NVIDIA Quadro RTX 4000 vs NVIDIA T400 Comparison

The data places the NVIDIA Quadro RTX 4000 and the NVIDIA T400 in starkly different performance tiers, despite sharing the Turing architecture. The RTX 4000 is a full-size workstation card with a 545 mm² die and 13,600 million transistors, while the T400 is a compact, low-power solution on a 200 mm² die with 4,700 million transistors. The benchmark results quantify this chasm, with the RTX 4000 dominating every head-to-head test. This analysis will interpret those results, explore where each card excels, and break down the architectural gulf between them.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head data consists of two cross-platform tests, and the results are decidedly one-sided. In Geekbench OpenCL, the Quadro RTX 4000 scores 74,540, while the T400 manages only 17,039. That translates to a deltaPct of 337.5%, meaning the RTX 4000 delivers over four times the raw compute performance of the T400 in this workload. The margin is even wider in Geekbench Vulkan, where the RTX 4000 scores 78,844 against the T400's 15,976, a deltaPct of 393.5%. This near-4x gap in API-level graphics performance underscores the fundamental difference in their capabilities.

The RTX 4000's absolute scores also place it in a higher league relative to its own nearest rivals. Its average benchmark score of 17,789 is just 0.7% ahead of the AMD Radeon HD 7790 and 0.9% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4060. This suggests that while the RTX 4000 is older, its compute and graphics throughput still competes with much newer mainstream parts. Conversely, the T400's average score of 16,508 is statistically tied with the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5090 D V2 at a 0% deltaPct, and it sits 0.9% ahead of the AMD Radeon RX 5700 XT. This indicates the T400, despite its low power draw, is not a weak performer in its niche; it punches at a level comparable to some high-end gaming GPUs from recent generations in aggregate benchmarks.

Looking at individual tests, the RTX 4000 shows its strength in 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 with a score of 1,873, a test the T400 lacks entirely. The RTX 4000 also posts substantial scores in Passmark's suite: 15,117 in G3D and 6,176 in GPU Compute. The T400 has no Passmark entries in the data, so a direct comparison is impossible, but the RTX 4000's presence across ten distinct benchmarks, including multiple DirectX versions (9, 10, 11, 12), highlights its versatility as a testing target. The T400's limited benchmark footprint—only Geekbench OpenCL and Vulkan—suggests it is not typically subjected to the same heavy-duty testing regimen.

Where Each One Wins

The RTX 4000 wins in every scenario where raw throughput matters. Its 7.119 TFLOPS of FP32 performance dwarfs the T400's 1,094.4 GFLOPS, making it roughly 6.5 times faster for single-precision compute tasks. This is critical for simulations, scientific computing, and heavy 3D rendering. The RTX 4000 also has dedicated ray tracing cores (36) and tensor cores (288), which the T400 lacks entirely. Any workload involving ray-traced rendering or AI-accelerated features will only function on the RTX 4000. The memory subsystem reinforces this: the RTX 4000 offers 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 256-bit bus, yielding 416.0 GB/s of bandwidth, versus the T400's 2 GB on a 64-bit bus at 80.00 GB/s. For large datasets or high-resolution textures, the RTX 4000's 5.2x bandwidth advantage is decisive.

The T400 wins in the domain of power efficiency and physical footprint. Its TDP is 30 W, compared to the RTX 4000's 160 W, and it requires no external power connectors, drawing power solely from the PCIe slot. The suggested PSU for a system with a T400 is 200 W, versus 450 W for the RTX 4000. This makes the T400 a drop-in solution for older or smaller workstations with limited power delivery and thermal headroom. Both cards are single-slot, but the T400's lack of a defined length and height suggests it is a low-profile, short card that fits in space-constrained chassis, while the RTX 4000 measures 241 mm in length. For basic display output, office productivity, or 2D CAD, the T400's 1,094.4 GFLOPS is more than sufficient, and its 16 ROPs can handle standard desktop composition at 22.80 GPixel/s.

Architecture Differences

Both cards are built on the Turing architecture using TSMC's 12 nm process, but they are vastly different chips. The RTX 4000 uses the TU104 die, which is a high-end part with 13,600 million transistors packed into 545 mm². The T400 uses the TU117 die, a budget-oriented chip with 4,700 million transistors on a 200 mm² die. This leads to a notable difference in transistor density: the RTX 4000 achieves 25.0M transistors per mm², while the T400 has 23.5M per mm². The higher density on the larger die indicates a more complex design with more functional blocks.

The compute resources are where the architectures diverge most sharply. The RTX 4000 contains 2,304 shading units, 144 TMUs, and 64 ROPs. It also includes 36 RT cores and 288 tensor cores, enabling hardware-accelerated ray tracing and deep learning inference. The T400 has only 384 shading units, 24 TMUs, and 16 ROPs, with no RT or tensor cores at all. This means the T400 cannot perform hardware ray tracing and must rely on software fallbacks, which are significantly slower. The clock speeds also differ; the RTX 4000 has a base clock of 1005 MHz and a boost of 1545 MHz, while the T400 has a much lower base of 420 MHz but a boost of 1425 MHz. The T400's low base clock is likely a power-saving measure, with the boost clock providing burst performance when needed.

Memory architecture is another differentiator. The RTX 4000 uses 8 GB of GDDR6 with a 256-bit bus and a memory clock of 1625 MHz (13 Gbps effective), resulting in 416.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The T400 uses 2 GB of GDDR6 with a 64-bit bus and a slower 1250 MHz clock (10 Gbps effective), yielding just 80.00 GB/s. The RTX 4000 also supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), while the T400 is limited to DirectX 12 (12_1). The RTX 4000's display outputs include 3x DisplayPort 1.4a and a USB Type-C port, whereas the T400 offers 3x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a. Both support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4, but the RTX 4000's higher feature set in DirectX gives it an edge in modern gaming and graphics APIs.

FAQ

Q: Why is the RTX 4000 so much faster in Vulkan than the T400?

A: The RTX 4000 scores 78,844 in Geekbench Vulkan versus 15,976 for the T400, a 393.5% delta. This is because the RTX 4000 has 2,304 shading units and 64 ROPs, compared to 384 and 16 for the T400, providing far more parallel processing capacity for Vulkan's explicit control over GPU hardware.

Q: Does the T400 support ray tracing?

A: No. The T400 has no RT cores or tensor cores listed in its specifications. The RTX 4000 has 36 RT cores and 288 tensor cores, enabling hardware-accelerated ray tracing and AI features. The T400's Turing architecture is still capable of compute, but it lacks these specialized hardware units.

Q: Can the T400 be used for AI workloads?

A: The data suggests limited suitability. The T400 has no tensor cores and offers 2.189 TFLOPS of FP16 performance (2:1), which is lower than the RTX 4000's 14.24 TFLOPS. For basic inference, the T400 might work, but the RTX 4000's tensor cores and higher FP16 throughput make it the clear choice for serious AI tasks.

Q: Which card has better memory bandwidth?

A: The RTX 4000 has 416.0 GB/s of bandwidth, which is 5.2 times higher than the T400's 80.00 GB/s. This comes from the RTX 4000's 256-bit bus and 8 GB of GDDR6, versus the T400's 64-bit bus and 2 GB of GDDR6.

Q: Are these cards the same generation?

A: Yes, both are part of the Quadro Turing (Tx000) generation and use the Turing architecture on a 12 nm process. However, the RTX 4000 was released on 2018-11-12, while the T400 was released later on 2021-05-05. The RTX 4000 uses the TU104 chip, and the T400 uses the TU117 chip.

Q: What are the power requirements for each card?

A: The RTX 4000 has a TDP of 160 W and requires a 1x 8-pin power connector, with a suggested PSU of 450 W. The T400 has a TDP of 30 W, requires no external power connectors, and has a suggested PSU of 200 W.

Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA Quadro RTX 4000 | NVIDIA T400 |

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

| Chip | TU104 | TU117 |

| Process Node | 12 nm | 12 nm |

| Transistors | 13,600 million | 4,700 million |

| Die Size | 545 mm² | 200 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 25.0M / mm² | 23.5M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 1005 MHz | 420 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 1545 MHz | 1425 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 1625 MHz (13 Gbps effective) | 1250 MHz (10 Gbps effective) |

| Memory Size | 8 GB | 2 GB |

| Memory Bus Width | 256 bit | 64 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 416.0 GB/s | 80.00 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 2304 | 384 |

| TMUs | 144 | 24 |

| ROPs | 64 | 16 |

| RT Cores | 36 | null |

| Tensor Cores | 288 | null |

| Pixel Rate | 98.88 GPixel/s | 22.80 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 222.5 GTexel/s | 34.20 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Performance | 7.119 TFLOPS | 1,094.4 GFLOPS |

| FP16 Performance | 14.24 TFLOPS (2:1) | 2.189 TFLOPS (2:1) |

| TDP | 160 W | 30 W |

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

| Suggested PSU | 450 W | 200 W |

| Display Outputs | 3x DisplayPort 1.4a, 1x USB Type-C | 3x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a |

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

| Length | 241 mm (9.5 inches) | null |

| Height | 111 mm (4.4 inches) | null |

| Release Date | 2018-11-12 | 2021-05-05 |

| Launch MSRP | 899 USD | null |

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the Quadro RTX 4000 is the superior performer for any compute-intensive or graphics-heavy workload. Its 337.5% lead in OpenCL and 393.5% lead in Vulkan over the T400, combined with 36 RT cores and 288 tensor cores, make it the only viable option for 3D rendering, simulations, AI inference, or high-resolution video editing. The 8 GB of memory and 416.0 GB/s bandwidth also prevent bottlenecks when handling large assets. Anyone needing these capabilities should choose the RTX 4000, despite its higher power draw and physical size.

The T400 is not a competitor to the RTX 4000; it is a complementary product for a different use case. Its 30 W TDP and slot-powered design make it ideal for adding multi-display support or basic GPU acceleration to low-power workstations. Its aggregate benchmark score of 16,508 is comparable to an RTX 5090 D V2, but that score is derived from only two tests, and its 2 GB memory limit severely constrains modern workloads. The T400 is the right pick for a system where power delivery is limited, space is at a premium, and the task is limited to 2D desktop tasks or lightweight compute. For everything else, the RTX 4000 is the only rational choice based on the benchmark evidence.