NVIDIA RTX A400 vs NVIDIA T600 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data presents a surprisingly split picture between the NVIDIA T600 and the NVIDIA RTX A400. While the T600 claims victory in six of the nine head-to-head benchmark comparisons, the RTX A400 takes the remaining three, and the margins tell a more complex story than the raw win count suggests.

The T600's most decisive victories come in legacy DirectX workloads. In the Passmark DirectX 9 test, the T600 scores 114 against the RTX A400's 87, a 31% advantage. Similarly, in Passmark DirectX 11, the T600 posts 49 versus 37, a 32.4% lead. These are substantial deltas that point to the Turing architecture's strength in older API paths. The Geekbench OpenCL result reinforces this pattern: the T600 scores 27875, while the RTX A400 manages 22844, giving the T600 a 22% edge. Geekbench Vulkan also favors the T600 at 25580 versus 22237, a 15% difference.

The RTX A400, however, is not without its own wins. The most notable is in Passmark DirectX 12, where it scores 27 against the T600's 25, a 7.4% improvement. This is significant because it suggests the newer Ampere architecture handles modern graphics APIs more efficiently, even if its overall compute throughput is lower. The RTX A400 also wins the Passmark G2D test, scoring 899 against 756, a 15.9% margin, which indicates superior 2D rendering and desktop composition performance. Finally, in Passmark GPU Compute, the RTX A400 takes a 6.1% lead, scoring 2557 versus 2402.

The overall 3D performance benchmark, Passmark G3D, goes to the T600 with a score of 6479 against the RTX A400's 5983, an 8.3% gap. This is the most holistic gaming-oriented metric in the set, and the T600's win here is notable. The Passmark DirectX 10 test is a dead heat, with both cards scoring 32.

What does this mean? The data suggests the T600 is a stronger performer in legacy and general compute scenarios, while the RTX A400 is optimized for newer DirectX 12 workloads and 2D tasks. The T600's average benchmark score of 7035 versus the RTX A400's 6078 reinforces this, as does their respective percentiles: the T600 sits at the 39th percentile of all GPUs, while the RTX A400 sits at the 35th.

FAQ

Q: Which card is faster in raw compute benchmarks?

A: The NVIDIA T600. It achieves a Geekbench OpenCL score of 27875 compared to the RTX A400's 22844, a 22% advantage. Its Passmark G3D score is also higher at 6479 versus 5983.

Q: Does the RTX A400 win any benchmark tests?

A: Yes, it wins three. It leads in Passmark DirectX 12 (27 vs 25), Passmark G2D (899 vs 756), and Passmark GPU Compute (2557 vs 2402).

Q: How do the cards compare in DirectX 11 performance?

A: The T600 is clearly superior, scoring 49 in Passmark DirectX 11 against the RTX A400's 37, a 32.4% margin. It also leads in DirectX 9 with a 31% advantage.

Q: Is the RTX A400 a better choice for modern games?

A: Based on the data, the RTX A400 has a 7.4% edge in Passmark DirectX 12, which is the most modern API tested. However, the T600 wins the overall Passmark G3D test by 8.3%, so the picture is mixed.

Q: What is the percentile ranking of each GPU?

A: The T600 is in the 39th percentile of all GPUs, while the RTX A400 is in the 35th percentile. This indicates the T600 is ranked slightly higher overall.

Q: Which card has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The T600, with an average score of 7035 compared to the RTX A400's 6078. This aligns with its higher percentile ranking.

Architecture Differences

The underlying architectures are fundamentally different generations. The T600 is built on the TU117 chip, using NVIDIA's Turing architecture, manufactured on a 12 nm process at TSMC. The RTX A400 uses the GA107 chip, based on the newer Ampere architecture, and is fabricated on an 8 nm process at Samsung. This process shrink allows the A400 to pack more transistors into the same die size: both chips are 200 mm², but the A400 contains 8,700 million transistors versus the T600's 4,700 million. This results in a much higher transistor density for the A400, at 43.5M per mm² compared to 23.5M per mm² for the T600.

The most significant functional difference is the inclusion of hardware ray tracing and tensor cores in the RTX A400. The A400 has 6 RT cores and 24 tensor cores, while the T600 has none. This is a generational leap, not just a clock speed bump. The T600's compute is handled purely by its 640 shading units, while the A400 has 768 shading units, but it also dedicates silicon to these specialized cores.

Clock speeds also differ substantially. The T600 has a base clock of 735 MHz and a boost clock of 1335 MHz. The RTX A400 runs much higher, with a base of 1417 MHz and a boost of 1762 MHz. This higher clock speed partially compensates for the A400's narrower memory bus and fewer texture units, but it cannot fully overcome the T600's advantage in those areas.

The memory configuration is also different. The T600 uses a 128-bit memory bus, while the RTX A400 uses a 64-bit bus. Although both have 4 GB of GDDR6 memory, the T600's wider bus gives it a significant bandwidth advantage: 160.0 GB/s versus the A400's 96.00 GB/s. The A400's effective memory speed is higher (12 Gbps vs 10 Gbps), but the narrower bus limits total throughput.

The FP32 compute output favors the A400. It delivers 2.706 TFLOPS, while the T600 delivers 1.709 TFLOPS. The FP16 comparison is more nuanced: the T600 achieves 3.418 TFLOPS using a 2:1 ratio, while the A400 achieves 2.706 TFLOPS at a 1:1 ratio. The A400's ray tracing and tensor core support is not reflected in these traditional compute metrics but is a major architectural difference.

Specification Differences

The two cards diverge on several key specification fields. The process node is different: 12 nm for the T600 versus 8 nm for the RTX A400. The foundry also differs, with TSMC producing the T600 and Samsung producing the A400. Transistor count is nearly double on the A400 (8,700 million vs 4,700 million), while the die size is identical at 200 mm².

Clock speeds are higher on the A400, with a base clock of 1417 MHz and boost of 1762 MHz, compared to the T600's 735 MHz base and 1335 MHz boost. The memory bus width is a major difference: 128 bit on the T600 versus 64 bit on the A400, leading to a bandwidth advantage for the T600 (160.0 GB/s vs 96.00 GB/s).

Core counts vary: the T600 has 640 shading units, 40 TMUs, and 32 ROPs, while the A400 has 768 shading units, 24 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. The A400 adds 6 RT cores and 24 tensor cores, which the T600 lacks entirely. Pixel rate is higher on the T600 at 42.72 GPixel/s versus 28.19 GPixel/s, and texture rate is also higher at 53.40 GTexel/s versus 42.29 GTexel/s.

The TDP is lower on the T600 at 40 W, while the A400 requires 50 W. The suggested PSU is 200 W for the T600 and 250 W for the A400. The bus interface differs: PCIe 3.0 x16 on the T600 versus PCIe 4.0 x8 on the A400. The A400 has a listed physical length of 163 mm, while the T600's dimensions are not recorded.

DirectX support differs, with the T600 supporting DirectX 12 (12_1) and the A400 supporting DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2). Release dates are also far apart: the T600 was released in April 2021 and is now end-of-life, while the A400 was released in April 2024 and is still active. The T600's predecessor is Quadro Volta, and its successor is Workstation Ampere. The A400's predecessor is Quadro Turing, and its successor is Workstation Ada.

The Verdict

The data presents a clear, if counterintuitive, verdict for different use cases. If the priority is raw legacy performance, general 3D rendering, or OpenCL compute, the NVIDIA T600 is the better choice. It leads in Geekbench OpenCL by 22%, in Geekbench Vulkan by 15%, in Passmark DirectX 9 by 31%, in Passmark DirectX 11 by 32.4%, and in Passmark G3D by 8.3%. Its higher pixel rate (42.72 GPixel/s vs 28.19 GPixel/s), texture rate (53.40 GTexel/s vs 42.29 GTexel/s), and memory bandwidth (160.0 GB/s vs 96.00 GB/s) make it a stronger candidate for traditional rasterization workloads.

However, the RTX A400 is not obsolete. It wins in Passmark DirectX 12 with a 7.4% margin, which is the most modern and forward-looking API in the benchmark suite. It also wins in Passmark G2D by 15.9%, indicating better 2D and interface rendering performance. Its Passmark GPU Compute win by 6.1% shows it is competitive in compute tasks, and its higher FP32 throughput (2.706 TFLOPS vs 1.709 TFLOPS) suggests it is better suited for compute-heavy applications that can leverage its architecture. The inclusion of RT cores and tensor cores, while not directly benchmarked here, is a hardware feature the T600 completely lacks.

The production status is also a factor. The T600 is end-of-life, while the A400 is active, meaning the A400 is the more future-proof option from a support and availability standpoint. The A400 also has a higher suggested PSU requirement (250 W vs 200 W), but both are low-power, single-slot cards.

Where Each One Wins

NVIDIA T600 Wins:

• Legacy DirectX: Dominates in DirectX 9 (114 vs 87) and DirectX 11 (49 vs 37), making it the better choice for older software and applications that have not migrated to modern APIs.
• General 3D Performance: Wins the Passmark G3D test (6479 vs 5983), indicating stronger overall graphics rendering capability.
• Compute APIs: Leads in Geekbench OpenCL (27875 vs 22844) and Geekbench Vulkan (25580 vs 22237), suggesting better performance in general-purpose GPU compute tasks.
• Memory Bandwidth: With a 128-bit bus and 160.0 GB/s bandwidth, it has a 66% bandwidth advantage over the A400, which is critical for texture-heavy workloads.

NVIDIA RTX A400 Wins:

• Modern Graphics API: Takes Passmark DirectX 12 (27 vs 25), showing an edge in the most current DirectX iteration.
• 2D and Interface Rendering: Wins Passmark G2D (899 vs 756), indicating smoother desktop, window, and 2D application rendering.
• Compute Shading: Wins Passmark GPU Compute (2557 vs 2402), and its higher FP32 rate (2.706 TFLOPS) supports this, making it a better fit for compute-oriented tasks.
• Future-Proofing: As an active product with newer architecture, it is positioned for ongoing software support and driver optimization, and it includes RT and tensor cores for ray tracing and AI workloads, capabilities the T600 lacks entirely.