NVIDIA Quadro RTX 4000 vs NVIDIA T400 4 GB Comparison

The NVIDIA Quadro RTX 4000 and the NVIDIA T400 4 GB are both Turing-architecture workstation cards, but they occupy opposite ends of the performance spectrum. Benchmark data shows the RTX 4000 leads the T400 by 330.4% in Geekbench OpenCL and 384.8% in Geekbench Vulkan, making it the definitive choice for compute-intensive workloads. The T400, meanwhile, is a low-power, entry-level option whose only advantage is its minimal system requirements.

Architecture Differences

Both GPUs are built on the same Turing architecture and use a 12 nm TSMC process node, but the silicon underneath is fundamentally different. The Quadro RTX 4000 uses the TU104 chip, a large die measuring 545 mm² with 13,600 million transistors. The T400 uses the TU117 chip, which is a much smaller 200 mm² die with 4,700 million transistors. This size disparity translates directly into capability: the RTX 4000 has a transistor density of 25.0M / mm², slightly higher than the T400’s 23.5M / mm², but the raw transistor count is nearly three times greater on the RTX 4000.

The most significant architectural divergence is in ray tracing and tensor core support. The RTX 4000 includes 36 RT cores and 288 tensor cores, enabling hardware-accelerated ray tracing and AI-based features. The T400 has neither RT cores nor tensor cores, so it relies entirely on traditional rasterization and compute shaders. This makes the RTX 4000 suitable for real-time ray-traced visualization and machine learning inference, while the T400 is limited to conventional graphics and general-purpose compute.

Shader resources also differ dramatically. The RTX 4000 has 2,304 shading units, 144 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 64 raster operation units (ROPs). The T400 has only 384 shading units, 24 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. The RTX 4000’s pixel rate is 98.88 GPixel/s versus 22.80 GPixel/s on the T400, and its texture rate is 222.5 GTexel/s versus 34.20 GTexel/s. These figures show that the RTX 4000 is not just faster per clock; it has more than six times the shading units and six times the ROPs.

Both cards support DirectX 12 and Vulkan 1.4, but the RTX 4000 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), while the T400 is limited to DirectX 12 (12_1). OpenGL support is identical at 4.6. The RTX 4000 also features a USB Type-C display output alongside three DisplayPort 1.4a connectors, whereas the T400 offers three mini-DisplayPort 1.4a outputs.

Specification Differences

The two cards diverge sharply on memory and power specifications. The RTX 4000 has 8 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 256-bit bus, delivering 416.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The T400 has 4 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 64-bit bus, yielding just 80.00 GB/s. That is a 5.2x bandwidth advantage for the RTX 4000, which is critical for large datasets and high-resolution textures.

Clock speeds tell a more nuanced story. The RTX 4000 has a base clock of 1005 MHz and a boost clock of 1545 MHz. The T400 has a much lower base clock of 420 MHz but a boost clock of 1425 MHz. Memory clocks also differ: the RTX 4000 runs at 1625 MHz with 13 Gbps effective speed, while the T400 runs at 1250 MHz with 10 Gbps effective speed.

Power consumption is where the T400 finds its niche. The RTX 4000 has a TDP of 160 W and requires one 8-pin power connector, with a suggested power supply of 450 W. The T400 has a TDP of just 30 W, requires no power connectors, and suggests a 200 W PSU. Both are single-slot cards, but the RTX 4000 is 241 mm long and 111 mm tall, while the T400’s dimensions are not listed.

Compute output is also vastly different. The RTX 4000 delivers 7.119 TFLOPS FP32 and 14.24 TFLOPS FP16 (2:1). The T400 delivers 1,094.4 GFLOPS FP32 and 2.189 TFLOPS FP16 (2:1). In plain numbers, the RTX 4000 is roughly 6.5x stronger in FP32 and FP16 compute. The RTX 4000 launched on 2018-11-12 with an MSRP of 899 USD; the T400 launched on 2021-05-05 with no MSRP listed.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the Quadro RTX 4000 is the superior card for any task that stresses GPU compute or graphics throughput. Its 330.4% lead in Geekbench OpenCL and 384.8% lead in Geekbench Vulkan are not marginal differences; they represent multiple generations of performance separation. The RTX 4000’s RT cores, tensor cores, 8 GB memory, and 416.0 GB/s bandwidth make it a legitimate workstation GPU for rendering, simulation, and AI workloads. The T400, with no RT or tensor cores and only 80.00 GB/s bandwidth, is not in the same class.

The T400’s only clear advantage is its 30 W TDP and lack of power connectors. That makes it suitable for systems with weak power supplies or limited cooling, where a 160 W card with an 8-pin connector would be impractical. However, the T400’s average benchmark score of 16792 versus the RTX 4000’s 17789 shows only a 5.9% gap in aggregate, which is misleading because the T400 only has two benchmark results while the RTX 4000 has ten. The head-to-head data, which uses identical tests, is far more reliable and shows an overwhelming RTX 4000 victory.

Users who need to run modern 3D applications with ray tracing or who work with large textures should choose the RTX 4000 without hesitation. Users who only need basic 2D display output or very light 3D acceleration, and who are constrained by a 200 W PSU, can consider the T400. But for any serious workstation task, the RTX 4000 is the only rational choice from this comparison.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The two available head-to-head benchmarks both use Geekbench, and the RTX 4000 wins both by enormous margins. In Geekbench OpenCL, the RTX 4000 scores 74540 against the T400’s 17320, a delta of 330.4%. That means the RTX 4000 processes OpenCL compute workloads more than four times faster than the T400. In Geekbench Vulkan, the RTX 4000 scores 78844 against 16263, a delta of 384.8%. That is nearly five times faster in Vulkan graphics and compute.

These results align with the underlying specifications. The RTX 4000 has 2,304 shading units versus 384 on the T400, and its FP32 throughput is 7.119 TFLOPS versus 1,094.4 GFLOPS. The bandwidth gap is equally stark: 416.0 GB/s versus 80.00 GB/s. With six times the shading units, six times the ROPs, and over five times the memory bandwidth, the RTX 4000’s benchmark dominance is expected.

Looking at the broader benchmark context, the RTX 4000’s average score of 17789 places it in the 61st percentile of all GPUs, with nearest rivals including the AMD Radeon HD 7790 (0.7% ahead), NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4060 (0.9% behind), AMD Radeon 780M (1.1% behind), and AMD Radeon Pro 560 (1.4% behind). The T400’s average score of 16792 places it in the 60th percentile, with nearest rivals like the AMD Radeon RX 7600S (0.6% ahead) and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 690 (1.4% behind). Despite the similar percentiles, the head-to-head deltas show that the RTX 4000 is in a completely different performance tier.

The RTX 4000 also has a broader benchmark portfolio, with scores in Passmark DirectX 10 (108), DirectX 11 (128), DirectX 12 (52), DirectX 9 (205), G2D (846), G3D (15117), and GPU Compute (6176). The T400 only has the two Geekbench entries, which limits direct comparison but does not change the verdict.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has better ray tracing performance?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro RTX 4000 is the only one with ray tracing capability, featuring 36 dedicated RT cores. The NVIDIA T400 4 GB has no RT cores, so it cannot perform hardware-accelerated ray tracing.

Q: How much faster is the Quadro RTX 4000 in Vulkan?

A: The Quadro RTX 4000 scores 78844 in Geekbench Vulkan, while the T400 scores 16263. That is a 384.8% advantage for the RTX 4000.

Q: Can the T400 run without a power connector?

A: Yes. The T400 has a 30 W TDP and no power connectors, requiring only a 200 W suggested PSU. The RTX 4000 needs one 8-pin connector and a 450 W suggested PSU.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference?

A: The RTX 4000 has 416.0 GB/s of bandwidth from 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 256-bit bus. The T400 has 80.00 GB/s from 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus.

Q: Do both cards support the same DirectX version?

A: No. The RTX 4000 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), while the T400 is limited to DirectX 12 (12_1). Both support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4.

Q: Which card has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The RTX 4000 has an average score of 17789, compared to the T400’s 16792. However, this gap is small because the T400 only has two benchmarks, while the RTX 4000 has ten.

Where Each One Wins

The Quadro RTX 4000 wins every benchmark category where both cards are tested. In Geekbench OpenCL, it leads by 330.4%, and in Geekbench Vulkan, it leads by 384.8%. Its 8 GB of memory and 416.0 GB/s bandwidth make it suitable for large 3D scenes, high-resolution textures, and compute-heavy simulation. The presence of 36 RT cores and 288 tensor cores extends its usefulness to ray-traced rendering and AI inference, which the T400 cannot handle at all.

The RTX 4000 also wins on display connectivity, offering a USB Type-C port in addition to three DisplayPort 1.4a outputs, which can support modern VR headsets or USB-C monitors. Its 7.119 TFLOPS FP32 and 14.24 TFLOPS FP16 throughput are workstation-class numbers, putting it in the 61st percentile of all GPUs. For users running CAD, DCC, or scientific computing, the RTX 4000 is the clear pick.

The T400 wins only on power efficiency and physical requirements. Its 30 W TDP means it can be powered entirely by the PCIe slot, with no external cables. The suggested 200 W PSU makes it viable in small form factor or legacy systems where the RTX 4000’s 450 W requirement would be a problem. The T400’s 60th percentile ranking shows it is not a weak card—it is competitive with the AMD Radeon RX 7600S and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 690—but those rivals are also entry-level or older parts.

For multi-GPU or dense workstation builds, the T400’s low power draw and single-slot design could be advantageous, but performance per slot is far lower. The RTX 4000, despite being end-of-life, remains a powerful option for professional workloads. The T400 is best suited for basic office productivity, 2D design, or as a display adapter for systems that do not need compute performance. Any task that involves rendering, simulation, or machine learning belongs to the RTX 4000.