NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3070 vs NVIDIA T400 4 GB Comparison

The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3070 and the NVIDIA T400 4 GB occupy opposite ends of the GPU spectrum, and the benchmark data reflects that gulf clearly. In the two shared head-to-head tests, the RTX 3070 wins both outright, but the magnitude of those wins varies dramatically depending on the workload. The most striking result comes from Geekbench OpenCL, where the RTX 3070 scores 112,821 against the T400’s 17,320, a delta of 551.4%. That is not a marginal lead; it is a complete rout in compute-heavy tasks. The Vulkan test tells a different story in relative terms, with the RTX 3070 scoring 21,022 versus 16,263, a still decisive but far narrower 29.3% advantage. While the RTX 3070 dominates both metrics, the data suggests the T400 is not without merit in specific scenarios, particularly where power efficiency and physical footprint matter more than raw throughput.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Geekbench OpenCL result is the single largest differentiator between these two cards. The RTX 3070’s 112,821 score is more than six times the T400’s 17,320, translating to a 551.4% performance advantage. This benchmark typically stresses raw compute throughput, and the numbers align perfectly with the hardware disparity: the RTX 3070 carries 5,888 shading units and 184 tensor cores, while the T400 is limited to 384 shading units and no tensor cores at all. For any workload that leverages OpenCL—scientific simulation, video encoding, or GPGPU compute—the RTX 3070 is in a different league entirely. The T400’s score, while modest, still places it in the 60th percentile of all GPUs, indicating it is not a slouch for its class, but the RTX 3070’s 61st percentile understates just how far ahead it is in this specific test.

The Vulkan head-to-head is more competitive, though the outcome is the same. The RTX 3070 posts 21,022 points against the T400’s 16,263, a 29.3% lead. Vulkan is a lower-level API that often scales with memory bandwidth and geometry throughput, and here the RTX 3070’s 448.0 GB/s bandwidth versus the T400’s 80.00 GB/s explains much of the gap. The T400’s 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus is a severe constraint, but its 16,263 score shows it can still handle modern graphics workloads at reduced settings. The RTX 3070’s 29.3% advantage is significant but not insurmountable in real-world terms; a user upgrading from the T400 to the RTX 3070 would notice a substantial improvement, but the T400 is not entirely outclassed in Vulkan-based titles.

Where Each One Wins

The RTX 3070 wins every shared benchmark, so the data does not offer a single test where the T400 comes out ahead. However, the structure of the wins reveals distinct use-case profiles. The RTX 3070’s 551.4% OpenCL lead makes it the clear choice for compute-heavy applications: rendering, machine learning inference, or any task that saturates the GPU’s shading units and tensor cores. Its 20.31 TFLOPS FP32 performance and 46 RT cores provide the raw throughput needed for professional workloads, and the 8 GB memory capacity on a 256-bit bus ensures data-heavy tasks do not stall. The T400, by contrast, wins on physical and power characteristics that are not captured in the benchmark scores. It is a 30 W single-slot card with no power connectors, while the RTX 3070 is a 220 W dual-slot card requiring a 12-pin connector and a 550 W power supply. In a low-profile workstation or a system with limited power delivery, the T400 is the only viable option, even if its performance is lower.

The Vulkan result, where the RTX 3070 leads by only 29.3%, suggests the T400 is more competitive in light gaming or basic 3D acceleration. The T400’s 1,094.4 GFLOPS FP32 and 22.80 GPixel/s pixel rate are sufficient for older titles or low-detail settings, and its 3x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a outputs make it a practical choice for multi-monitor office setups. The RTX 3070, with its 165.6 GPixel/s pixel rate and 317.4 GTexel/s texture rate, is built for high-refresh gaming and professional visualization, but the T400’s lower power draw and compact size give it a niche in embedded or small-form-factor systems where the RTX 3070 physically cannot fit.

Architecture Differences

The two cards are built on entirely different architectures, which explains the performance divergence. The RTX 3070 uses the GA104 chip on NVIDIA’s Ampere architecture, fabricated on Samsung’s 8 nm process. It packs 17,400 million transistors into a 392 mm² die, achieving a transistor density of 44.4 million per square millimeter. The T400 uses the TU117 chip on the older Turing architecture, built on TSMC’s 12 nm process, with 4,700 million transistors on a 200 mm² die and a density of 23.5 million per square millimeter. The Ampere architecture brings dedicated RT cores (46 on the RTX 3070) and tensor cores (184), while the T400 has neither, relying purely on CUDA cores for all processing. This architectural gap is why the RTX 3070 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), while the T400 is limited to DirectX 12 (12_1), a difference that matters for ray tracing and advanced shading features.

Memory architecture is another fundamental split. The RTX 3070 uses 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 256-bit bus, delivering 448.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The T400 has 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus, yielding just 80.00 GB/s—a 5.6x difference in bandwidth that heavily impacts high-resolution textures and compute workloads. The clock speeds also differ: the RTX 3070 runs at 1500 MHz base and 1725 MHz boost, while the T400 has a 420 MHz base and 1425 MHz boost. The T400’s low base clock is a power-saving measure, but its boost clock is respectable for a 30 W card. The RTX 3070’s memory runs at 1750 MHz (14 Gbps effective), while the T400’s memory runs at 1250 MHz (10 Gbps effective). Both cards support PCIe, but the RTX 3070 uses PCIe 4.0 x16, while the T400 is limited to PCIe 3.0 x16, which can matter for data transfer rates in compute tasks.

FAQ

Q: Which card has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The RTX 3070 has an average benchmark score of 17,208, while the T400 has 16,792, a difference of just 416 points (2.5%). Despite the massive OpenCL gap, the averages are close because the T400 lacks many of the benchmarks the RTX 3070 was tested on.

Q: Does the T400 support ray tracing?

A: No. The T400 has no RT cores, while the RTX 3070 has 46 RT cores. This means the RTX 3070 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) with ray tracing features, while the T400 is limited to DirectX 12 (12_1).

Q: What is the power consumption difference?

A: The RTX 3070 has a TDP of 220 W and requires a 550 W power supply, while the T400 has a TDP of 30 W and requires only a 200 W power supply. The T400 also has no power connectors, whereas the RTX 3070 needs a 12-pin connector.

Q: Are these cards comparable in physical size?

A: No. The RTX 3070 is a dual-slot card measuring 242 mm in length and 112 mm in height, while the T400 is a single-slot card with no listed dimensions, indicating a much smaller footprint suitable for constrained chassis.

Q: Which card has more memory bandwidth?

A: The RTX 3070 has 448.0 GB/s of bandwidth from its 256-bit bus and 8 GB of GDDR6, versus the T400’s 80.00 GB/s from a 64-bit bus and 4 GB of GDDR6. The RTX 3070 offers 5.6 times the bandwidth.

Q: How do the cards compare in OpenCL performance?

A: The RTX 3070 scores 112,821 in Geekbench OpenCL, a 551.4% advantage over the T400’s 17,320. This reflects the RTX 3070’s 5,888 shading units versus the T400’s 384.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ across nearly every measurable specification. The most obvious split is in the chip and process: the RTX 3070 uses the GA104 on Ampere at 8 nm from Samsung, while the T400 uses the TU117 on Turing at 12 nm from TSMC. Transistor counts are 17,400 million versus 4,700 million, and die sizes are 392 mm² versus 200 mm², yielding densities of 44.4M/mm² and 23.5M/mm², respectively. The RTX 3070 has 5,888 shading units, 184 TMUs, and 96 ROPs, while the T400 has 384 shading units, 24 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. The RTX 3070 also features 46 RT cores and 184 tensor cores; the T400 has none. Clock speeds differ: the RTX 3070 runs at 1500 MHz base and 1725 MHz boost, while the T400 runs at 420 MHz base and 1425 MHz boost. Memory is configured as 8 GB GDDR6 on a 256-bit bus with 448.0 GB/s bandwidth for the RTX 3070, versus 4 GB GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus with 80.00 GB/s for the T400.

Power and physical requirements are equally divergent. The RTX 3070 draws 220 W, uses a dual-slot design, and requires a 12-pin power connector and a 550 W PSU. The T400 draws just 30 W, uses a single-slot design, has no power connectors, and works with a 200 W PSU. The RTX 3070 is 242 mm long and 112 mm tall, while the T400 has no listed dimensions. Bus interfaces differ: the RTX 3070 supports PCIe 4.0 x16, while the T400 is limited to PCIe 3.0 x16. Display outputs are also different: the RTX 3070 has 1x HDMI 2.1 and 3x DisplayPort 1.4a, whereas the T400 has 3x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a. The RTX 3070 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), while the T400 only reaches DirectX 12 (12_1). Both support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear split based on workload and system constraints. For any user prioritizing raw performance, the RTX 3070 is the obvious choice. Its 551.4% lead in OpenCL and 29.3% lead in Vulkan over the T400, combined with 8 GB of memory and 448.0 GB/s of bandwidth, make it suitable for gaming, rendering, and compute tasks. The RTX 3070’s 46 RT cores and 184 tensor cores enable features the T400 cannot match, such as ray tracing and AI acceleration. The average benchmark scores are nearly identical at 17,208 versus 16,792, but that is misleading; the RTX 3070 was tested on ten benchmarks, while the T400 only has two, so the averages are not directly comparable. The RTX 3070’s percentile rank of 61 versus the T400’s 60 further masks the performance gap in the shared tests.

The T400’s appeal is entirely structural. It draws 30 W, fits in a single slot, requires no power connectors, and works with a 200 W PSU. For a compact workstation, a low-power server, or a system where the RTX 3070’s 220 W draw and dual-slot size are prohibitive, the T400 is the only option that fits. Its 4 GB of memory and 80.00 GB/s bandwidth limit it to lighter workloads, but its 16,263 Vulkan score shows it can handle basic 3D acceleration. The RTX 3070 is for those who need performance; the T400 is for those who need a GPU that simply fits and runs without changing the system’s power or cooling infrastructure. The benchmark data does not recommend the T400 for performance, but it does validate its existence as a low-power alternative in constrained environments.