another eWaste.

For $60 it could be a life saver for those looking for a modern cheap HTPC card, if it was keeping all the media decoding capabilities of the other cards. But it doesn't.

Anyway, GT 1030 competitor.

I mean, I am all for more single slot low profile cards on the market especially ones that have some decent performance at a cheap price. They can be good for cheap kids computers that can lightly game and HTPC's. It feels as though we really have not gotten much in the last years to enhance this market so I am glad to see it.

For that price there's no way to complain, I'm going to buy one and leave it in the drawer. lol

Wake me up when AMD does proper low-end card and not just gimped crap with limited PCI-E lanes and lacking HW decoding/encoding features.

These could be a fun MPT challenge for HWBOT.

waste of time, waste of money, waste of effort, should get fired for creating such a thing.

GhostRyderI mean, I am all for more single slot low profile cards on the market especially ones that have some decent performance at a cheap price. They can be good for cheap kids computers that can lightly game and HTPC's. It feels as though we really have not gotten much in the last years to enhance this market so I am glad to see it.

For HTPC work a GT 1030 or 1650 would be far superior due to AMD's missing decode and encode features. For light games, same thing, if they have anything pre rocket lake, and those on PCIe 3.0, the 1650 will be far superior and even the GT 1030 would be more consistent, if not as fast. That x4 bus and 64 bit mem bus combo is awful for performance.

TheinsanegamerNFor HTPC work a GT 1030 or 1650 would be far superior due to AMD's missing decode and encode features. For light games, same thing, if they have anything pre rocket lake, and those on PCIe 3.0, the 1650 will be far superior and even the GT 1030 would be more consistent, if not as fast. That x4 bus and 64 bit mem bus combo is awful for performance.

Oh I agree, I still would like to see performance numbers but I do feel they missed the mark with this one even at $60.

Actually not that bad, It's not a gaming card is a cheap display output card. Especially if they release a cheaper more cutdown version it would be a modern replacement for the gt710 / rx230.

The only real drawback here is a lack of av1 decoding

john_For $60 it could be a life saver for those looking for a modern cheap HTPC card, if it was keeping all the media decoding capabilities of the other cards. But it doesn't.

Anyway, GT 1030 competitor.

I got a 6400 and sucks for HTPC, no hardware decode in Kodi due to driver issue (normal with AMD), no VRR on my Samsung smart TV, limited to 8 bit, my old 1050ti didn't had those issues except VRR because back then VRR didn't exists.

GhostRyderI mean, I am all for more single slot low profile cards on the market especially ones that have some decent performance at a cheap price. They can be good for cheap kids computers that can lightly game and HTPC's. It feels as though we really have not gotten much in the last years to enhance this market so I am glad to see it.

I mentioned above about HTPC, AMD just sucks for HTPC, this card is limited to 4k 2D resolutions and that's it.

TheinsanegamerNFor HTPC work a GT 1030 or 1650 would be far superior due to AMD's missing decode and encode features. For light games, same thing, if they have anything pre rocket lake, and those on PCIe 3.0, the 1650 will be far superior and even the GT 1030 would be more consistent, if not as fast. That x4 bus and 64 bit mem bus combo is awful for performance.

Yep, AMD is a waste of money, I already miss my 1050ti in comparison to my 6400, the 6400 has slightly better performance but sucks in driver support and no VRR on my smart TV and limited to 8 bit.

My first computer in 2008 come with single slot videocard, it was able to watch movies, with good new realtek sound chip.

ReadlightMy first computer in 2008 come with single slot videocard who was able to watch movies, with good new realtek sound chip.

I was looking for single slot cards back then too, but now if you want a decent video card is dual slot and not available as low profile.

amd64skater

With inflation its, $1.25 now.

ReadlightMy first computer in 2008 come with single slot videocard, it was able to watch movies, with good new realtek sound chip.

My 1st desktop had a 8800GT single slot version in 2008.

A&P211With inflation its, $1.25 now.


My 1st desktop had a 8800GT single slot version in 2008.

Hell Had a single slot Sapphire HD3650 in 06 I get it.

Come on AMD (and nvidia). Stop releasing all these boring crappy low end cards that is almost useless for other things than a display adapter.

There are people out there in the need of a proper slot powered gpu with more than 2 or 4 gb vram. It's getting old by now with only 2 and 4 gb vram. has been the norm since gtx 1050/1050 ti was released. So some time ago now.

For people maybe looking for a descent powerful slot powered gpu with more than 4 gb vram. A used Rtx a2000 might be your only answer as that is the only slot powered card with more than 4 gb vram . I have the 6 gb vram version and it's a pretty good card. It can also do games (but a few games will suffer from unuptimized drivers for games with not working properly) and it overclocking pretty good to.

TomgangCome on AMD (and nvidia). Stop releasing all these boring crappy low end cards that is almost useless for other things than a display adapter.

There are people out there in the need of a proper slot powered gpu with more than 2 or 4 gb vram. It's getting old by now with only 2 and 4 gb vram. has been the norm since gtx 1050/1050 ti was released. So some time ago now.

For people maybe looking for a descent powerful slot powered gpu with more than 4 gb vram. A used Rtx a2000 might be your only answer as that is the only slot powered card with more than 4 gb vram . I have the 6 gb vram version and it's a pretty good card. It can also do games (but a few games will suffer from unuptimized drivers for games with not working properly) and it overclocking pretty good to.

Not to me, I won't get another AMD card in a loooooooong (hopefully never) time.

Too much issues with my 6400, I'm going back to Nvidia when they release their 4050 (Ti)

Should run 480p perfectly fine at low settings. 6400 is biggest piece of crap in a long time and this defies belief. Would get whooped by an iGPU from 5 years ago.

Minus InfinityShould run 480p perfectly fine at low settings. 6400 is biggest piece of crap in a long time and this defies belief. Would get whooped by an iGPU from 5 years ago.

Which 5 year old IGP whoops something that performs like an RX570? The RX6400 is unimpressive, but it's not as weak as you make it out to be.

I'd expect the RX6300 to perform closely to the GTX1630.

Minus InfinityShould run 480p perfectly fine at low settings. 6400 is biggest piece of crap in a long time and this defies belief. Would get whooped by an iGPU from 5 years ago.

For HTPC newer cards are needed, all cards doesn't have VRR, are limited to 8 bits, but 6400 sucks for that purpose.

And to answer your question, no, 6400 has better video playback and 3D power than a 1050ti.

i hope this graphics card will not used in prebuilt PCs and called gaming pc, sometimes it's useful for a computers that isn't equipped build-in igpu to display content, of course not for gaming or similar things, also for decoding videos or even transcoding format, it's much faster than using cpu, i know there are build-in igpu like intel quick sync, not sure how performance comparing with this graphics card, for 60$ i don't think is that much worth it

enb141I got a 6400 and sucks for HTPC, no hardware decode in Kodi due to driver issue (normal with AMD), no VRR on my Samsung smart TV, limited to 8 bit, my old 1050ti didn't had those issues except VRR because back then VRR didn't exists.
I mentioned above about HTPC, AMD just sucks for HTPC, this card is limited to 4k 2D resolutions and that's it.
Yep, AMD is a waste of money, I already miss my 1050ti in comparison to my 6400, the 6400 has slightly better performance but sucks in driver support and no VRR on my smart TV and limited to 8 bit.

Just for you Nvidia released the GTX 1630 last year. Brand new! It's only twice the price, if not even more, still an insult in 3D performance, but at least you wouldn't need to suffer an AMD product.
Or you can go and buy an A380. Again twice the price, you will be helping Intel with it's beta testing, problematic 3D, but (and I am serious here) top media coding performance.

The only real option right now for HTPCs are AMD's APUs and Intel Integrated graphics. But what about older hardware where a GPU is necessary? Do we just throw them away? Is A380 the only modern option here? Probably not because A380 needs a modern motherboard if I am not mistaken. So?

If this could become available at $60, it will be a very nice move from AMD, at a time where companies try to rip off consumers. The price is right, but to be honest, if this becomes officially available, it will be probably between $79 and $99 MSRP. The $60 price point is abandoned by EVERYONE those last years. No products for under $100. In fact we might stop seeing new GPUs under $200 in 4-5 years. So a NEW product, that is actually new, at way less than $100, it could be beneficial to everyone. Even Intel and Nvidia fans. If ONE of those companies decided to go after the sub $100 market again, the other two might follow. The problem is that none of those 3 wants to. AMD sells APUs, Intel sells CPUs with Xe graphics, Nvidia tries to pull ALL price up, make the GPU a premium option that costs between $500 and $2000. For start.



P.S. Pity AMD cut those media capabilities, because it was meant to be used next to Intel and AMD mobile CPUs that where already capable of decoding modern codecs. Hope their next 7300M to be a full product, because they probably realized by now, that they can sell those mobile GPUs at retail for desktop use.

john_Just for you Nvidia released the GTX 1630 last year. Brand new! It's only twice the price, if not even more, still an insult in 3D performance, but at least you wouldn't need to suffer an AMD product.
Or you can go and buy an A380. Again twice the price, you will be helping Intel with it's beta testing, problematic 3D, but (and I am serious here) top media coding performance.

The only real option right now for HTPCs are AMD's APUs and Intel Integrated graphics. But what about older hardware where a GPU is necessary? Do we just throw them away? Is A380 the only modern option here? Probably not because A380 needs a modern motherboard if I am not mistaken. So?

If this could become available at $60, it will be a very nice move from AMD, at a time where companies try to rip off consumers. The price is right, but to be honest, if this becomes officially available, it will be probably between $79 and $99 MSRP. The $60 price point is abandoned by EVERYONE those last years. No products for under $100. In fact we might stop seeing new GPUs under $200 in 4-5 years. So a NEW product, that is actually new, at way less than $100, it could be beneficial to everyone. Even Intel and Nvidia fans. If ONE of those companies decided to go after the sub $100 market again, the other two might follow. The problem is that none of those 3 wants to. AMD sells APUs, Intel sells CPUs with Xe graphics, Nvidia tries to pull ALL price up, make the GPU a premium option that costs between $500 and $2000. For start.



P.S. Pity AMD cut those media capabilities, because it was meant to be used next to Intel and AMD mobile CPUs that where already capable of decoding modern codecs. Hope their next 7300M to be a full product, because they probably realized by now, that they can sell those mobile GPUs at retail for desktop use.

There's also 1650 but to be honest those have pretty much the same performance than a 1050ti, just a new name with old tech.

As I said before, I need a decent video card (4050) low profile, that card doesn't exists yet, and probably won't.

You are right, low end video cards (integrated or low end addons) are pretty much a scam, that's why apple implemented their own integrated solution.

enb141For HTPC newer cards are needed, all cards doesn't have VRR, are limited to 8 bits, but 6400 sucks for that purpose.

And to answer your question, no, 6400 has better video playback and 3D power than a 1050ti.

Yes, the 6400 is 25-50% faster than a 1050 Ti in 3D, comparing slot-power to slot-power. At PCIe 3.0, not even 4.0. I have both and ran them thru a few games last week with an i7-4790. I could not care less about encoding from a low end GPU as the 1050 Ti crashes when encoding while playing unless you power restrict it to ~55W. :eyeroll:

But missing current decoding just kills the 6400 for HTPC for those who want a smallerish PC for that. Which I also don't care about as I use a NUC for HTPC, which is an actually unobtrusive computer.