NVIDIA T400 vs NVIDIA Tesla K80 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a clear overall win for the NVIDIA Tesla K80 in both benchmark tests. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the K80 scored 18620, while the T400 scored 17039, giving the K80 a 9.3% advantage. The gap widens considerably in the Geekbench Vulkan test, where the K80 scores 19111 versus the T400's 15976, a 19.6% lead for the older card.

The average benchmark score across both tests lands at 18866 for the K80, compared to 16508 for the T400. That is a raw difference of over 2300 points, which translates into a meaningful performance tier separation. The K80's nearest rivals include the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2070 (avg score 18789, delta 0.4%), the RTX 2000 Ada Generation (18954, delta -0.5%), and the Quadro K6000 (19030, delta -0.9%). Meanwhile, the T400 sits in a lower bracket, with its closest competitors being the GeForce RTX 5090 D V2 (16504, delta 0%), the Radeon PRO W7500 (16415, delta 0.6%), and the RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell (16408, delta 0.6%).

The Vulkan result is particularly telling. A 19.6% margin in that test indicates that the K80's architecture handles the driver overhead and command processing better than the T400, despite the T400 being a much newer design. The K80 also lands in the 63rd percentile of all GPUs in the database, while the T400 sits at the 60th percentile. That 3-percentile gap might sound small, but it places the two cards in different performance neighborhoods once the full GPU population is considered.

The K80 wins both head-to-head matchups, so the overall wins tally stands at 2 for the K80 and 0 for the T400. This is not a close contest in aggregate, though the OpenCL test shows that the T400 can at least stay within striking distance. A 9.3% deficit in OpenCL is recoverable in some workloads, but the Vulkan gap is not.

Architecture Differences

The K80 uses the GK210 chip on the Kepler 2.0 architecture, built on a 28 nm process at TSMC. The T400 uses the TU117 chip on the Turing architecture, built on a 12 nm process, also at TSMC. The node shrink gives the T400 a transistor density of 23.5M per mm², versus 12.7M per mm² for the K80. However, the K80 compensates with sheer scale: it packs 7,100 million transistors on a 561 mm² die, while the T400 has 4,700 million transistors on a 200 mm² die.

The K80 is fundamentally a compute-oriented part. It carries 2496 shading units, 208 texture mapping units, and 48 ROPs. The T400 is far smaller: 384 shading units, 24 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. Those numbers explain why the K80 produces a pixel rate of 42.85 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 171.4 GTexel/s, while the T400 manages 22.80 GPixel/s and 34.20 GTexel/s. The FP32 compute rating tells the same story: 4.113 TFLOPS for the K80 versus 1,094.4 GFLOPS (about 1.09 TFLOPS) for the T400.

Clock behavior differs sharply. The K80 runs a 562 MHz base clock and a 824 MHz boost clock. The T400 runs a 420 MHz base clock but boosts to 1425 MHz. The T400's higher boost clock helps it in lightly threaded or short-duration workloads, but the K80's massive parallel resources overwhelm that clock advantage in sustained compute tasks. The T400 also has an FP16 rating of 2.189 TFLOPS (2:1), while the K80 has no recorded FP16 capability.

Memory configurations are completely different in purpose. The K80 has 12 GB of GDDR5 on a 384-bit bus, delivering 240.6 GB/s of bandwidth. The T400 has 2 GB of GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus, delivering 80.00 GB/s. The K80's memory clock is 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective), while the T400's is 1250 MHz (10 Gbps effective). The T400's newer memory type gives it a higher effective data rate per pin, but the K80's six times wider bus leaves it with three times the total bandwidth.

API support also differs. The K80 supports DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.175. The T400 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The T400's Vulkan 1.4 support is newer, but the benchmark data shows that does not translate into a performance win in this comparison.

Where Each One Wins

The K80 wins decisively in raw compute throughput. Its FP32 rating of 4.113 TFLOPS is nearly four times the T400's 1,094.4 GFLOPS. That makes the K80 the obvious choice for workloads that scale with shading units and texture throughput, such as simulation, rendering, or any CUDA-heavy task that can use 2496 cores. The K80's 240.6 GB/s of memory bandwidth also gives it a major edge for data-intensive workloads. With 12 GB of VRAM, it can hold far larger datasets in memory than the T400's 2 GB. The 384-bit bus and 48 ROPs translate directly into a pixel rate of 42.85 GPixel/s, which means the K80 handles high-resolution framebuffer operations far faster.

The T400's wins are more subtle. Its 1425 MHz boost clock is almost double the K80's 824 MHz boost clock. In single-threaded or latency-sensitive tasks, that clock advantage can matter. The T400 also has a much lower power draw: 30 W versus 300 W. That makes it feasible in systems with a 200 W suggested PSU, while the K80 needs a 700 W unit. The T400 is a single-slot card with no power connectors, while the K80 is dual-slot and requires one 8-pin connector. The T400 also has display outputs (3x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a), while the K80 has no outputs at all. For a workstation that needs to drive monitors, the T400 is the only one of the two that can do it directly.

The T400's FP16 capability of 2.189 TFLOPS (2:1) is also notable. The K80 has no recorded FP16 throughput, so any workload relying on half-precision math would have to run on the T400 or not at all. The T400's Vulkan 1.4 support is newer, though the benchmark results show the K80 still wins in the Vulkan test by a wide margin.

FAQ

Q: Which card has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA Tesla K80 has an average benchmark score of 18866, while the NVIDIA T400 has an average score of 16508.

Q: How much faster is the K80 in the Vulkan benchmark?

A: The K80 scores 19111 in Geekbench Vulkan, while the T400 scores 15976. That is a 19.6% lead for the K80.

Q: Does the T400 have any advantage in memory bandwidth?

A: No. The K80 delivers 240.6 GB/s of bandwidth, while the T400 delivers 80.00 GB/s. The T400 uses GDDR6 memory, but its 64-bit bus severely limits total throughput.

Q: Can the T400 be used for display output?

A: Yes. The T400 has 3x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a outputs. The K80 has no display outputs, so it requires a separate graphics card for any visual output.

Q: What is the power consumption difference?

A: The K80 has a TDP of 300 W and requires a 700 W suggested PSU with one 8-pin power connector. The T400 has a TDP of 30 W, requires only a 200 W suggested PSU, and needs no power connectors.

Q: Which card has a higher transistor density?

A: The T400 has a transistor density of 23.5M per mm², while the K80 has 12.7M per mm². The T400 is built on a 12 nm process, versus 28 nm for the K80.

The Verdict

The data points to two very different tools for two very different jobs. The NVIDIA Tesla K80 is the clear performance winner in every recorded benchmark. It takes the OpenCL test by 9.3% and the Vulkan test by 19.6%. Its average score of 18866 places it in the 63rd percentile of all GPUs, and it trades blows with the RTX 2070 and RTX 2000 Ada Generation in the database. If the workload is compute-heavy, memory-bandwidth-hungry, or needs more than 2 GB of VRAM, the K80 is the only sensible choice.

The T400 is not a performance competitor to the K80 in any measured test. Its 60th percentile ranking and 16508 average score put it in a lower tier. However, the T400 is a different class of product physically: 30 W, single-slot, no power connectors, and display outputs. It can be dropped into a low-power workstation or a machine that already has a primary GPU and just needs a secondary card for light tasks or monitor output. The K80 cannot do that at all, since it has no display outputs and requires a 700 W PSU.

For someone building a compute node where raw throughput is the only metric, the K80 wins outright. For someone needing a low-profile, low-power card that can drive three monitors and handle light CUDA or FP16 workloads, the T400 is the practical pick. The benchmark data does not support choosing the T400 for raw performance, but it does support choosing it for physical footprint and power constraints. The K80's 2-to-0 head-to-head win tally is the final word on performance; the T400's 30 W TDP and single-slot design are the final word on practicality.

Specification Differences

| Field | NVIDIA Tesla K80 | NVIDIA T400 |

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

| Chip | GK210 | TU117 |

| Architecture | Kepler 2.0 | Turing |

| Generation | Tesla Kepler (Kxx) | Quadro Turing (Tx000) |

| Process Node | 28 nm | 12 nm |

| Foundry | TSMC | TSMC |

| Transistors | 7,100 million | 4,700 million |

| Die Size | 561 mm² | 200 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 12.7M / mm² | 23.5M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 562 MHz | 420 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 824 MHz | 1425 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 1253 MHz, 5 Gbps effective | 1250 MHz, 10 Gbps effective |

| Memory Size | 12 GB | 2 GB |

| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR6 |

| Memory Bus Width | 384 bit | 64 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 240.6 GB/s | 80.00 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 2496 | 384 |

| TMUs | 208 | 24 |

| ROPs | 48 | 16 |

| Pixel Rate | 42.85 GPixel/s | 22.80 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 171.4 GTexel/s | 34.20 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 4.113 TFLOPS | 1,094.4 GFLOPS |

| FP16 | None | 2.189 TFLOPS (2:1) |

| TDP | 300 W | 30 W |

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

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

| Suggested PSU | 700 W | 200 W |

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

| DirectX | 12 (11_1) | 12 (12_1) |

| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |

| Vulkan | 1.2.175 | 1.4 |

| Release Date | 2014-11-16 | 2021-05-05 |

| Predecessor | Tesla Fermi | Quadro Volta |

| Successor | Tesla Maxwell | Workstation Ampere |