
T400
Popular choices:

GeForce RTX 3060
Popular choices:
Performance Spectrum - GPU
About G3D Mark
G3D Mark is a standard benchmark that measures graphics performance in real-world gaming scenarios. It simplifies comparing cards from different brands, where higher scores directly correlate with better fps and smoother gaming experiences.
Value Upgrade Path
This is the official ChipVERSUS Value Rating, comparing raw performance (G3D Mark) per dollar. The T400 is positioned at rank #80 in our cost-efficiency ranking, representing a Balanced cost-benefit for your build. Components placed above yours deliver better value for money.
Avg price is the current average price collected from markets across the web.
Performance Per Dollar T400
Performance Per Dollar GeForce RTX 3060
Performance Comparison
About G3D Mark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
🚀 Performance Leadership
The GeForce RTX 3060 is the superior choice for raw performance. It leads with a 370.9% higher G3D Mark score and 200% more VRAM (12 GB vs 4 GB). This advantage makes it significantly better for higher resolutions (1440p/4K) and graphic-intensive titles compared to the T400.
| Insight | T400 | GeForce RTX 3060 |
|---|---|---|
| Performance | ❌Lower raw frame rates (-370.9%) | ✅Leading raw performance (+370.9%) |
| Longevity | Turing (2018−2022) (12nm) | 🔮Strong Longevity (Ampere / 8nm) |
| Ecosystem | Supports FSR Upscaling | ✨ DLSS 2 Upscaling |
| VRAM | ❌ Less VRAM capacity | 🎮 High Capacity (12 GB) |
| Efficiency | 💡 Excellent Perf/Watt | ⚡ Higher Power Consumption |
| Case Fit | — | 📏 Compact / SFF Friendly |
💎 Value Proposition
The GeForce RTX 3060 offers a compelling cost-to-performance ratio. Although it costs $289 (vs $179), its significant performance lead justifies the premium, offering 191.7% better value per dollar than the T400.
| Insight | T400 | GeForce RTX 3060 |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ❌Lower cost efficiency | ✅Better overall value (+191.7%) |
| Upfront Cost | ✅More affordable ($179) | ⚠️Higher upfront cost ($289) |
Performance Check
Real-world benchmarks and performance projections based on comprehensive hardware analysis and comparative metrics. Values represent expected performance on High/Ultra settings at 1080p, 1440p, and 4K. Modeled using a Ryzen 7 7800X3D reference profile to minimize specific CPU bottlenecks.
Note: Performance behavior can vary per game. Specific architectures may perform better or worse depending on game engine optimizations and API implementation.
Technical Specifications
Side-by-side comparison of T400 and GeForce RTX 3060
T400
The T400 is manufactured by an unknown manufacturer. It was released in May 6 2021. It features the Turing architecture. The core clock ranges from 420 MHz to 1425 MHz. It has 384 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 30W. Manufactured using 12 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 3,609 points.

GeForce RTX 3060
The GeForce RTX 3060 is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in January 12 2021. It features the Ampere architecture. The core clock ranges from 1320 MHz to 1777 MHz. It has 3584 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 170W. Manufactured using 8 nm process technology. It features 28 dedicated ray tracing cores for enhanced lighting effects. G3D Mark benchmark score: 16,995 points. Launch price was $329.
Graphics Performance
In G3D Mark, the T400 scores 3,609 versus the GeForce RTX 3060's 16,995 — the GeForce RTX 3060 leads by 370.9%. The T400 is built on Turing while the GeForce RTX 3060 uses Ampere, both on 12 nm vs 8 nm. Shader units: 384 (T400) vs 3,584 (GeForce RTX 3060). Raw compute: 1.094 TFLOPS (T400) vs 12.74 TFLOPS (GeForce RTX 3060). Boost clocks: 1425 MHz vs 1777 MHz.
| Feature | T400 | GeForce RTX 3060 |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 3,609 | 16,995+371% |
| Architecture | Turing | Ampere |
| Process Node | 12 nm | 8 nm |
| Shading Units | 384 | 3584+833% |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 1.094 TFLOPS | 12.74 TFLOPS+1065% |
| Boost Clock | 1425 MHz | 1777 MHz+25% |
| ROPs | 16 | 48+200% |
| TMUs | 24 | 112+367% |
| L1 Cache | 0.38 MB | 3.5 MB+821% |
| L2 Cache | 1 MB | 3 MB+200% |
Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)
| Feature | T400 | GeForce RTX 3060 |
|---|---|---|
| Upscaling Tech | FSR 1.0 (Software) | DLSS 2.0 |
| Frame Generation | Not Supported | FSR 3 / AFMF (Compatible) |
| Ray Reconstruction | No | No |
| Low Latency | Standard | NVIDIA Reflex |
Video Memory (VRAM)
The T400 comes with 4 GB of VRAM, while the GeForce RTX 3060 has 12 GB. The GeForce RTX 3060 offers 200% more capacity, crucial for higher resolutions and texture-heavy games. Bus width: 64-bit vs 192-bit. L2 Cache: 1 MB (T400) vs 3 MB (GeForce RTX 3060) — the GeForce RTX 3060 has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.
| Feature | T400 | GeForce RTX 3060 |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 4 GB | 12 GB+200% |
| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR6 |
| Bus Width | 64-bit | 192-bit+200% |
| L2 Cache | 1 MB | 3 MB+200% |
Power & Dimensions
The T400 draws 30W versus the GeForce RTX 3060's 170W — a 140% difference. The T400 is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 350W (T400) vs 550W (GeForce RTX 3060). Power connectors: PCIe-powered vs 8-pin.
| Feature | T400 | GeForce RTX 3060 |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 30W-82% | 170W |
| Recommended PSU | 350W-36% | 550W |
| Power Connector | PCIe-powered | 8-pin |
| Length | — | 242mm |
| Height | — | 112mm |
| Slots | — | 2 |
| Temp (Load) | — | 75 |
| Perf/Watt | 120.3+20% | 100.0 |
Value Analysis
The T400 launched at $180 MSRP and currently averages $179, while the GeForce RTX 3060 launched at $329 and now averages $289. The T400 costs 38.1% less ($110 savings) at current market prices. Performance per dollar (G3D Mark / price): 20.2 (T400) vs 58.8 (GeForce RTX 3060) — the GeForce RTX 3060 offers 191.1% better value.
| Feature | T400 | GeForce RTX 3060 |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $180-45% | $329 |
| Avg Price (30d) | $179-38% | $289 |
| Performance per Dollar | 20.2 | 58.8+191% |
| Codename | TU117 | GA106 |
| Release | May 6 2021 | January 12 2021 |
| Ranking | #532 | #114 |
Top Performing GPUs
The most powerful gpus ranked by G3D Mark benchmark scores.

















