AMD Radeon RX 6400

[sLowEnd]

The price is a bit hard to stomach, but the card is otherwise fine for what it is IMO.
If it was ~$30-40 less it'd be easier to justify.

 

[Ruru]

The price is a bit hard to stomach, but the card is otherwise fine for what it is IMO.
If it was ~$30-40 less it'd be easier to justify.

Agree. Too close to 6500 XT what comes to pricing.

 

[Trov]

Was PCIe 3.0 vs 4.0 compared specifically on this card? I think it may be a stretch to assume the same performance drop that the 6500 XT has. I am a little disappointed in this review because I was specifically looking for that comparison on this card in particular; nobody seems to have done it yet. The lower performance and/or lower graphics settings for this card may mean the bus does not get saturated even at 3.0.

As far as pricing and the conclusion, I think one must also compare it to the other cards in it's form factor - low profile. In this realm the Low Profile GTX 1650 is selling for $300 and up, and even 1050 Ti's are sold New for over $250.

In Single Slot Low Profile, its only competition is Quadro T1000, which performs just under a GTX 1650 but sells for $400 and up. Though that card does have NVENC.

Based on that, and considering Low Profile cards only, I would consider the RX 6400 to be a good deal. If you can fit any bigger card though, it definitely isn't. If you're looking for something to toss into a Lenovo Thinkstation Tiny, it's the best card available. I think the final conclusion of this review is lacking in not mentioning the low profile/single slot applications of this card (though I do realize the reviewed card was a full-height version)

I have a Thinkstation with a Quadro T1000 I bought a couple weeks ago (and am now regretting given this is under half the price.) I have a 6400 on the way and will compare the 6400 with that card to determine which is the Single Slot Low Profile King.
(not counting of course the RTX A2000 with a custom made single slot cooler, as A2000 prices are currently ludicrous)

 

[Ravenas]

I’m interested in FSR results. Was this touched on and I missed it?

 

[eidairaman1]

So is this Card 16X or 4X like the 6500XT?

 

[AusWolf]

So is this Card 16X or 4X like the 6500XT?

X4. It's essentially the same thing with a slightly cut-down GPU (and lot better efficiency as a result).

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.

I also have a 1050 Ti at hand. Do you want me to do a comparison when my 6400 arrives?

 

[Frick]

I also have a 1050 Ti at hand. Do you want me to do a comparison when my 6400 arrives?

Yeah that'd be nice. The goal should be to achieve close to 60FPS at 1080p across all games.

 

[R0H1T]

What point? This is a 1650-eqivalent card with the same amount of VRAM and the same VRAM bandwidth. The 1650 does it with 128-bit GDDR5, the 6400 with 64-bit GDDR6. Only that low profile 1650s go for £250-300 on ebay while the 6400 costs £160 new. What's not to like?

This isn't a 750Ti/1050Ti class replacement ~ which tbf hasn't been a segment AMD's competed in the last decade, if ever in fact. PCIe slot powered & the most efficient dGPU's in a 1080p (cards) lineup, this is not it & at least 60% overpriced!

 

[ModEl4]

X4. It's essentially the same thing with a slightly cut-down GPU (and lot better efficiency as a result).


I also have a 1050 Ti at hand. Do you want me to do a comparison when my 6400 arrives?

Sure if you like, although it's easy to figure out the performance level:
If we check within Nvidia's ecosystem, before 3 years 1050Ti was 75% of 1650 and 1650 was -20.63% slower than 1060 6G.
Today the difference still remains the same between 1650/1060, the Turing based 1650 is -20.16% slower than Pascal based 1060 6G, so essentially for this comparison Pascal architecture in the GTX 1060 6G form lost only 0.5% vs the Turing based 1650.
If Pascal based 1050Ti which has the same 4GB size memory as 1650 lost also 0.5%, it should be 76-77% of RX 6400 (1650 is 3% faster than RX6400 in TPU results)
In a PCI-express 3 system if RX 6400 is -9-10% slower, then 84-85% of RX 6400.
Or something like that, it can't be too far off...

https://tpucdn.com/review/evga-gtx-1650-sc-ultra-black/images/relative-performance_1920-1080.png

 

[Taraquin]

This cards could be awesome if it costed 100usd max, had pasdive cooler and could be overclocked. I think 1650 is a much better choice for most as it stands now if you want slot powered card.

 

[AusWolf]

Yeah that'd be nice. The goal should be to achieve close to 60FPS at 1080p across all games.

Sure if you like, although it's easy to figure out the performance level:
If we check within Nvidia's ecosystem, before 3 years 1050Ti was 75% of 1650 and 1650 was -20.63% slower than 1060 6G.
Today the difference still remains the same between 1650/1060, the Turing based 1650 is -20.16% slower than Pascal based 1060 6G, so essentially for this comparison Pascal architecture in the GTX 1060 6G form lost only 0.5% vs the Turing based 1650.
If Pascal based 1050Ti which has the same 4GB size memory as 1650 lost also 0.5%, it should be 76-77% of RX 6400 (1650 is 3% faster than RX6400 in TPU results)
In a PCI-express 3 system if RX 6400 is -9-10% slower, then 84-85% of RX 6400.
Or something like that, it can't be too far off...

https://tpucdn.com/review/evga-gtx-1650-sc-ultra-black/images/relative-performance_1920-1080.png

Cool, I'll check it when it arrives and I have the time over the weekend. It's going into a pci-e gen 3 system, so it should be a pretty interesting comparison.

This isn't a 750Ti/1050Ti class replacement ~ which tbf hasn't been a segment AMD's competed in the last decade, if ever in fact. PCIe slot powered & the most efficient dGPU's in a 1080p (cards) lineup, this is not it & at least 60% overpriced!

Exactly my point! This thing isn't supposed to replace anything. It's just a slot-powered / low profile card that can do a bit of light gaming or movie watching (as long as you don't need hardware AV-1 acceleration).

 

[Valantar]

Cool, I'll check it when it arrives and I have the time over the weekend. It's going into a pci-e gen 3 system, so it should be a pretty interesting comparison.


Exactly my point! This thing isn't supposed to replace anything. It's just a slot-powered / low profile card that can do a bit of light gaming or movie watching (as long as you don't need hardware AV-1 acceleration).

I'll be really interested in that comparison too - and just generally in a "what settings do you need for 1080p60 on a 6400" type of test. Especially interesting with PCIe 3.0 (and presumably not the most powerful CPU?) too.

 

[catulitechup]

Yeah that'd be nice. The goal should be to achieve close to 60FPS at 1080p across all games.

rx 6400 is too weak for 1080p 60fps* suffer in many titles, various around 30fps

*for this purpouse according tpu benchmarks rtx 3050 or rx 6600 or higher are better option

for media center have better form however lack of av1 hardware support and are too expensive, on this side intel igp xe based (av1 support) are better maybe pentium g7400 or ideally i3 12100**

**this cpu crush ryzen 3 3100 because offer much better cpu performance, have xe based igp, retain ddr4 compatibility and is more cheap compared around 160us of ryzen 3 3100 in newegg

 

[Ruru]

rx 6400 is too weak for 1080p 60fps* suffer in many titles, various around 30fps



for media center have better form however lack of av1 hardware support and are too expensive, on this side intel igp xe based (av1 support) are better maybe pentium g7400 or ideally i3 12100**

Unless you have a 3100 already..

 

[Valantar]

rx 6400 is too weak for 1080p 60fps* suffer in many titles, various around 30fps

TPU benchmarks are run at Ultra. Which is understandable and a good practice for higher end cards (even if it's dumb to play at Ultra even with those cards), but rather ridiculous for a card like this. I have zero doubt the 6400 can do 1080p60 steady in pretty much any game you throw at it as long as you set the settings to some more reasonable level for this class of GPU. Obviously not in RT, but AAA games more broadly? At medium-ish? I wouldn't be surprised at all.

 

[The red spirit]

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

Why are you quoting me? I didn't write that

 

[ModEl4]

Cool, I'll check it when it arrives and I have the time over the weekend. It's going into a pci-e gen 3 system, so it should be a pretty interesting comparison.


Exactly my point! This thing isn't supposed to replace anything. It's just a slot-powered / low profile card that can do a bit of light gaming or movie watching (as long as you don't need hardware AV-1 acceleration).

Great, just keep in mind that at 1080p your CPU (and your system in general) plays a great role so if it's not fast enough it will influence accordingly the results , so depending on the game if it is CPU limited for example, you will get much different results from w1zzard, also even greater difference you will see if you go from ultra to low (in order to hit 60fps or so in some games) etc, there are many factors that will not make comparable your results with TPU's.
Generally when there isn't another factor (VRAM size differences for example etc) as you go down in resolution and as you tone down settings, the difference between 2 VGAs becomes smaller and smaller, making the slower GPU to seem closer and closer to the faster GPU. (Regarding resolution, there is for example the 6700XT/3060Ti case in which going down in QHD from 4K we are seeing 6700XT to gain actually in performance delta vs the 4K comparison but this happens only this generation due to infinity cache peculiarities from AMD side and from Nvidia side, latency penalty related issues from moving the rops inside the GPC when in the past was closely tied to memory controller and L2)

 

[The red spirit]

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

You have, but only with CPU or with capture card, neither is appealing to low spec market, when ReLive and Shadowplay exist.

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.

And you miss the point, by discrediting the lack of proper decoders. Which is the entire reason why you would buy a low end "display adapter" like RX 6400. BTW CUDA is actually relevant for media usage too. Ever heard of MadVR? Some people actually want to use it.

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

Has always been there, just that everyone assumed that GPU can do it and that was that.

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.

You can keep shitting on Athlon X4, but you are lucky to be able to swap core components of your computer every 2 years or so.

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

RX 6400, RX 6500 XT or aka laptop special for desktop users with love from Alibaba.

 

[W1zzard]

The review has been updated with GT1030 numbers .. I hate you guys .. testing at these FPS rates is such a shitshow

Working on RTX 3090 Ti FE review now, and PCIe 3.0 scaling for 6400

 

[Valantar]

For those interested, HWUB has their review up, and as usual it is in-depth and excellent. Includes comparisons to the 1050 Ti, 1650, RX 570, and a handful of faster cards, and tests are run at non-Ultra settings tuned for decent performance on low-end hardware. My only further wish would have been for a lower-end CPU to make for a more realistic test system, but that's also problematic in its own ways.

In summary: worse than I had expected. The PCIe 3.0 bottleneck is still there, though possibly a tad smaller than on the 6500 XT. On average across their 12 tested games the 6400 matches a 1650 on PCIe 4.0, but loses by a noticeable margin on 3.0. It mostly matches the RX 570, but there are several outlier titles where the 570 completely runs away from it (R6S, F1 2021), pulling the average down. Doom Eternal seems to work very poorly on 4GB AMD cards, as even the RX 570 falls significantly behind the 1650 there. Performance is, as with the 6500 XT, very hit-or-miss, and they end up only recommending it specifically for low profile builds, as for everything else it's just not worth the money.

I'm guessing the written Techspot review will probably show up at some point too for those not wanting to watch a video.

 

[catulitechup]

TPU benchmarks are run at Ultra. Which is understandable and a good practice for higher end cards (even if it's dumb to play at Ultra even with those cards), but rather ridiculous for a card like this

for this reason maybe be interesting performance at 720p, still with newer titles must be run around acceptable and as your said higher quality in this card is a more or less like raytracing in this card

 

[Ruru]

for this reason maybe be interesting performance at 720p, still with newer titles must be run around acceptable and as your said higher quality in this card is a more or less like raytracing in this card

Who uses 720p these days? I had a GT 1030 on my ex-HTPC and even with that card, I couldn't even think about going below 1080p.

 

[catulitechup]

very interesting results in various pci-e 3.0 is a huge loss

Resuming same story like rx 6500 xt, if dont have pci-e gen 4 mainboard forget it

 

[Ruru]

very interesting results in various pci-e 3.0 is a huge loss

If it would just be a 8 lane card... having choked it to x4 is just stupid.

 

[catulitechup]

If it would just be a 8 lane card... having choked it to x4 is just stupid.

yeah fucking scumbag companies try low cost with things dont be cutted like pci-e lanes as your said

for this reason in my case stay waiting intel arc because intel use also pci-e gen 4 but with 8x lanes as your suggest