T400 vs UHD Graphics (Jasper Lake 16 EU)
Aggregate performance score
We've compared UHD Graphics (Jasper Lake 16 EU) with T400, including specs and performance data.
T400 outperforms Graphics (Jasper Lake 16 EU) by a whopping 585% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Contents
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 1074 | 532 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 9.68 | 22.09 |
| Architecture | Gen. 11 (2021) | Turing (2018−2022) |
| GPU code name | Gen. 11 | TU117 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Workstation |
| Release date | 11 January 2021 (4 years ago) | 6 May 2021 (4 years ago) |
Detailed specifications
General parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 24 | 384 |
| Core clock speed | 350 MHz | 420 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 800 MHz | 1425 MHz |
| Number of transistors | no data | 4,700 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 10 nm | 12 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 4.8 - 10 Watt | 30 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | no data | 34.20 |
| Floating-point processing power | no data | 1.094 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | no data | 16 |
| TMUs | no data | 24 |
| L1 Cache | no data | 384 KB |
| L2 Cache | no data | 1024 KB |
Form factor & compatibility
Information on compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For desktop graphics cards it's interface and bus (motherboard compatibility), additional power connectors (power supply compatibility).
| Interface | no data | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Width | no data | 1-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | None |
VRAM capacity and type
Parameters of VRAM installed: its type, size, bus, clock and resulting bandwidth. Integrated GPUs have no dedicated video RAM and use a shared part of system RAM.
| Memory type | no data | GDDR6 |
| Maximum RAM amount | no data | 2 GB |
| Memory bus width | no data | 64 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | no data | 1250 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | no data | 80 GB/s |
| Shared memory | + | - |
Connectivity and outputs
This section shows the types and number of video connectors on each GPU. The data applies specifically to desktop reference models (for example, NVIDIA’s Founders Edition). OEM partners often modify both the number and types of ports. On notebook GPUs, video‐output options are determined by the laptop’s design rather than the graphics chip itself.
| Display Connectors | no data | 3x mini-DisplayPort |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| Quick Sync | + | no data |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12_1 | 12 (12_1) |
| Shader Model | no data | 6.6 |
| OpenGL | no data | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | no data | 3.0 |
| Vulkan | - | 1.2 |
| CUDA | - | 7.5 |
Gaming performance
Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.
Average FPS across all PC games
Here are the average frames per second in a large set of popular games across different resolutions:
| Full HD | 8
−525%
| 50−55
+525%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−500%
|
18−20
+500%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2
−500%
|
6−7
+500%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−500%
|
18−20
+500%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 3−4
−500%
|
18−20
+500%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 3−4
−500%
|
18−20
+500%
|
| Fortnite | 3−4
−500%
|
18−20
+500%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 8−9
−525%
|
50−55
+525%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 1−2
−500%
|
6−7
+500%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
−567%
|
60−65
+567%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
−567%
|
220−230
+567%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2
−500%
|
6−7
+500%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 18
−567%
|
120−130
+567%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−500%
|
18−20
+500%
|
| Dota 2 | 12
−567%
|
80−85
+567%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 3−4
−500%
|
18−20
+500%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 3−4
−500%
|
18−20
+500%
|
| Fortnite | 3−4
−500%
|
18−20
+500%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 8−9
−525%
|
50−55
+525%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 1−2
−500%
|
6−7
+500%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 3
−500%
|
18−20
+500%
|
| Metro Exodus | 2−3
−500%
|
12−14
+500%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
−567%
|
60−65
+567%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 7−8
−543%
|
45−50
+543%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
−567%
|
220−230
+567%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2
−500%
|
6−7
+500%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−500%
|
18−20
+500%
|
| Dota 2 | 11
−582%
|
75−80
+582%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 3−4
−500%
|
18−20
+500%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 3−4
−500%
|
18−20
+500%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 8−9
−525%
|
50−55
+525%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
−567%
|
60−65
+567%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 7−8
−543%
|
45−50
+543%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
−567%
|
220−230
+567%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 3−4
−500%
|
18−20
+500%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 4−5
−575%
|
27−30
+575%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 8−9
−525%
|
50−55
+525%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 12−14
−554%
|
85−90
+554%
|
| Valorant | 4−5
−575%
|
27−30
+575%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Escape from Tarkov | 3−4
−500%
|
18−20
+500%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2
−500%
|
6−7
+500%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 3−4
−500%
|
18−20
+500%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 2−3
−500%
|
12−14
+500%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 2−3
−500%
|
12−14
+500%
|
4K
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
−579%
|
95−100
+579%
|
| Valorant | 6−7
−567%
|
40−45
+567%
|
4K
Ultra
| Dota 2 | 1−2
−500%
|
6−7
+500%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 2−3
−500%
|
12−14
+500%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 2−3
−500%
|
12−14
+500%
|
This is how UHD Graphics (Jasper Lake 16 EU) and T400 compete in popular games:
- T400 is 525% faster in 1080p
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 1.26 | 8.63 |
| Recency | 11 January 2021 | 6 May 2021 |
| Chip lithography | 10 nm | 12 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 4 Watt | 30 Watt |
UHD Graphics (Jasper Lake 16 EU) has a 20% more advanced lithography process, and 650% lower power consumption.
T400, on the other hand, has a 584.9% higher aggregate performance score, and an age advantage of 3 months.
The T400 is our recommended choice as it beats the UHD Graphics (Jasper Lake 16 EU) in performance tests.
Be aware that UHD Graphics (Jasper Lake 16 EU) is a notebook graphics card while T400 is a workstation one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
