AMD Radeon RX 6400

[ET3D]

the 1650 has much more & better features (NVENC/NVDEC, x16 bus, 3 displayouts, OC support) than this tho, it's like leagues above the 6400

I think that it's a moot point. It depends on the audience. The only point which I think really matters for some is encoding. The other points are, I think, only relevant to a tiny minority. Sure, they're bonus points, but they're not that important.

It's true that low profile cards are also only relevant for a minority of people, but AusWolf is right in that the 6400 is important for the low profile market because of its good price. Few if any people in that market will pay £100 more for a used card of similar performance just because it supports encoding.

By the way, if you're counting minor features, the 6400 has HDMI 2.1, making it "leagues above" the 1650's HDMI 2.0.

 

[AusWolf]

But they absolutely should, because that means that card doesn't decode Youtube and Youtube on CPU is rough. IMO it fails as display adapter, but it can run Cyberbug and at 1080p low ~40 fps. If you wanted to record some older game, you can't with 6400. For that RX 550 works better, because it records. It's also useless to add this card to older computers struggling with Youtube or other services. Overall, it managed to alienate the audience it was intended for and pleased the gamers somewhat, who won't buy it. Would have been more acceptable if it had decoding capabilities, but power of GT 1030 DDR4. The irony is that GTX 1050 Ti, which matches RX 6400 in performance is selling for a bit less money and does more. And considering that Chinese manage to put laptop GPUs without such downsides on PCBs or MXM cards, it just shows how blatant cash grab RX 6400 is.

How does the 1050 Ti do more than the 6400? Do you mean the video encoder?

Also, how did everybody suddenly become a game streamer? Did I miss something? No one has ever talked about nvenc or AMD VCE during a release. Ever. And now everybody is loud about it like the primary function of a graphics card was game recording.

As for Youtube, it's butter smooth on my Ryzen 3 3100 with about 20% CPU usage at 1080p 60 Hz. I also have a 4th gen Core i7-4765T (35 W, 2 GHz) system in the making that cost me maybe £100 for the whole thing. I'll test it later, but I doubt it'll struggle a lot more.

... but a 40 tier card isn't supposed to be a generational upgrade on a 70 tier card (even if AMD's naming back then was dumb and the 580 was more like a 60-tier in reality, with the 570 being a tad below that but still too powerful to fit its contemporary 50-tier). Polaris also delivered ridiculous value even for its time. As I've said time and time again, the pricing is silly, but performance for what this is trying to be is fine. This is an entry level card, with good entry level performance. What makes it problematic is it costing $160 when it should be more like $120 - which would make it fit with cards like the $109 (~$130 after inflation) 2016 GTX 1050. There's also the crazy increases in materials costs and shipping costs of the past few years. In a saner world, this would be $120 with the 6500 XT at $160-ish, but that's sadly not the world we're living in.

Let's not forget about the fact that the 6400 and 6500 XT are the only cards that are selling for MSRP brand new.

A lot of people stream eSports games, those have light graphical requirements and will work quite decently even on this thing when coupled with an adequate CPU.

Those people are free to buy a used 1050 Ti or RX 570/580 (if they don't have one already - I suppose most of them do). Ebay is literally flooded with them.

 

[catulitechup]

I have a GT1030, and tried to find it for this review, but no luck

edit: omg found it
View attachment 245029

finishing pcie 3.0 run first, then running gt1030


I retest everything every few months and keep drivers/games/patches constant until the next retest. Last retest was done mid-March

this card seems a rat in this space and thanks for your work

 

[The red spirit]

How does the 1050 Ti do more than the 6400? Do you mean the video encoder?

That and ability to record.

Also, how did everybody suddenly become a game streamer? Did I miss something? No one has ever talked about nvenc or AMD VCE during a release. Ever. And now everybody is loud about it like the primary function of a graphics card was game recording.

It's handy to have. AMD VCE allows to convert or compress videos way faster than CPU. I had to do that. I also found it handy to be able to record with ReLive. Decoding is powering all videos basically. That's just an unquestionable feature set of video cards ever since 90s. My ATi X800 Pro could record, then why RX 6400 can't? AIW version could also record from inputs, but I don't have that card, nor I particularly care about such features. It's just something so stupid to take away from card. Imagine nVidia released RTX 4050 without any CUDA support. How would you feel? Or even better, AMD released RX 6300, which wouldn't support DX12 at all.

As for Youtube, it's butter smooth on my Ryzen 3 3100 with about 20% CPU usage at 1080p 60 Hz. I also have a 4th gen Core i7-4765T (35 W, 2 GHz) system in the making that cost me maybe £100 for the whole thing. I'll test it later, but I doubt it'll struggle a lot more.

Lucky you, my Athlon X4 845 is very borderline with 1080p60 and can drop frames. A card capable of decoding would be great for CPU like this.

Let's not forget about the fact that the 6400 and 6500 XT are the only cards that are selling for MSRP brand new.

Does it even matter, if they are pile of poo?

 

[Ruru]

Whoa, didn't know that this cannot be overclocked. Reminds me of the days of some 9000 series cards in the early 2000s when ATITool could bypass that.

 

[RedBear]

... but a 40 tier card isn't supposed to be a generational upgrade on a 70 tier card (even if AMD's naming back then was dumb and the 580 was more like a 60-tier in reality, with the 570 being a tad below that but still too powerful to fit its contemporary 50-tier). Polaris also delivered ridiculous value even for its time. As I've said time and time again, the pricing is silly, but performance for what this is trying to be is fine. This is an entry level card, with good entry level performance. What makes it problematic is it costing $160 when it should be more like $120 - which would make it fit with cards like the $109 (~$130 after inflation) 2016 GTX 1050. There's also the crazy increases in materials costs and shipping costs of the past few years. In a saner world, this would be $120 with the 6500 XT at $160-ish, but that's sadly not the world we're living in.

If they have any non-F Intel CPU or any AMD APU, they already have hardware accelerated encoding support though. And if not, then, well, this GPU isn't for them. And quite frankly that's fine.

I don't care much about nomenclature to be honest, the brackets tend to move over time, anyway the RX 6500 XT wasn't even an upgrade over its immediate predecessor, it was actually a slight downgrade in the average gaming FPS benchmark according to Wizzard's review, and I would be honestly interested in a comparison between the RX 6400 and the RX 5300 XT, if anyone owns the later.

AMD APUs are PCIe Gen 3 only, so it's really a matter of matching this thing with a low end Alder Lake with iGPU, as it was true for the RX 6500 XT. The problem is that a lot of people might not notice this until they've already bought it, it doesn't help that reviewers tend to neglect the lack of video encoding capabilities (Wizzard for instance stressed that the low profile versions could be suboptimal for HTPCs, because they lack AV1 decoding capability, but there's no mention of the missing video encoders) and people might just assume that it's a common, baseline, capability nowadays.

 

[thelawnet]

It's true that low profile cards are also only relevant for a minority of people, but AusWolf is right in that the 6400 is important for the low profile market because of its good price. Few if any people in that market will pay £100 more for a used card of similar performance just because it supports encoding.

By the way, if you're counting minor features, the 6400 has HDMI 2.1, making it "leagues above" the 1650's HDMI 2.0.

If they have any non-F Intel CPU or any AMD APU, they already have hardware accelerated encoding support though. And if not, then, well, this GPU isn't for them. And quite frankly that's fine.

I'm not sure about some of the assumptions above.

I live in Indonesia and hang out on Facebook 'build a PC' forums.

Incomes are low, compared to the West. Most builds have tended to be i3-10100f or 10105f, due to low cost and excellent spec (8 threads).

A 10100f is 980k rupiah (14.4k = US$1, but a day's wages starts around 100k/$7, so the PPP is much lower).

A 10100 is around 560k more.

A lot of people now are building i3-12100f, instead, where the 12100f is around 1600k. The premium for the IGP version is again around 500k.

A PC is an expensive purchase, and an IGP CPU in a cheap PC is a horrible waste of money, if you're going to add an extra GPU.

The GPU market here consists of:

* GT 1030 1400-1500K depending on brand
* GTX 1050 Ti 2900-3100K depending on brand
* RTX 6500 XT 3400-3600K depending on brand (cheapest = Biostar, Sapphire, more expensive = MSI)
* GTX 1650 3600-3700K depending on brand (GDDR6 for Inno3D , Gainward, Pait, Zotac etc. GDDR5 from Asus, MSI or pay more for GDDR6)
* Geforce 3050 at 5600K-5800K.
* RX 6600 at 5750K+
* plus everything above that from the 3000/6000 series

The MSI RX 6400 has landed at 2970K.

The GT 1030 is pretty horrible, and the 3050/6600 are just far too expensive in terms of absolute cost, so people are choosing between the 1050 Ti, 1650, 6500 XT, and now 6400 in that bracket.

The 6400 is a fundamental failure as a product in this context in that the price is far too close to the 6500 XT, and given that people build mini/mid-tower PCs with 550W bronze PSUs, the 'low profile' feature is of no value at all, and the 6500 XT is about 33% faster, when overclocked.

There are a lot people playing Valorant and PES, who can make do with the 1030, even though the 6400 is 3x faster, the problem is it's not at all competing with the 1030 on price but with the 6500 XT and 1650.

If the argument is 'get a Quicksync CPU', then that fails, because you would be better off with a 1650, which is significantly faster in fact when you get the GDDR6 version, and will overclock still further, works perfectly on the 10100/5f, and once you add the cost of the non-F CPU, there is no saving, plus you will get much resale for a 1650 than a 6400.

In my experience seeing people's builds/queries, a HUGE proportion say they want to stream and/or do video editing, and while they can spend the extra 500K on the non-IGP CPU, most of the time they just end up with a 1650. And if they get the non-IGP CPU then they'll get a 6500 XT, not a 6400, which only serves SFF builds.

There doesn't seem to be a premium for a low profile 1650, either.

I feel as a product that it's substantially worse than a 1650, because after PCIE3 issues, no encoder, no overclocking, a decent boost with the GDDR6 1650 over the GDDR5 version, etc., the fact that this product series is already known as a turd, and will have poor resale value.

It's nothing that couldn't be solved by cutting the price by 1/3, of course. But we need to be clear that the 1650 GDDR6 is a much better product.

 

[Ruru]

AMD APUs are PCIe Gen 3 only, so it's really a matter of matching this thing with a low end Alder Lake with iGPU, as it was true for the RX 6500 XT.

R3 3100 from AMD could work as well from the budget side as it supports PCIe 4.0 too.

 

[RedBear]

R3 3100 from AMD could work as well from the budget side as it supports PCIe 4.0 too.

It doesn't have a video decoder/encoder, we were talking about using the iGPU's hardware encoder for streaming. Also, it's kind of sold out, at least here in Europe.

 

[Ruru]

It doesn't have a video decoder/encoder, we were talking about using the iGPU's hardware encoder for streaming. Also, it's kind of sold out, at least here in Europe.

Well, everyone doesn't need thaose so it's up to the user to get hardware with those capabilities if needed.

 

[ET3D]

R3 3100 from AMD could work as well from the budget side as it supports PCIe 4.0 too.

Is there any availability for the 3100? AMD's current low end range (4100, 4500, 5500) doesn't support PCIe 4.0.

 

[Ruru]

Is there any availability for the 3100? AMD's current low end range (4100, 4500, 5500) doesn't support PCIe 4.0.

Seems to be pretty out of stock here in my country.. and yeah, the newer ones are basically APUs without iGPU.

 

[Valantar]

I don't care much about nomenclature to be honest, the brackets tend to move over time, anyway the RX 6500 XT wasn't even an upgrade over its immediate predecessor, it was actually a slight downgrade in the average gaming FPS benchmark according to Wizzard's review, and I would be honestly interested in a comparison between the RX 6400 and the RX 5300 XT, if anyone owns the later.

... but we're not talking about the 6500 XT here, we're talking about the 6400. So rather than shifting the goal posts to talk about a GPU that's a far worse configuration than this, maybe try to make points on topic?

AMD APUs are PCIe Gen 3 only, so it's really a matter of matching this thing with a low end Alder Lake with iGPU, as it was true for the RX 6500 XT. The problem is that a lot of people might not notice this until they've already bought it, it doesn't help that reviewers tend to neglect the lack of video encoding capabilities (Wizzard for instance stressed that the low profile versions could be suboptimal for HTPCs, because they lack AV1 decoding capability, but there's no mention of the missing video encoders) and people might just assume that it's a common, baseline, capability nowadays.

That's true (for now - 6000-series APUs have PCIe gen 4), but as some (non-comprehensive) reviews have shown, the PCIe 3.0 bottleneck seems smaller than with the 6500 XT. I'd love to see that tested here though.

I'm not sure about some of the assumptions above.

I live in Indonesia and hang out on Facebook 'build a PC' forums.

Incomes are low, compared to the West. Most builds have tended to be i3-10100f or 10105f, due to low cost and excellent spec (8 threads).

A 10100f is 980k rupiah (14.4k = US$1, but a day's wages starts around 100k/$7, so the PPP is much lower).

A 10100 is around 560k more.

A lot of people now are building i3-12100f, instead, where the 12100f is around 1600k. The premium for the IGP version is again around 500k.

A PC is an expensive purchase, and an IGP CPU in a cheap PC is a horrible waste of money, if you're going to add an extra GPU.

The GPU market here consists of:

* GT 1030 1400-1500K depending on brand
* GTX 1050 Ti 2900-3100K depending on brand
* RTX 6500 XT 3400-3600K depending on brand (cheapest = Biostar, Sapphire, more expensive = MSI)
* GTX 1650 3600-3700K depending on brand (GDDR6 for Inno3D , Gainward, Pait, Zotac etc. GDDR5 from Asus, MSI or pay more for GDDR6)
* Geforce 3050 at 5600K-5800K.
* RX 6600 at 5750K+
* plus everything above that from the 3000/6000 series

The MSI RX 6400 has landed at 2970K.

The GT 1030 is pretty horrible, and the 3050/6600 are just far too expensive in terms of absolute cost, so people are choosing between the 1050 Ti, 1650, 6500 XT, and now 6400 in that bracket.

The 6400 is a fundamental failure as a product in this context in that the price is far too close to the 6500 XT, and given that people build mini/mid-tower PCs with 550W bronze PSUs, the 'low profile' feature is of no value at all, and the 6500 XT is about 33% faster, when overclocked.

There are a lot people playing Valorant and PES, who can make do with the 1030, even though the 6400 is 3x faster, the problem is it's not at all competing with the 1030 on price but with the 6500 XT and 1650.

If the argument is 'get a Quicksync CPU', then that fails, because you would be better off with a 1650, which is significantly faster in fact when you get the GDDR6 version, and will overclock still further, works perfectly on the 10100/5f, and once you add the cost of the non-F CPU, there is no saving, plus you will get much resale for a 1650 than a 6400.

In my experience seeing people's builds/queries, a HUGE proportion say they want to stream and/or do video editing, and while they can spend the extra 500K on the non-IGP CPU, most of the time they just end up with a 1650. And if they get the non-IGP CPU then they'll get a 6500 XT, not a 6400, which only serves SFF builds.

There doesn't seem to be a premium for a low profile 1650, either.

I feel as a product that it's substantially worse than a 1650, because after PCIE3 issues, no encoder, no overclocking, a decent boost with the GDDR6 1650 over the GDDR5 version, etc., the fact that this product series is already known as a turd, and will have poor resale value.

It's nothing that couldn't be solved by cutting the price by 1/3, of course. But we need to be clear that the 1650 GDDR6 is a much better product.

So your ultimate point is exactly the same as everyone else here is saying - that this is a bit too expensive for what it offers? I would also recommend waiting a bit before you start doing price comparisons - everything you're comparing with has had time on the market for prices to settle, after all. Launch prices, particularly in the current GPU market, are likely to be on the high side of what you'll see in a month or two.

Other than that, while I don't doubt your description of reality here, it's rather myopic. For example, you're assuming that every GPU goes into a new build, while the majority of the market for a GPU like this is unlikely to be brand-new full system builds. Upgrades are a huge market for low-end GPUs. And while there's a significant price difference between low end F and non-F Intel CPUs today, that's a relatively new phenomenon. There is a huge install base out there of people with acceptable CPUs (Skylake and onwards at least) with integrated graphics and QuickSync where a GPU like this could deliver a decent gaming performance bump for them.

As for the 1650 GDDR6 being a "decent boost", well ... 7.5% isn't that much. It's a bump, sure, but it's not even enough to catch the 1060 or RX 570.

There are definitely geographic differences though - people in the US have been describing significant price premiums for LP 1650s here. YMMV. There's a small (~10%) premium for LP versions here in Sweden.

Heck, this GPU absolutely isn't for everyone. It's a kind of weird repurposing of a very specific mobile-first design, with some odd feature omissions because of that. But if it comes down to a more sensible price - which seems likely as it's sticking at MSRP for now, rather than shooting up - this will be an excellent entry gaming contender for those who don't need encoding capabilities or have them through their CPU.

 

[Forza.Milan]

i hope no one buy it, period. except scalpers, maybe.

 

[RedBear]

... but we're not talking about the 6500 XT here, we're talking about the 6400. So rather than shifting the goal posts to talk about a GPU that's a far worse configuration than this, maybe try to make points on topic?

That's true (for now - 6000-series APUs have PCIe gen 4), but as some (non-comprehensive) reviews have shown, the PCIe 3.0 bottleneck seems smaller than with the 6500 XT. I'd love to see that tested here though.

How is it a worse configuration? They have the same 64 bit memory bus and the same 4 PCIe lanes with the same 16MB "Infinity Cache", the RX 6400 simply uses a partially enabled (12 out of 16 CU) Navi 24 chip with lower power and lower frequencies. They're quite comparable and if the 6500 XT didn't manage to match the 5500 XT with its absurd frequencies how do you expect this cut-up version to compare favourably against anything? It's a terrible value in terms of generational upgrade, I guess it might make you mad because you're an AMD fanboy who proudly displays his full AMD system, but a fact is a fact.

 

[Valantar]

How is it a worse configuration? They have the same 64 bit memory bus and the same 4 PCIe lanes with the same 16MB "Infinity Cache", the RX 6400 simply uses a partially enabled (12 out of 16 CU) Navi 24 chip with lower power and lower frequencies. They're quite comparable and if the 6500 XT didn't manage to match the 5500 XT with its absurd frequencies how do you expect this cut-up version to compare favourably against anything? It's a terrible value in terms of generational upgrade, I guess it might make you mad because you're an AMD fanboy who proudly displays his full AMD system, but a fact is a fact.

Because it has its clock speeds pushed to an absolutely ridiculous level, tanking efficiency with very little performance to show for it, while highlighting the shortcomings of the oddly balanced Navi 24 die. And yes, I also agree that it not beating the 5500 is a travesty - I don't think AMD made the right choice with how they configured Navi 24 in general (or at least I think there ought to have been a die in between it and Navi 23).

But again: you were the one responding to me speaking of the 6400 by bringing up the 6500. So rather than continuing this meaningless offshoot, maybe you can address the points I made back then?

And again: what is the 6400 a generational upgrade on? There is no 5400, or any other recent 40-tier predecessor. Once again: if this was $120, it would be a great value entry-level GPU. It's just a tad too expensive. Ideally it should have matched the 5500's performance (as ideally each GPU should match the higher tier in the preceding generation), but given the failure of the 6500XT to do so, that was obviously not happening. Still, if this was about $120, it would be good value and excellent (chart-topping!) price/performance.

 

[ET3D]

I'm not sure about some of the assumptions above.

Every user has their own requirements. It seems that the 6400 is currently the best choice for those who want a low profile card. For those who don't, it might not be the best deal.

 

[thelawnet]

As for the 1650 GDDR6 being a "decent boost", well ... 7.5% isn't that much. It's a bump, sure, but it's not even enough to catch the 1060 or RX 570.

7.5% (for GDDR6) + 3% faster (GDDR5 vs 6400) + 8.9% overclock

Gigabyte GeForce GTX 1650 OC GDDR6 Review - Faster Memory Helps?

We put NVIDIA's new GTX 1650 GDDR6 to the test. The upgraded memory offers a +50% bandwidth increase, which definitely helps make up some ground against the GTX 1650 Super and RX 5500 XT. Since Gigabyte installed 14 Gbps chips and clocked them lower, memory OC works really well, too.

www.techpowerup.com

Totalling 20%.

Which is not a worthwhile upgrade when changing, it should definitely be a consideration at new. If 6400 = $200, then that's $40 worth of value, before you consider the encoder, resale value.

As far as upgrades go, it's bad because you could have something like an i3/5/7-4xxx in a PCIE 2 H81 motherboard and lose 1/3 of your performance, and with anything else you lose 13% due to PCIE3

Which would put the difference between a 1650 GDDR6, overclocked, and a RX 6400, in a PCIE 3 motherboard, at 38%.

If you are on PCIE3, I think this is slightly faster than an overclocked 1050 Ti, but only a small amount, and given the other issues it's questionable that this is better.

So for upgraders it's bad, for new builds it's bad given the existence of low profile 1650 gddr6s, but ok if this is sufficiently cheaper, fine for that purpose only.

 

[Valantar]

7.5% (for GDDR6) + 3% faster (GDDR5 vs 6400) + 8.9% overclock

Gigabyte GeForce GTX 1650 OC GDDR6 Review - Faster Memory Helps?

We put NVIDIA's new GTX 1650 GDDR6 to the test. The upgraded memory offers a +50% bandwidth increase, which definitely helps make up some ground against the GTX 1650 Super and RX 5500 XT. Since Gigabyte installed 14 Gbps chips and clocked them lower, memory OC works really well, too.

www.techpowerup.com

Totalling 20%.

Which is not a worthwhile upgrade when changing, it should definitely be a consideration at new. If 6400 = $200, then that's $40 worth of value, before you consider the encoder, resale value.

As far as upgrades go, it's bad because you could have something like an i3/5/7-4xxx in a PCIE 2 H81 motherboard and lose 1/3 of your performance, and with anything else you lose 13% due to PCIE3

Which would put the difference between a 1650 GDDR6, overclocked, and a RX 6400, in a PCIE 3 motherboard, at 38%.

If you are on PCIE3, I think this is slightly faster than an overclocked 1050 Ti, but only a small amount, and given the other issues it's questionable that this is better.

So for upgraders it's bad, for new builds it's bad given the existence of low profile 1650 gddr6s, but ok if this is sufficiently cheaper, fine for that purpose only.

20% is a meaningful difference, but I really don't follow your math on anything beyond that. If you're CPU limited, then that reduces the PCIe losses seen when testing the 6500 XT at PCIe 3.0 and lower - these tests are all done on current, blazingly fast CPUs, after all. And, of course, a CPU bottleneck will work out mostly the same across different products at similar performance, but will restrict higher performance parts more. You're not running a 12900K in that PCIe 3.0 motherboard, after all.

 

[Frick]

And again: what is the 6400 a generational upgrade on? There is no 5400, or any other recent 40-tier predecessor. Once again: if this was $120, it would be a great value entry-level GPU. It's just a tad too expensive. Ideally it should have matched the 5500's performance (as ideally each GPU should match the higher tier in the preceding generation), but given the failure of the 6500XT to do so, that was obviously not happening. Still, if this was about $120, it would be good value and excellent (chart-topping!) price/performance.

Honestly the closest predecessor is the RX550, and seen from that perspective this card is a major success. Retail price here seems to be about €220, which sounds absolutely nuts until you realize that is what a Geforce 1650 cost. This thing at €150 in a low profile format in the current market would be really nice. This card at <=€120 would mean the market has gone back to "normal". It's a real shame it's locked down.

Anyway, good to have a good review on this card, thanks!

 

[AusWolf]

That and ability to record.

Not too many people want to record their gameplay. Those who do have many other options.

It's handy to have. AMD VCE allows to convert or compress videos way faster than CPU. I had to do that. I also found it handy to be able to record with ReLive. Decoding is powering all videos basically. That's just an unquestionable feature set of video cards ever since 90s. My ATi X800 Pro could record, then why RX 6400 can't? AIW version could also record from inputs, but I don't have that card, nor I particularly care about such features. It's just something so stupid to take away from card. Imagine nVidia released RTX 4050 without any CUDA support. How would you feel? Or even better, AMD released RX 6300, which wouldn't support DX12 at all.

So you're arguing that the 6400 should have a video encoder only because its predecessors had them? That's a poor argument. So is bringing up CUDA, which has a lot broader usage than a video encoder - handling in-game physics for example. If you mean nvenc, then honestly, I couldn't give a rat's arse if my GPU has it or not. I haven't converted a single video file since smartphones started to have their own built-in video decoders. If I ever had to, I'd do it on my main pc which has an 11700 and a 2070. Like I said, I look at the 6400 as a HTPC / low spec gaming card, not as a media encoding / streaming machine.

I still don't understand where this sudden interest in gameplay capture / video conversion came from.

Lucky you, my Athlon X4 845 is very borderline with 1080p60 and can drop frames. A card capable of decoding would be great for CPU like this.

Luck has nothing to do with it. I'm pretty sure any fairly modern mainstream CPU can play Youtube - your Athlon X4 isn't one (in fact, I've always considered the FM2 platform kind of DOA). I'll test my 4765T tomorrow and let you know.

Does it even matter, if they are pile of poo?

What is your definition of "a pile of poo"?

 

[Tetras]

Honestly the closest predecessor is the RX550, and seen from that perspective this card is a major success. Retail price here seems to be about €220, which sounds absolutely nuts until you realize that is what a Geforce 1650 cost. This thing at €150 in a low profile format in the current market would be really nice. This card at <=€120 would mean the market has gone back to "normal". It's a real shame it's locked down.

Anyway, good to have a good review on this card, thanks!

Purely from a hardware perspective, I agree, I have two RX 550 and I'd be happy to replace them with a RX 6400, but the first one cost 90 dollars (near release) and the second 70 dollars (near EOL). The cheapest RX 6400 is 200. I'd rather have a RX 6600 for 350 which is 2.5 - 3.0x as fast.

 

[Nuke Dukem]

There are no bad graphics cards, guys. Just badly priced ones

And even badly priced, this will probably be the weapon of choice for countless uncles across the globe when they consider turning their 12-year-old nephews' SFF school homework PCs into Fortnite gamers. I mean, what are you going to get? There's nothing cheaper that's new and beats decent IGP performance.

Yeah, at the same time 11 bucks an hour was considered decent in low cost non-cities. It's been 14-15+ or whatever for over a year. FYI that is a ton of money before any overtime if you want to do math... Companies can't pay the engineers, and pay taxes and ect ect ect. cant and do $100... Keep in mind that tech is CHEAP now... The Neo Geo console was $649.99 dollars in the 90s, when if you made 11 bucks you were doing decent for yourself..._( and a low-end computer could cost like 2K -- again, a TON for the time) Perspective, boy, perspective...

You have to pay the warehouses, driver, if not - the brick and mortar people... before the tech and actual cost of copper ect ect of everything they use...(just to have a physical item that works is a base cost then the people who ship or stores that stock it... This is the 1030 again... 100000% just don't go super cheap. People don't do that when they buy planes or cars, there is a minimum cost you want
"it's too high because its power is too low"... If you said it before, then you were wrong before... Unless you think people should make 30K or less to stock or ship stuff like food other items.

To be this careless with your spelling and punctuation is borderline offensive.

Thanks for the review. It's an ok card for the price which i still a bit over priced, but it is what it is. If this card would had cost no more than $120 USD i would bought one for my kids PC which as a PhenomII x4 965BE, 6GB DDR3 and R7 240 2GB. They just it mainly to play Roblox, Fortnite and Genshin.

As much as I love my PII X4, I'm fairly certain that even the venerable 965 will massively bottleneck even a card this slow (by modern standards). Also, the motherboard is only PCI-E 2.0, that's going to further choke performance. But if whoever is playing doesn't mind, who am I to say anything?

finishing pcie 3.0 run first, then running gt1030

inb4 LowSpecPowerUp is born... I'm loving it

 

[ModEl4]

I have a GT1030, and tried to find it for this review, but no luck

edit: omg found it
View attachment 245029

finishing pcie 3.0 run first, then running gt1030


I retest everything every few months and keep drivers/games/patches constant until the next retest. Last retest was done mid-March

You should be commended for all this hard work!
The choosing of RX 550/560 2GB versions is peculiar imo, it only shows how 2GB cripples the performance in today's 1080p test bed. For example RX 560 (16CU version) 4GB it should be close to 60% of RX6400 not 42% like the 2GB version.
Also the GT 1030 (launched at $69 SRP) comparison although welcome it will just show too big difference due to 2GB, it should be preferable to compare it with 1050Ti (launched at $139 SRP) instead imo.
Maybe you didn't have stock for these VGAs?
I just hope when the new IGPs shows with 13th gen Intel and of course the RDNA2 6000G series to compare them with 4GB discreet graphics versions in order to be a fair comparison in today's testbed.

 

[Ruru]

It's good to have comparison with GT 1030 as it's the last well-known and affordable low-profile card. Faster cards like 1050 Ti and 1650 are less common and more expensive in low-profile form.