AMD Radeon RX 5500 XT vs NVIDIA T400 Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark results in this comparison are decisively one-sided. The AMD Radeon RX 5500 XT wins both recorded head-to-head tests, leaving the NVIDIA T400 without a single victory in the two shared workloads. This is not a close contest by any measure, and the data indicates that these two cards serve completely different purposes in a system build.

The NVIDIA T400 is the clear choice for anyone who needs a low-profile, low-power video output solution for office workstations or multi-monitor setups. Its 30 W TDP, single-slot design, and lack of any external power connectors make it a drop-in solution for pre-built systems or machines with minimal power headroom. The T400 has no gaming ambitions; it is a workstation card from the Quadro line, and its benchmark scores reflect that position.

The AMD Radeon RX 5500 XT is a full-fledged consumer graphics card. It wins on every recorded metric, and its benchmark scores place it in a higher performance tier entirely. The data shows a 175% advantage in Geekbench OpenCL and a 176.6% advantage in Geekbench Vulkan. For anyone who intends to run games, do GPU-accelerated rendering, or push compute workloads, the 5500 XT is the clear selection. Its Radeon RX 5000 series lineage and its 4 GB of memory versus the T400’s 2 GB further cement its role as a card that can actually process data rather than just output screens.

Where each card wins is really a question of use case, not performance. The T400 wins on efficiency, size, and installation simplicity. The 5500 XT wins on every benchmark, memory capacity, and raw compute throughput. If the workload is basic desktop rendering, the T400 is sufficient. If the workload involves games or serious compute, the 5500 XT is the only option between the two.

Architecture Differences

These two cards come from different semiconductor generations and different design philosophies. The NVIDIA T400 uses the TU117 chip, a Turing architecture part built on a 12 nm process at TSMC. The chip contains 4,700 million transistors on a 200 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 23.5M per mm². The AMD Radeon RX 5500 XT on the other hand is based on the Navi 14 chip, using the RDNA 1.0 architecture. It is built on a 7 nm process, also at TSMC, and packs 6,400 million transistors into a smaller 158 mm² die, achieving a much higher density of 40.5M per mm².

The core configurations differ substantially. The T400 has 384 shading units, 24 texture mapping units, and 16 raster output pipelines. The 5500 XT has 1408 shading units, 88 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. That is a 3.7x difference in shading units, which directly explains the massive compute advantage the AMD card enjoys. Neither card has ray tracing cores or tensor cores, so both rely on traditional shader performance.

Memory is another major divider. The T400 ships with 2 GB of GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus, yielding 80.00 GB/s of bandwidth. The 5500 XT has 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus, yielding 224.0 GB/s. This 2.8x bandwidth advantage for the AMD card is critical for any workload that moves large data sets, such as frame buffers or compute buffers.

Clock speeds also favor the AMD. The T400 runs a base clock of 420 MHz and a boost of 1425 MHz. The 5500 XT has a base of 1607 MHz, a game clock of 1717 MHz, and a boost of 1845 MHz. These are much higher frequencies, which combined with the higher core count, explain the performance gap. The AMD card also has a higher memory clock at 1750 MHz (14 Gbps effective) versus the T400’s 1250 MHz (10 Gbps effective).

The PCIe interface differs: the T400 uses PCIe 3.0 x16, while the 5500 XT uses PCIe 4.0 x8. This is relevant for older platforms, but the 5500 XT’s slower bus width could be a bottleneck in some scenarios, though the extra bandwidth per lane of PCIe 4.0 often compensates. The theoretical bandwidth is higher on the 5500 XT due to the newer standard.

Power characteristics separate them further. The T400 has a thermal design power of 30 W and requires no power connectors, with a recommended 200 W power supply. The 5500 XT has a 130 W TDP, requires a single 8-pin power connector, and calls for a 300 W power supply. This makes the T400 a plug-and-play card, while the 5500 XT demands a proper power connection and enough headroom from the supply.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded head-to-head data contains two benchmarks, both of which are Geekbench results. The first is Geekbench OpenCL. Here the AMD Radeon RX 5500 XT scores 46,965, while the NVIDIA T400 scores 17,039. The AMD is 63.7% ahead, which is a dominant margin. This test measures open compute language performance often used for general-purpose GPU compute. The 5500 XT’s higher shading unit count and memory bandwidth translate directly into a massive advantage in this workload.

The second benchmark is Geekbench Vulkan. The AMD scores 44,191, while the NVIDIA scores 15,976. The delta is again 63.8% in favor of the AMD. Vulkan is a low-level graphics API, and the result reflects the same underlying compute advantage. The T400 does not have a single win in these recorded tests, and the AMD card is roundly ahead in both.

The T400’s highest recorded benchmark score is 17,039 in Geekbench OpenCL, and its average benchmark score across all tests is 16,508. The 5500 XT’s highest recorded score is 54,842 in Geekbench Metal, and its average benchmark score is 14,692. The average is misleading because the AMD has a wider set of benchmarks recorded, including several Passmark tests that score in the hundreds or low thousands, which drag down its average. The T400 only has two recorded benchmarks, both Geekbench, so its average is naturally higher relative to a broader set.

Looking at the rival analysis, the T400’s average score of 16,508 places it near the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5090 D V2 (16,504), the AMD Radeon PRO W7500 (16,415), the NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell (16,408), and the AMD Radeon RX 5700 XT (16,361). These deltas are within 0.9% of each other, meaning the T400 matches the performance of some high-end cards in raw compute metrics, but only because those cards have not been tested in the same workloads. The 5500 XT’s average of 14,692 places it near the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 770 (14,747, 0.4% higher), the AMD Quadro M2000 (14,532, 1.1% lower), and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 965M (14,404, 2% lower). This shows the 5500 XT is in the range of older mid-range and high-end cards, but not in the same class as the T400’s rivals, which are all much more expensive and powerful products.

FAQ

Q: Which card has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA T400 has an average benchmark score of 16,508, while the AMD Radeon RX 5500 XT has an average of 14,692. The T400 is 12.4% higher, but this is due to the AMD having a broader set of benchmarks that include lower scores.

Q: How much faster is the RX 5500 XT in Geekbench OpenCL?

A: The RX 5500 XT scores 46,965 versus the T400’s 17,039, a delta of 63.7% in favor of the AMD card.

Q: Which card has more memory bandwidth?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 5500 XT has 224.0 GB/s, while the NVIDIA T400 has 80.00 GB/s. That is a 2.8x difference.

Q: Does either card support ray tracing?

A: No. Both the NVIDIA T400 and the AMD RX 5500 XT have no ray tracing cores in their specifications.

Q: What is the TDP difference between the two cards?

A: The T400 has a 30 W TDP and requires a 200 W power supply, while the 5500 XT has a 130 W TDP and requires a 300 W power supply.

Q: Which card is a better choice for a multi-monitor office setup?

A: The NVIDIA T400, with its 30 W power draw, single-slot design, and no external power connectors, is the obvious choice for a low-intensity office workstation. The RX 5500 XT is overkill and requires more power and space.

The Verdict

The data is clear: the AMD Radeon RX 5500 XT is the superior performer in every recorded benchmark. It wins both head-to-head tests and achieves dramatically higher scores in compute and graphics loads. Anyone who needs to play games, run compute tasks, or process large data sets should pick the RX 5500 XT. Its 4 GB of memory, 224.0 GB/s bandwidth, and 1408 shading units make it a real GPU, not just a display adapter.

The NVIDIA T400 is a product for a different purpose. It has a 30 W TDP, fits in a single slot, requires no power connectors, and draws so little power that a 200 W PSU suffices. It is for users who need to drive three mini-DisplayPort displays from a low-profile card without changing their system’s power budget. The T400’s benchmark score, while lower than the 5500 XT, is still a valid compute engine for light workloads, but it cannot compete in any metric that matters for gaming or heavy compute.

So the verdict is simple. If you need a card that computes, choose the RX 5500 XT. If you need a card that simply outputs video with minimal power and space, choose the NVIDIA T400. The RX 5500 XT is 63.7% faster in OpenCL and 63.8% faster in Vulkan, and it has double the memory and nearly three times the bandwidth. There is no scenario where the T400 wins on performance. The only scenario where the T400 makes sense is when performance is not the goal.

Specification Differences

The following table lists only the fields where the two differ.

| Specification | NVIDIA T400 | AMD Radeon RX 5500 XT |

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

| Chip | TU117 | Navi 14 |

| Architecture | Turing | RDNA 1.0 |

| Generation | Quadro Turing (Tx000) | Navi (RX 5000) |

| Process Node | 12 nm | 7 nm |

| Transistors | 4,700 million | 6,400 million |

| Die Size | 200 mm² | 158 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 23.5M / mm² | 40.5M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 420 MHz | 1607 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 1425 MHz | 1845 MHz |

| Game Clock | None | 1717 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 1250 MHz, 10 Gbps effective | 1750 MHz, 14 Gbps effective |

| Memory Size | 2 GB | 4 GB |

| Memory Bus Width | 64 bit | 128 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 80.00 GB/s | 224.0 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 384 | 1408 |

| TMUs | 24 | 88 |

| ROPs | 16 | 32 |

| Pixel Rate | 22.80 GPixel/s | 59.04 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 34.20 GTexel/s | 162.4 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 1,094.4 GFLOPS | 5.196 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | 2.189 TFLOPS (2:1) | 10.39 TFLOPS (2:1) |

| TDP | 30 W | 130 W |

| Slot Width | Single-slot | Dual-slot |

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

| Suggested PSU | 200 W | 300 W |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 4.0 x8 |

| Display Outputs | 3x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a | 1x HDMI 2.0b, 3x DisplayPort 1.4a |

| Length | – | 180 mm (7.1 inches) |

| Release Date | 2021-05-05 | 2019-12-11 |

| Predecessor | Quadro Volta | Vega |

| Successor | Workstation Ampere | Navi II |

| Series | – | Radeon RX 5000 series |

| Launch MSRP | – | 169 USD |

| Geekbench OpenCL | 17,039 | 46,965 |

| Geekbench Vulkan | 15,976 | 44,191 |

| Average Benchmark Score | 16,508 | 14,692 |

The table shows the AMD wins on every performance-critical spec: more cores, faster clocks, wider memory bus, higher bandwidth, and double the memory. The NVIDIA wins on power efficiency, size, and simplicity, with a single-slot design and no power connector.