NVIDIA T400 vs NVIDIA Tesla K10 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data contains one direct comparison between the NVIDIA T400 and the NVIDIA Tesla K10: the Geekbench OpenCL test. In this benchmark, the T400 delivers a score of 17,039, while the Tesla K10 scores 14,029. This represents a 21.5% advantage for the T400, a substantial margin that reflects significant architectural progress rather than a marginal clock-for-clock improvement.

Contextualizing the T400's score, the database places it at the 60th percentile among all GPUs. Its nearest rivals include the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5090 D V2 with an average score of 16,504 (a 0% delta), the AMD Radeon PRO W7500 at 16,415 (0.6% behind), and the NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell at 16,408 (0.6% behind). The T400's average benchmark score is 16,508, which means it sits in a tightly contested band where the top performers are separated by less than 1%. This clustering suggests the T400 is operating at a performance level comparable to much larger and more expensive workstation and enthusiast cards, at least in this specific compute workload.

For the Tesla K10, the percentile ranking is 55th, with an average benchmark score of 14,029. Its nearest rivals are the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 680 (average score 14,150, which is 0.9% higher), the AMD Radeon RX 570X (13,871, 1.1% lower), the NVIDIA RTX A2000 Mobile (13,821, 1.5% lower), and the AMD Radeon 660M (13,812, 1.6% lower). The K10 is thus positioned in a lower performance tier, competing with mid-range mobile and older desktop parts, rather than the high-end workstation segment where the T400 finds itself.

The single head-to-head result is unambiguous: the T400 wins the only benchmark recorded for both products. The 21.5% delta is not a narrow victory; it is a clear generational gap. The T400's OpenCL score is closer to the RTX 5090 D V2 and RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell than it is to the K10, despite those cards belonging to vastly different market segments. This indicates that raw compute throughput, as measured by OpenCL, is not the differentiator one might expect from the K10's larger memory bus and higher transistor count.

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide between these two GPUs spans a decade of NVIDIA design philosophy. The T400 is built on the Turing architecture using the TU117 chip, fabricated on a 12 nm process at TSMC. The Tesla K10 is a Kepler-generation part using the GK104 chip, also from TSMC but on a 28 nm process. The process node difference is stark: 12 nm versus 28 nm, which directly impacts transistor density. The T400 packs 4,700 million transistors into a 200 mm² die, yielding a density of 23.5 million transistors per mm². The K10 contains 3,540 million transistors on a larger 294 mm² die, resulting in only 12.0 million transistors per mm². The T400 achieves nearly double the transistor density on a smaller physical footprint.

Memory architecture also differs fundamentally. The T400 uses 2 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 64-bit bus, delivering 80.00 GB/s of bandwidth. The K10 offers 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, achieving 160.0 GB/s. While the K10 has twice the capacity and twice the bandwidth, the memory clock rates are telling: the T400 runs at 1250 MHz with 10 Gbps effective speed, while the K10 also runs at 1250 MHz but only achieves 5 Gbps effective. The GDDR6 standard on the T400 delivers the same clock frequency with double the data rate.

Compute resources show a similar inversion. The T400 has 384 shading units, 24 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 16 render output units (ROPs). The K10 has 1,536 shading units, 128 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. On paper, the K10 has four times the shader count and TMUs, and twice the ROPs. However, the T400's newer architecture delivers higher efficiency per shader. The pixel rate for the T400 is 22.80 GPixel/s versus 23.84 GPixel/s for the K10, nearly identical despite the K10's ROP advantage. The texture rate tells a different story: the K10 achieves 95.36 GTexel/s against the T400's 34.20 GTexel/s, a 2.8x advantage for the older card.

Floating-point performance shows the T400's efficiency. The T400 delivers 1,094.4 GFLOPS of FP32 compute, while also supporting FP16 at 2.189 TFLOPS with a 2:1 ratio. The K10 reaches 2.289 TFLOPS of FP32, which is roughly double the T400. However, the K10 has no recorded FP16 capability, meaning it cannot handle mixed-precision workloads that the T400 can process natively. The TDP figures reflect this efficiency gap: the T400 draws 30 W, while the K10 draws 225 W, a 7.5x difference. The T400 requires no external power connectors and a suggested 200 W power supply; the K10 needs a 6-pin and an 8-pin connector plus a 550 W power supply.

API support also separates the two. The T400 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The K10 supports DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.175. The T400's higher DirectX feature level and newer Vulkan version indicate support for modern rendering features that the K10 cannot access. Physically, the T400 is a single-slot card with three mini-DisplayPort 1.4a outputs, while the K10 is dual-slot with no display outputs, reflecting its compute-focused Tesla lineage.

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data shows the T400 winning the only recorded test, but the architectural differences suggest distinct use cases where each card might excel. The T400's strength lies in efficiency and modern feature support. Its 30 W TDP, single-slot form factor, and lack of external power connectors make it suitable for low-power workstations or embedded systems where space and thermal output are constrained. Its display outputs allow it to drive up to three monitors, making it a viable option for professional desktop environments. The Vulkan 1.4 and DirectX 12_1 support mean it can handle contemporary graphics APIs, and its FP16 capability opens up workloads in machine learning inference or image processing that benefit from reduced precision.

The Tesla K10, despite losing the OpenCL benchmark, retains advantages in specific areas. Its 4 GB of memory is double the T400's capacity, which matters for datasets that exceed 2 GB. Its 160.0 GB/s bandwidth is double the T400's, which can benefit memory-bound operations that stream large contiguous blocks of data. The texture rate of 95.36 GTexel/s is nearly three times higher, making the K10 potentially faster for texel-heavy workloads such as certain types of texture filtering or convolution operations. The FP32 throughput of 2.289 TFLOPS is more than double the T400's, so pure single-precision compute tasks that do not require modern API features could run faster on the K10.

However, the recorded benchmark contradicts the raw specification advantage. The K10's higher shader count and FP32 throughput did not translate to a higher OpenCL score. This suggests that the Kepler architecture's compute efficiency is significantly lower than Turing's, likely due to scheduling overhead, memory latency, or driver optimization. The T400's 21.5% win in OpenCL, despite having a quarter of the shading units and half the FP32 capability, indicates that architectural efficiency trumps raw resource counts in this workload.

For practical use, the T400 wins in any scenario where power consumption, physical size, modern API support, or display output is a priority. The K10 wins only in scenarios that specifically require its larger memory capacity or higher bandwidth, and even then only if the workload does not rely on the OpenCL performance measured in the database. The K10's lack of display outputs and high power draw make it unsuitable for desktop use, while the T400 is a drop-in solution for standard workstation slots.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA T400 has an average benchmark score of 16,508, compared to the NVIDIA Tesla K10's 14,029. The T400 also sits at the 60th percentile among all GPUs, while the K10 is at the 55th percentile.

Q: How much faster is the T400 in the Geekbench OpenCL test?

A: The T400 scores 17,039 versus the K10's 14,029, a 21.5% advantage. This is the only benchmark where both cards were directly compared.

Q: What are the memory differences between the two cards?

A: The T400 has 2 GB of GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus with 80.00 GB/s bandwidth. The K10 has 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus with 160.0 GB/s bandwidth. The K10 has double the capacity and bandwidth, but the T400's GDDR6 runs at 10 Gbps effective versus 5 Gbps for the K10's GDDR5.

Q: Which card requires more power?

A: The Tesla K10 has a 225 W TDP and requires a 550 W power supply with one 6-pin and one 8-pin power connector. The T400 has a 30 W TDP, requires no power connectors, and suggests a 200 W power supply.

Q: Can either card output to displays?

A: The T400 has three mini-DisplayPort 1.4a outputs. The Tesla K10 has no display outputs, making it a compute-only card.

Q: What is the architecture generation difference?

A: The T400 is based on the Turing architecture (TU117 chip) on a 12 nm process. The K10 is based on the Kepler architecture (GK104 chip) on a 28 nm process. Both are end-of-life products, with the T400 released in 2021 and the K10 in 2012.

Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA T400 | NVIDIA Tesla K10 |

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

| Architecture | Turing | Kepler |

| Process Node | 12 nm | 28 nm |

| Transistors | 4,700 million | 3,540 million |

| Die Size | 200 mm² | 294 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 23.5M / mm² | 12.0M / mm² |

| Memory Size | 2 GB | 4 GB |

| Memory Type | GDDR6 | GDDR5 |

| Memory Bus Width | 64 bit | 256 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 80.00 GB/s | 160.0 GB/s |

| Effective Memory Speed | 10 Gbps | 5 Gbps |

| Shading Units | 384 | 1,536 |

| TMUs | 24 | 128 |

| ROPs | 16 | 32 |

| FP32 Performance | 1,094.4 GFLOPS | 2.289 TFLOPS |

| FP16 Performance | 2.189 TFLOPS (2:1) | Not available |

| Pixel Rate | 22.80 GPixel/s | 23.84 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 34.20 GTexel/s | 95.36 GTexel/s |

| TDP | 30 W | 225 W |

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

| Power Connectors | None | 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin |

| Suggested PSU | 200 W | 550 W |

| Display Outputs | 3x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a | No outputs |

| DirectX Support | 12 (12_1) | 12 (11_0) |

| Vulkan Support | 1.4 | 1.2.175 |

| Release Date | 2021-05-05 | 2012-04-30 |

| Launch MSRP | Not recorded | 5,099 USD |

| Predecessor | Quadro Volta | Tesla Fermi |

| Successor | Workstation Ampere | Tesla Maxwell |