workload.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database records two direct benchmark comparisons between these cards, and the results are lopsided. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 OEM scores 60,740, while the NVIDIA T400 4 GB scores 17,320. That is a 71.5% advantage for the RTX 3050 OEM, meaning the Ampere card delivers roughly 3.5 times the raw compute performance in this workload. The delta is identical in the Geekbench Vulkan test: the RTX 3050 OEM posts 57,103 against the T400’s 16,263, again a 71.5% lead. These are not marginal wins; they are category-level gaps.

The T400’s average benchmark score across all recorded tests is 16,792, while the RTX 3050 OEM’s average is 15,199. Interestingly, the T400 actually has a higher average score despite losing both head-to-head tests. This is because the RTX 3050 OEM’s average includes additional Passmark tests, which pull its mean downward. The RTX 3050 OEM’s Passmark scores are mixed: 11,857 in G3D, 5,779 in GPU Compute, 973 in G2D, and lower scores in the DirectX-specific tests (137 in DirectX 9, 86 in DirectX 11, 61 in DirectX 10, 58 in DirectX 12). The T400 has no recorded Passmark results, so its average is based solely on the two Geekbench tests.

Looking at percentile rankings, the T400 sits at the 60th percentile of all GPUs, while the RTX 3050 OEM sits at the 57th percentile. This means the T400 outperforms a slightly larger share of the overall GPU population in the database, despite being far slower than the RTX 3050 OEM in direct comparison. The explanation lies in the RTX 3050 OEM’s broader test suite, which includes legacy DirectX workloads where it scores relatively poorly. The T400’s two Geekbench scores are both strong for its class, whereas the RTX 3050 OEM’s Passmark DirectX 12 score of 58 is particularly low.

The nearest rivals for each card further contextualize their positions. The T400’s closest competitor is the AMD Radeon RX 7600S with an average score of 16,696, which is 0.6% behind the T400. The NVIDIA Tesla M4 (16,932) is 0.8% ahead, the AMD Radeon HD 7970M (17,019) is 1.3% ahead, and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 690 (17,037) is 1.4% ahead. The RTX 3050 OEM’s nearest rival is the AMD Radeon RX 7600 with 15,171, which is 0.2% ahead. The AMD Radeon 680M (15,270) is 0.5% ahead, the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 580 (15,283) is 0.5% ahead, and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060 (15,290) is 0.6% ahead. The RTX 3050 OEM sits at the bottom of its immediate rival group, while the T400 sits near the top of its own.

FAQ

Q: Which card wins in raw compute performance?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 OEM wins both recorded head-to-head benchmarks. It scores 60,740 in Geekbench OpenCL and 57,103 in Geekbench Vulkan, compared to the T400’s 17,320 and 16,263 respectively. The RTX 3050 OEM holds a 71.5% advantage in both tests.

Q: Does the T400 have any performance advantage over the RTX 3050 OEM?

A: Yes, in terms of average benchmark score across all recorded tests, the T400 posts 16,792 versus the RTX 3050 OEM’s 15,199. The T400 also ranks higher in the overall GPU percentile, sitting at the 60th percentile compared to the RTX 3050 OEM’s 57th.

Q: Why does the RTX 3050 OEM have a lower average score despite winning head-to-head?

A: The RTX 3050 OEM has additional Passmark benchmarks in the database, including DirectX 9 (137), DirectX 10 (61), DirectX 11 (86), and DirectX 12 (58) tests. These lower scores pull its average down. The T400 only has the two Geekbench tests, which are both relatively strong for its class.

Q: What is the closest rival to each card based on average score?

A: For the T400, the closest rival is the AMD Radeon RX 7600S with an average score of 16,696, just 0.6% behind. For the RTX 3050 OEM, the closest rival is the AMD Radeon RX 7600 with 15,171, which is 0.2% ahead of the RTX 3050 OEM.

Q: Which card has better legacy DirectX performance?

A: The RTX 3050 OEM has recorded Passmark DirectX scores, with its best being 137 in DirectX 9 and its worst being 58 in DirectX 12. The T400 has no recorded DirectX-specific benchmark scores, so no direct comparison is possible from the database.

Q: How do the percentile rankings compare?

A: The T400 is at the 60th percentile of all GPUs, while the RTX 3050 OEM is at the 57th percentile. This indicates the T400 outperforms a larger fraction of the overall GPU population, despite being significantly slower than the RTX 3050 OEM in direct head-to-head tests.

Architecture Differences

The two cards are built on fundamentally different architectures. The T400 uses the TU117 chip based on the Turing architecture, fabricated on a 12 nm process at TSMC. The RTX 3050 OEM uses the GA106 chip based on the Ampere architecture, fabricated on an 8 nm process at Samsung. This process difference is substantial: the 12 nm node is older and less dense, while the 8 nm node allows for significantly more transistors in a similar die area.

The T400 has 4,700 million transistors on a 200 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 23.5 million per mm². The RTX 3050 OEM has 12,000 million transistors on a 276 mm² die, resulting in a density of 43.5 million per mm². That is nearly double the transistor density, which explains the massive performance gap despite only a 38% increase in die size.

The T400 has 384 shading units, 24 texture mapping units, and 16 raster output units. It has no dedicated ray tracing cores and no tensor cores. The RTX 3050 OEM has 2,304 shading units, 72 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. It also includes 18 ray tracing cores and 72 tensor cores, marking the first major architectural feature divergence. The presence of RT and tensor cores enables hardware-accelerated ray tracing and AI-based features, neither of which are available on the T400.

The T400’s FP32 compute is rated at 1,094.4 GFLOPS, while its FP16 is 2.189 TFLOPS with a 2:1 ratio, meaning it uses paired FP32 units for FP16. The RTX 3050 OEM’s FP32 is 8.087 TFLOPS, and its FP16 is also 8.087 TFLOPS with a 1:1 ratio, indicating full-rate FP16 throughput. The RTX 3050 OEM’s FP32 is roughly 7.4 times higher than the T400’s, which is consistent with the benchmark results.

The T400 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), while the RTX 3050 OEM supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2). Both cards support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4. The DirectX 12 Ultimate feature set on the RTX 3050 OEM includes mesh shaders, variable rate shading, and other modern features that the T400 cannot access.

Specification Differences

The memory subsystems are vastly different. The T400 has 4 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 64-bit bus, yielding 80.00 GB/s of bandwidth. The RTX 3050 OEM has 8 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 128-bit bus, yielding 224.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The RTX 3050 OEM has 2.8 times the memory bandwidth and twice the capacity, which directly impacts texture-heavy and high-resolution workloads.

Clock speeds also differ significantly. The T400 has a base clock of 420 MHz and a boost clock of 1425 MHz. The RTX 3050 OEM has a base clock of 1515 MHz and a boost clock of 1755 MHz. The memory clocks are 1250 MHz (10 Gbps effective) for the T400 and 1750 MHz (14 Gbps effective) for the RTX 3050 OEM.

Pixel and texture rates reflect the compute differences. The T400 achieves 22.80 GPixel/s and 34.20 GTexel/s. The RTX 3050 OEM achieves 56.16 GPixel/s and 126.4 GTexel/s, representing 2.5 times the pixel rate and 3.7 times the texture rate.

Power consumption is a major differentiator. The T400 has a TDP of 30 W, requires no power connectors, and suggests a 200 W power supply. It is a single-slot card. The RTX 3050 OEM has a TDP of 130 W, requires one 8-pin power connector, and suggests a 300 W power supply. It is a dual-slot card. The T400 uses over four times less power, making it suitable for low-power systems where the RTX 3050 OEM would require a more robust power delivery setup.

The bus interface differs as well: the T400 uses PCIe 3.0 x16, while the RTX 3050 OEM uses PCIe 4.0 x8. The PCIe 4.0 interface provides higher bandwidth per lane, though the x8 configuration means half the lanes. Display outputs are also different: the T400 offers three mini-DisplayPort 1.4a outputs, while the RTX 3050 OEM offers one HDMI 2.1 and three DisplayPort 1.4a outputs. The RTX 3050 OEM has physical dimensions of 242 mm in length and 112 mm in height; the T400 has no recorded dimensions.

The production status for both cards is end-of-life. The T400 was released on May 5, 2021, and the RTX 3050 OEM was released on January 3, 2022. The T400’s predecessor is Quadro Volta and its successor is Workstation Ampere. The RTX 3050 OEM’s predecessor is GeForce 20 and its successor is GeForce 40.

The Verdict

The data supports a clear split based on workload priorities. For raw performance in compute and graphics tasks, the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 OEM is the definitive choice. It wins both head-to-head benchmarks by 71.5%, has 7.4 times the FP32 compute, 2.8 times the memory bandwidth, and includes ray tracing and tensor cores that the T400 lacks. Any application that can use these features will see a massive benefit from the RTX 3050 OEM.

For low-power, space-constrained environments, the T400 is the more appropriate option. Its 30 W TDP versus the RTX 3050 OEM’s 130 W means it can run without external power connectors and in a single-slot form factor. The T400’s higher percentile ranking (60th versus 57th) and higher average benchmark score (16,792 versus 15,199) suggest it performs well relative to its class, making it a sensible pick for basic workstation tasks that do not demand high compute throughput.

The RTX 3050 OEM’s nearest rivals are all within 0.6% of its average score, indicating it sits in a highly competitive mid-range segment. The T400’s nearest rivals are within 1.4%, but it sits at the top of its immediate group. Users who prioritize efficiency, minimal power draw, and a compact footprint should select the T400. Users who prioritize compute performance, modern feature support, and higher memory capacity should select the RTX 3050 OEM. The benchmark data offers no scenario where the T400 outperforms the RTX 3050 OEM in direct compute tests, so the decision rests entirely on power and form factor requirements.