OVERALL
ALTERNATIVES
SPECS
VS AVERAGE
REVIEWS
Scored using Graphics cards Methodology v3.0
Graphics cards Methodology v3.0
Mathematical & Unbiased Scoring
Products in this category are scored under Frontum Graphics cards Methodology v3.0: the technical score from the specifications is the base, and independent expert and video reviews (up to ±0.5 points), owner opinions (up to ±0.3) and best-of lists (up to +0.3) move it up or down.
Explore Graphics cards Methodology v3.0

AMD Radeon RX 6400 review: 117 specs compared

Avg. price:~£170VRAM:4 GBMemory bus width:64 bitThermal Design Power (TDP):53 W

AMD Radeon RX 6400 Review: Compare 117 technical specifications, 29 expert and video reviews and 2 best-of lists to see how this product ranks in the Graphics cards category and whether it is worth buying.

AMD Radeon RX 6400
5.9/10

Overall score

Score
5.9/ 10
✕
What it is
Our main score for this model, 1–10. It combines specs, expert reviews, best-of lists and owners.
How we count it
Parts: Technical score 40%, Reviews score 25%, List score 25%, Sentiment score 10%
Marks: Each part gets a mark out of 10. For reviews, lists and owners, a typical model in this category gets about 8 and the best one gets 10.
No data yet: A part with no data shows "?". It counts as the mark of a weaker model in this category (4 in 5 models with data score higher). This way, models with reviews, lists and owners usually come out ahead.
Score distribution
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▼ Worse than 91% of models
Score components

40%

4.7

Technical score

25%

4.7

Reviews score

25%

8.1

List score

10%

?

Sentiment scoreNot enough data yet, so we use 7.8, the mark of a weaker model in this category

▼Worse than 91% of graphics cards
7.0

Value for money

Value for money
7.0/ 10
✕
What it is
An indicator that combines the graphics card's overall rating with its cost.
When it matters
When you are looking for a graphics card that offers a strong balance of performance, features, and price.
Score distribution
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▼ Worse than 75% of models
Score components

70%

5.9

Overall score

30%

9.6

Price

▼Worse than 75%
4.7

Technical score

Technical score
4.7/ 10
✕
What it is
How good the specs are compared with the other models in this category, 1–10.
How we count it
Areas: We rate the specs in each area against the other models in this category.
Weighting: The areas that matter most to buyers count more. The shares are shown under Score components.
Share: The technical score is 40% of the overall score.
Score distribution
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▼ Worse than 87% of models
Score components

44%

3.6

Performance

24%

2.7

Memory

12%

7.1

Power

11%

8.9

Features

5%

8.9

Design

4%

5.9

Connectivity

▼Worse than 87%
4.7

Reviews score

Reviews score
4.7/ 10
✕
What it is
Average grade from independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers, 1–10.
How we count it
Grades: Each review's own score is converted to 1–10; without one, we grade the review ourselves. Big test sites count more, short reviews half as much as full tests. A video review counts half.
Score: The average grade is 80% of the review mark; the number of reviews is the other 20% (1 review = 5, the typical number in this category = 8, the most-reviewed model = 10).
Enough data: With few reviews, the average grade is pulled toward the typical grade of this category. No reviews yet: 7.6 for now.
Share: Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
Score distribution
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▼ Worse than 91% of models

4.7

Mark 7.2 is below the typical mark 7.9 of this category, so it cannot lift the score above the technical score

80%

6.7

Average grade

20%

9.2

Popularity

Grades by review (29)
11 reviews: 8 with a printed score, 3 estimated from the review. 18 video reviews, each counting half as much as a written test. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
▼Worse than 91%
8.1

List score

List score
8.1/ 10
✕
What it is
How often independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers put this model in their best-of lists for this category.
How we count it
Points: The model in the most lists of this category gets 10; the others get 8 to 10 in proportion. In no list yet: 7.5. Lists count 25% of the overall score.
Enough data: Every list counts, even a single one. With fewer than 5 best-of lists in the category, this part is left out.
Lists with this model (2)
List score: in 2 of 96 lists (2%)
★Better than 97%
  • amd-radeon-rx-6400
  • amd-radeon-rx-6400
  • amd-radeon-rx-6400
  • amd-radeon-rx-6400
  • amd-radeon-rx-6400
  • amd-radeon-rx-6400
  • amd-radeon-rx-6400
  • amd-radeon-rx-6400
  • amd-radeon-rx-6400
amd-radeon-rx-6400
amd-radeon-rx-6400
amd-radeon-rx-6400
amd-radeon-rx-6400
amd-radeon-rx-6400
amd-radeon-rx-6400
amd-radeon-rx-6400
amd-radeon-rx-6400
amd-radeon-rx-6400
Where to buy
*As an Amazon Associate, we earn from qualifying purchases.
Best rankings
Available: ranking among products currently available (including other versions of this product).All: ranking among all products in the database.

What reviewers say about the AMD Radeon RX 6400

Based on 11 · 19

Reviewers love how small and frugal it is, but slam its limited PCIe link, small memory and missing video codecs.
Praised
Criticised
Pick a topic to see who said what
Loading category ranking...

Technical Specifications of graphics card AMD Radeon RX 6400

Technical score
Technical score
4.7/ 10
✕
What it is
How good the specs are compared with the other models in this category, 1–10.
How we count it
Areas: We rate the specs in each area against the other models in this category.
Weighting: The areas that matter most to buyers count more. The shares are shown under Score components.
Share: The technical score is 40% of the overall score.
Score distribution
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▼ Worse than 87% of models
Score components:

44%

3.6

Performance

24%

2.7

Memory

12%

7.1

Power

11%

8.9

Features

5%

8.9

Design

4%

5.9

Connectivity

4.7
Reviews score
4.7
List score
8.1
Value for money
Value for money
7.0/ 10
✕
What it is
An indicator that combines the graphics card's overall rating with its cost.
When it matters
When you are looking for a graphics card that offers a strong balance of performance, features, and price.
Score distribution
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▼ Worse than 75% of models
Score components:

70%

5.9

Overall score

30%

9.6

Price

7.0
3DMark Time Spy benchmark score
3,500 points
Market range: <4.1k points – >30.1k points
This graphics card scores 3,500 points in 3DMark Time Spy, which is lower than 92% of graphics cards and equal to 0.3% of graphics cards.
3DMark Port Royal score
3,700 points
Market range: <0 points – >22.4k points
This graphics card scores 3,700 points in 3DMark Port Royal, which is lower than 76.1% of graphics cards.
PassMark (G3D) result
7,737 points
Market range: <7.7k points – >36k points
This graphics card scores 7,737 points in PassMark G3D, which is lower than 89.8% of graphics cards.
PassMark (DirectCompute) result
2,804 points
Market range: <3.1k points – >26.3k points
This graphics card scores 2,804 points in PassMark DirectCompute, which is lower than 91.8% of graphics cards.
FP32 performance
3.57 TFLOPS
Market range: <3.94 TFLOPS – >56.3 TFLOPS
This graphics card delivers 3.57 TFLOPS FP32 performance, which is lower than that of 90.4% of graphics cards.
Show more
What reviewers say
VRAM
4 GB
Market range: <4 GB – >16 GB
This graphics card has 4 GB of VRAM, which is less than 87.7% of graphics cards and equal to 6% of graphics cards.
Memory type
GDDR6
This graphics card uses GDDR6 memory, which is newer than on 16.4% of graphics cards and equal to 40.3% of graphics cards.
Memory bus width
64 bit
Market range: <128 bit – >384 bit
This graphics card uses a 64 bit memory bus, which is narrower than that of 96.7% of graphics cards and equal to that of 3.3% of graphics cards.
Maximum memory bandwidth
128 GB/s
Market range: <168 GB/s – >960 GB/s
This graphics card reaches 128 GB/s memory bandwidth, which is lower than that of 92.3% of graphics cards and equal to that of 0.8% of graphics cards.
Effective memory speed
16,000 MHz
Market range: <7k MHz – >28k MHz
This graphics card reaches an effective memory speed of 16,000 MHz, which is slower than that of 63.3% of graphics cards and equal to that of 4.3% of graphics cards.
Show more
What reviewers say
PCI Express (PCIe) version
4
This graphics card supports PCIe 4, which is newer than on 22.5% of graphics cards and equal to 50.5% of graphics cards.
PCIe lanes
x4
This graphics card uses x4 PCIe lanes, which is fewer than 98.8% of graphics cards and equal to 1.2% of graphics cards.
DirectX version
12 Ultimate
This graphics card supports DirectX 12 Ultimate, which is more advanced than on 22.8% of graphics cards and equal to 77.2% of graphics cards.
Vulkan version
1.4
This graphics card supports Vulkan 1.4, which is more advanced than on 20.8% of graphics cards and equal to 79.2% of graphics cards.
OpenGL version
4.6
This graphics card supports OpenGL 4.6, which is more advanced than on 2% of graphics cards and equal to 98% of graphics cards.
Show more
What reviewers say
Max displays supported
2
Market range: <4 – >4
This graphics card supports up to 2 displays, which is fewer than 97.7% of graphics cards and equal to 2.1% of graphics cards.
Max digital resolution
7680x4320
This graphics card supports a maximum digital resolution of 7680x4320, which is higher than that of 9.2% of graphics cards and equal to that of 90.9% of graphics cards.
DisplayPort outputs
1
Market range: <1 – >3
This graphics card offers 1 DisplayPort outputs, which is fewer than 88.1% of graphics cards and equal to 8.7% of graphics cards.
DisplayPort version
1.4a
This graphics card supports DisplayPort 1.4a, which is more advanced than on 19.3% of graphics cards and equal to 46.3% of graphics cards.
DisplayPort link rates
25.92 Gbps
Market range: <5.4 Gbps – >80 Gbps
This graphics card supports DisplayPort link rates up to 25.92 Gbps, which is faster than on 51.7% of graphics cards and equal to 4.3% of graphics cards.
Show more
What reviewers say
Thermal Design Power (TDP)
53 W
Market range: <86 W – >360 W
This graphics card has a TDP of 53 W, which is lower than that of 95.9% of graphics cards and equal to that of 0.1% of graphics cards.
Power consumption while under peak load
53 W
Market range: <106 W – >365 W
This graphics card draws 53 W under peak load, which is lower than 96.8% of graphics cards and equal to 0.2% of graphics cards.
Recommended PSU wattage
350 W
Market range: <450 W – >850 W
This graphics card recommends a 350 W PSU, which is lower than that of 92.7% of graphics cards and equal to that of 1.3% of graphics cards.
Board power limit
53 W
Market range: <107 W – >400 W
This graphics card has a board power limit of 53 W, which is lower than that of 96.8% of graphics cards and equal to that of 0.1% of graphics cards.
PCIe power spec
53 W
Show more
What reviewers say
Size
172x 112x 39 mm
Length
150 mm
Market range: <200 mm – >337 mm
This graphics card is 150 mm long, which is shorter than 98.3% of graphics cards and equal in length to 0.1% of graphics cards.
Height
69 mm
Market range: <109 mm – >146 mm
This graphics card is 69 mm tall, which is shorter than 92.5% of graphics cards and equal in height to 1.6% of graphics cards.
Slot width
1 slot/s
Market range: <2 slot/s – >3.25 slot/s
This graphics card occupies 1 slot/s, which is slimmer than 96.1% of graphics cards and equal in width to 3.9% of graphics cards.
Weight
358 g
Market range: <541 g – >2k g
This graphics card weighs 358 g, which is lighter than 95.4% of Graphics cards and equal to 0.1% of Graphics cards.
Show more
What reviewers say

AMD Radeon RX 6400 vs the average graphics card

246810TotalPerformanceMemoryFeaturesConnectivityPowerDesign
  • 75.3% lower TDP
    This graphics card has a lower TDP than the average graphics card (53 W vs 215 W). The average graphics card has a TDP of 215 W.
    53 W vs 215 W
  • 46.2% lower PSU requirement
    This graphics card has a lower PSU requirement than the average graphics card (350 W vs 650 W). The average graphics card has a PSU requirement of 650 W.
    350 W vs 650 W
  • Supports ECC memory
    This graphics card supports ECC memory, the average graphics card does not.
  • 132.2 mm shorter card length
    This graphics card is shorter than the average graphics card (150 mm vs 282.2 mm). The average graphics card has a length of 282.2 mm.
    150 mm vs 282.2 mm
  • 1.5 slot/s slimmer design
    This graphics card occupies fewer slots than the average graphics card (1 slot/s vs 2.5 slot/s). The average graphics card occupies 2.5 slot/s.
    1 slot/s vs 2.5 slot/s
  • 56 mm lower card height
    This graphics card is shorter than the average graphics card (69 mm vs 125 mm). The average graphics card has a height of 125 mm.
    69 mm vs 125 mm
  • 75.9% lower board power limit
    This graphics card has a lower board power limit than the average graphics card (53 W vs 220 W). The average graphics card has a board power limit of 220 W.
    53 W vs 220 W
  • 14.3% faster VRAM clock
    This graphics card has a higher VRAM clock than the average graphics card (2000 MHz vs 1,750 MHz). The average graphics card runs its VRAM at 1,750 MHz.
    2,000 MHz vs 1,750 MHz
  • 3.06x cheaper
    AMD Radeon RX 6400 is cheaper than the average graphics card (£170 vs £520).
    £170 vs £520
  • 6.6% higher list score
    List score
    8.1/ 10
    ✕
    What it is
    How often independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers put this model in their best-of lists for this category.
    How we count it
    Points: The model in the most lists of this category gets 10; the others get 8 to 10 in proportion. In no list yet: 7.5. Lists count 25% of the overall score.
    Enough data: Every list counts, even a single one. With fewer than 5 best-of lists in the category, this part is left out.
    Lists with this model (2)
    List score: in 2 of 96 lists (2%)
    8.1 vs 7.6
  • More FP64 throughput
    This graphics card has a better FP64 ratio than the average graphics card (1:16 vs 1:64).
    1:16 vs 1:64
  • Supports ECC memory
    This graphics card supports ECC memory, the average graphics card does not.
  • 14.3% faster VRAM clock
    This graphics card has a higher VRAM clock than the average graphics card (2000 MHz vs 1,750 MHz). The average graphics card runs its VRAM at 1,750 MHz.
    2,000 MHz vs 1,750 MHz
  • 1 more GPUs supported
    This graphics card supports more GPUs in multi-GPU mode than the average graphics card (1 vs 0). The average graphics card supports 0 GPUs in multi-GPU mode.
    1 vs 0
  • 63.6% smaller GPU die
    This graphics card has a lower GPU die size than the average graphics card (107 mm² vs 294 mm²). The average graphics card has a GPU die size of 294 mm².
    107 mm² vs 294 mm²
  • 75.3% lower TDP
    This graphics card has a lower TDP than the average graphics card (53 W vs 215 W). The average graphics card has a TDP of 215 W.
    53 W vs 215 W
  • 46.2% lower PSU requirement
    This graphics card has a lower PSU requirement than the average graphics card (350 W vs 650 W). The average graphics card has a PSU requirement of 650 W.
    350 W vs 650 W
  • 75.9% lower board power limit
    This graphics card has a lower board power limit than the average graphics card (53 W vs 220 W). The average graphics card has a board power limit of 220 W.
    53 W vs 220 W
  • 75.9% lower peak power draw
    This graphics card has a lower peak power draw than the average graphics card (53 W vs 220 W). The average graphics card has a peak power draw of 220 W.
    53 W vs 220 W
  • 66.7% lower idle power draw
    This graphics card has a lower idle power draw than the average graphics card (4 W vs 12 W). The average graphics card has an idle power draw of 12 W.
    4 W vs 12 W
  • 132.2 mm shorter card length
    This graphics card is shorter than the average graphics card (150 mm vs 282.2 mm). The average graphics card has a length of 282.2 mm.
    150 mm vs 282.2 mm
  • 1.5 slot/s slimmer design
    This graphics card occupies fewer slots than the average graphics card (1 slot/s vs 2.5 slot/s). The average graphics card occupies 2.5 slot/s.
    1 slot/s vs 2.5 slot/s
  • 56 mm lower card height
    This graphics card is shorter than the average graphics card (69 mm vs 125 mm). The average graphics card has a height of 125 mm.
    69 mm vs 125 mm
  • 64.7% lighter
    This graphics card is lighter than the average graphics card (358 g vs 1,014 g). The average graphics card weighs 1,014 g.
    358 g vs 1,014 g
  • 8 GB less VRAM
    This graphics card has fewer VRAM than the average graphics card (4 GB vs 12 GB). The average graphics card has 12 GB VRAM.
    4 GB vs 12 GB
  • 28 fewer compute units
    This graphics card has fewer compute units than the average graphics card (12 vs 40). The average graphics card has 40 compute units.
    12 vs 40
  • 2 fewer fans
    This graphics card has fewer fans than the average graphics card (1 vs 3).
    1 vs 3
  • 34.7% lower review score
    Reviews score
    4.7/ 10
    ✕
    What it is
    Average grade from independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers, 1–10.
    How we count it
    Grades: Each review's own score is converted to 1–10; without one, we grade the review ourselves. Big test sites count more, short reviews half as much as full tests. A video review counts half.
    Score: The average grade is 80% of the review mark; the number of reviews is the other 20% (1 review = 5, the typical number in this category = 8, the most-reviewed model = 10).
    Enough data: With few reviews, the average grade is pulled toward the typical grade of this category. No reviews yet: 7.6 for now.
    Share: Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    Score distribution
    ▼
    <55-66-77-88-99-10
    ▼ Worse than 91% of models

    4.7

    Mark 7.2 is below the typical mark 7.9 of this category, so it cannot lift the score above the technical score

    80%

    6.7

    Average grade

    20%

    9.2

    Popularity

    Grades by review (29)
    11 reviews: 8 with a printed score, 3 estimated from the review. 18 video reviews, each counting half as much as a written test. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
    4.7 vs 7.2
  • No CUDA support
    This graphics card does not support CUDA, the average graphics card does.
  • 136 fewer TMUs
    This graphics card has fewer TMUs than the average graphics card (48 vs 184). The average graphics card has 184 TMUs.
    48 vs 184
  • 28 fewer ray tracing cores
    This graphics card has fewer ray tracing cores than the average graphics card (12 vs 40). The average graphics card has 40 ray tracing cores.
    12 vs 40
  • 70.5% lower texture rate
    This graphics card has a lower texture rate than the average graphics card (111.4 GTexel/s vs 378 GTexel/s). The average graphics card has a texture rate of 378 GTexel/s.
    111.4 GTexel/s vs 378 GTexel/s
  • 34.7% lower review score
    Reviews score
    4.7/ 10
    ✕
    What it is
    Average grade from independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers, 1–10.
    How we count it
    Grades: Each review's own score is converted to 1–10; without one, we grade the review ourselves. Big test sites count more, short reviews half as much as full tests. A video review counts half.
    Score: The average grade is 80% of the review mark; the number of reviews is the other 20% (1 review = 5, the typical number in this category = 8, the most-reviewed model = 10).
    Enough data: With few reviews, the average grade is pulled toward the typical grade of this category. No reviews yet: 7.6 for now.
    Share: Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    Score distribution
    ▼
    <55-66-77-88-99-10
    ▼ Worse than 91% of models

    4.7

    Mark 7.2 is below the typical mark 7.9 of this category, so it cannot lift the score above the technical score

    80%

    6.7

    Average grade

    20%

    9.2

    Popularity

    Grades by review (29)
    11 reviews: 8 with a printed score, 3 estimated from the review. 18 video reviews, each counting half as much as a written test. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
    4.7 vs 7.2
  • 6% worse value for money
    AMD Radeon RX 6400 has worse value for money than the average graphics card (7 vs 7.4).
    7 vs 7.41
  • 28 fewer compute units
    This graphics card has fewer compute units than the average graphics card (12 vs 40). The average graphics card has 40 compute units.
    12 vs 40
  • No CUDA support
    This graphics card does not support CUDA, the average graphics card does.
  • 136 fewer TMUs
    This graphics card has fewer TMUs than the average graphics card (48 vs 184). The average graphics card has 184 TMUs.
    48 vs 184
  • 28 fewer ray tracing cores
    This graphics card has fewer ray tracing cores than the average graphics card (12 vs 40). The average graphics card has 40 ray tracing cores.
    12 vs 40
  • 70.5% lower texture rate
    This graphics card has a lower texture rate than the average graphics card (111.4 GTexel/s vs 378 GTexel/s). The average graphics card has a texture rate of 378 GTexel/s.
    111.4 GTexel/s vs 378 GTexel/s
  • 144 fewer AI cores
    This graphics card has fewer AI cores than the average graphics card (0 vs 144). The average graphics card has 144 AI cores.
    0 vs 144
  • 54% lower pixel rate
    This graphics card has a lower pixel rate than the average graphics card (74.3 GPixel/s vs 161.3 GPixel/s). The average graphics card has a pixel rate of 161.3 GPixel/s.
    74.27 GPixel/s vs 161.3 GPixel/s
  • 32 fewer ROPs
    This graphics card has fewer ROPs than the average graphics card (32 vs 64). The average graphics card has 64 ROPs.
    32 vs 64
  • 84.2% lower FP32 performance
    This graphics card has a lower FP32 performance than the average graphics card (3.6 TFLOPS vs 22.6 TFLOPS). The average graphics card has FP32 performance of 22.6 TFLOPS.
    3.57 TFLOPS vs 22.6 TFLOPS
  • 7.3% lower boost clock speed
    This graphics card has a lower boost GPU clock than the average graphics card (2,321 MHz vs 2,505 MHz). The average graphics card has a boost GPU clock of 2,505 MHz.
    2,321 MHz vs 2,505 MHz
  • 65.8% lower PassMark score
    This graphics card has a lower PassMark score than the average graphics card (7,737 points vs 22,638 points). The average graphics card has a PassMark score of 22,638 points.
    7,737 points vs 22,638 points
  • 76.3% lower gaming score
    This graphics card has a lower gaming score than the average graphics card (3,500 points vs 14,779 points). The average graphics card has a gaming score of 14,779 points.
    3,500 points vs 14,779 points
  • 59.6% lower ray tracing score
    This graphics card has a lower ray tracing score than the average graphics card (3,700 points vs 9,148 points). The average graphics card has a ray tracing score of 9,148 points.
    3,700 points vs 9,148 points
  • 76.8% lower compute score
    This graphics card has a lower compute score than the average graphics card (2,804 points vs 12,70.5 points). The average graphics card has a compute score of 12,070.5 points.
    2,804 points vs 12,070.5 points
  • 1 years older
    This graphics card was released earlier than the average graphics card (2022 vs 2023).
    January 2022
    2022 vs 2023
  • 75.8% lower FP16 performance
    This graphics card has a lower FP16 performance than the average graphics card (7.1 TFLOPS vs 29.5 TFLOPS). The average graphics card has FP16 performance of 29.5 TFLOPS.
    7.13 TFLOPS vs 29.5 TFLOPS
  • 3,584 fewer FP32 units
    This graphics card has fewer FP32 units than the average graphics card (768 vs 4,352). The average graphics card has 4,352 FP32 units.
    768 vs 4,352
  • 54.2% lower FP64 performance
    This graphics card has a lower FP64 performance than the average graphics card (0.2 TFLOPS vs 0.48 TFLOPS). The average graphics card has FP64 performance of 0.48 TFLOPS.
    0.22 TFLOPS vs 0.48 TFLOPS
  • 8 GB less VRAM
    This graphics card has fewer VRAM than the average graphics card (4 GB vs 12 GB). The average graphics card has 12 GB VRAM.
    4 GB vs 12 GB
  • 71.4% lower memory bandwidth
    This graphics card has a lower memory bandwidth than the average graphics card (128 GB/s vs 448 GB/s). The average graphics card has a memory bandwidth of 448 GB/s.
    128 GB/s vs 448 GB/s
  • 128 bit narrower memory bus
    This graphics card has a narrower memory bus than the average graphics card (64 bit vs 192 bit). The average graphics card has a memory bus width of 192 bit.
    64 bit vs 192 bit
  • 91.7% smaller L2 cache
    This graphics card has fewer L2 cache than the average graphics card (2 MB vs 24 MB). The average graphics card has 24 MB L2 cache.
    2 MB vs 24 MB
  • 15.8% slower memory speed
    This graphics card has a lower effective memory speed than the average graphics card (16,000 MHz vs 19,000 MHz). The average graphics card reaches an effective memory speed of 19,000 MHz.
    16,000 MHz vs 19,000 MHz
  • No DLSS support
    This graphics card does not support DLSS, the average graphics card does.
  • Fewer PCIe lanes
    This graphics card has fewer PCIe lanes than the average graphics card (x4 vs x16). The average graphics card has x16 PCIe lanes.
    x4 vs x16
  • Less advanced frame generation
    This graphics card has less advanced frame generation than the average graphics card (frame generation vs multi frame generation).
    frame generation vs multi frame generation
  • 20% larger process node
    This graphics card uses a larger manufacturing process than the average graphics card (6 nm vs 5 nm). The average graphics card uses a manufacturing process of 5 nm.
    6 nm vs 5 nm
  • 76.4% fewer transistors
    This graphics card has fewer transistors than the average graphics card (5,400 million vs 22,900 million). The average graphics card has 22,900 million transistors.
    5,400 million vs 22,900 million
  • 2 fewer DisplayPort outputs
    This graphics card has fewer DisplayPort outputs than the average graphics card (1 vs 3). The average graphics card has 3 DisplayPort outputs.
    1 vs 3
  • No AV1 encoding
    This graphics card does not support AV1 encoding, the average graphics card does.
  • 2 fewer displays supported
    This graphics card supports fewer displays than the average graphics card (2 vs 4). The average graphics card supports 4 displays.
    2 vs 4
  • No AV1 decoding
    This graphics card does not support AV1 decoding, the average graphics card does.
  • Older HDMI version
    This graphics card supports an older HDMI version than the average graphics card (2.1 vs 2.1a).
    2.1 vs 2.1a
  • More basic codec support
    This graphics card encodes more basic formats than the average graphics card (H.264/H.265/VP9 vs H.264/H.265/AV1/VP9).
    H.264/H.265/VP9 vs H.264/H.265/AV1/VP9
  • Not VR ready
    This graphics card is not VR ready, while the average graphics card is.
  • 2 fewer fans
    This graphics card has fewer fans than the average graphics card (1 vs 3).
    1 vs 3
  • No overclocking support
    This graphics card does not support overclocking, the average graphics card does.
  • No dual BIOS
    This graphics card does not include dual BIOS, the average graphics card does.
  • 15 °C lower thermal ceiling
    This graphics card has a lower thermal ceiling than the average graphics card (110 °C vs 95 °C). The average graphics card has a thermal ceiling of 95 °C.
    110 °C vs 95 °C
  • No backplate
    This graphics card does not include a backplate, the average graphics card does.
  • No RGB lighting
    This graphics card does not include RGB lighting, the average graphics card does.

Video reviews

Hands-on testing, unboxing, and real-world video evaluations

6.0
Ultimate Worm
≈ estimated
10/04/2024
Benchmark review · 10 games at 1080p low settings
Verdict
AMD Radeon RX 6400 is okay for low-end 1080p gaming, but better alternatives exist, especially if you stream or record.
7.0
Daves Techway
≈ estimated
07/09/2022
Benchmark review · 1080p gameplay tests and value
Verdict
AMD Radeon RX 6400 suits lesser titles at 1080p, not triple-A games, but fills a low-profile gap.
4.0
eTeknix
≈ estimated
11/08/2022
Hands-on review · game benchmarks, thermals and noise
Verdict
AMD Radeon RX 6400 is a disappointing low-end card, and the reviewer would rather buy a used RX 5600 XT.
7.0
Dawid Does Tech Stuff
≈ estimated
25/06/2022
Hands-on review · 8K gaming on older titles
Verdict
AMD Radeon RX 6400 is surprisingly fun for older games at 8K, but too weak for demanding or competitive play.
4.0
RandomGaminginHD
≈ estimated
04/05/2022
Ray tracing test · Cyberpunk, Minecraft and Quake II RTX
Verdict
AMD Radeon RX 6400 handles ray tracing only with heavy quality or resolution cuts, so it is not worth using.
7.0
RandomGaminginHD
≈ estimated
02/05/2022
Hands-on review · gaming tests on PCIe 4.0, 3.0 and 2.0
Verdict
AMD Radeon RX 6400 suits modern PCIe 4.0 systems or upgrades from integrated graphics, but it is not a must-have.
3.0
Hardware Unboxed
≈ estimated
27/04/2022
Hands-on review · benchmarks and low-profile use
Verdict
AMD Radeon RX 6400 is poor value for budget gaming and only sensible in low-profile builds on PCIe 4.0 systems.
9.0
ETA PRIME
≈ estimated
25/04/2022
Hands-on test · retro console emulation up to 4K
Verdict
AMD Radeon RX 6400 handles most retro emulators at 4K well, making it a strong pick for small emulation PCs despite some glitches.
7.0
LOHTEC
≈ estimated
20/04/2022
Hands-on review · game tests and benchmarks at 1080p
Verdict
AMD Radeon RX 6400 suits small builds if bought cheap, but the workstation version isn't worth its price.
Hands-on video, no verdict
Hands-on video, no verdict
Overview video

Expert reviews

In-depth analysis and verdict from leading tech publications

8.0
techpowerup.com
✓ explicit
25/04/2022
Lab test · Compact ITX card
Verdict
The MSI Radeon RX 6400 Aero ITX is a compact card that needs no power connector and suits 1080p, but its 4GB of memory and missing AV1 decoding limit it.
4.0
techspot.com
≈ estimated
03/05/2022
Benchmark review · Low-profile GPU
Verdict
The Radeon RX 6400 fits old low-profile PCs and needs no power cable, but its slow frame rates and PCIe 3.0 losses are hard to forgive.
5.0
tomshardware.com
✓ explicit
24/06/2022
Retail purchase test · Half-height card
Verdict
The Radeon RX 6400 is a half-height card for slim PCs that need no power cable, but it cuts too many features to be a good budget pick.
5.0
guru3d.com
≈ estimated
08/09/2022
Full review · Single-slot GPU
Verdict
The Radeon RX 6400 is a Full HD card for compact PCs with PCIe 4.0, but its 4GB of memory and narrow bus make newer games stutter.
7.0
mkaugaming.com
✓ explicit
29/09/2022
Hands-on review · Budget 1080p card
Verdict
The Radeon RX 6400 is a worthwhile 1080p card that beat expectations, though ray tracing and 4K are out of reach.
8.0
cgmagonline.com
✓ explicit
18/10/2022
Upgrade review · Older PC refresh
Verdict
The Radeon RX 6400 is a solid upgrade for an aging gaming PC in a smaller case, though it cannot match PS5 or handle ray tracing.
7.0
pcmag.com
✓ explicit
01/11/2023
Lab test · Low-profile card
Verdict
The Sapphire Pulse Radeon RX 6400 is the most powerful low-profile card you can fit in a small PC, though it trails most modern rivals.
10
techpowerup.com
✓ explicit
06/05/2022
Follow-up test · PCIe 3.0 scaling
Verdict
The Radeon RX 6400 loses a large share of its link bandwidth on PCIe 3.0 boards, so it suits systems with a PCIe 4.0 slot best.
7.0
gamecontrast.de
≈ estimated
23/05/2023
Hands-on test · Low-power 1080p card
Verdict
The Radeon RX 6400 is a tiny, low-power card for basic Full HD gaming, but its 4GB of memory and weak ray tracing hold it back.
7.8
profesionalreview.com
✓ explicit
02/09/2022
Lab test · Entry-level 1080p card
Verdict
The Radeon RX 6400 suits small PCs and 1080p at medium settings, but ray tracing is impractical and video encoding is missing.
8.6
geeknetic.es
✓ explicit
11/09/2022
Lab test · Low-profile single-slot
Verdict
The Sapphire Pulse RX 6400 is a single-slot, low-profile card that suits casual 1080p gaming, but it cannot decode AV1 ultra-high-definition video in hardware.

Third-party reviews

What customers like about AMD Radeon RX 6400

  • Ultra-low power consumption (TDP ~53W) requiring no external PCIe power connectors
  • Available in low-profile and single-slot form factors, ideal for small office PCs (SFF)
  • Significantly faster than integrated graphics and older entry-level cards like the GT 1030
  • Highly energy efficient and generally runs cool and quiet under load
  • Support for modern features like Ray Tracing and AMD FidelityFX Super Resolution (FSR)

What customers don't like about AMD Radeon RX 6400

  • Significant performance loss (10% or more) when used on older PCIe 3.0 systems due to x4 lane limitation
  • Lacks essential hardware video encoding (H.264/H.265) and AV1 decoding
  • Limited 4GB VRAM and narrow 64-bit memory bus cause stuttering in demanding modern titles
  • Poor value proposition compared to slightly more expensive cards like the RX 6600 or used market alternatives
  • Ray tracing performance is too weak for practical gaming at standard settings
  • Locked against overclocking, preventing users from squeezing out extra performance

Verdict

The AMD Radeon RX 6400 is an entry-level graphics card based on the RDNA 2 architecture and built on a 6nm process, featuring 768 stream processors, 12 ray accelerators, and a boost clock of up to 2321 MHz. It is equipped with 4GB of GDDR6 memory on a narrow 64-bit bus with 16MB of Infinity Cache and utilizes a PCIe 4.0 x4 interface. Its main pros include an exceptionally low 53W TDP that requires no external power connectors, making it ideal for low-profile, single-slot, small form factor (SFF) upgrades. However, significant cons include a performance drop of up to 10-15% when used on older PCIe 3.0 systems, a lack of AV1 decoding and H.264/H.265 encoding capabilities, and limited 4GB VRAM which struggles with modern AAA titles.

Compare AMD Radeon RX 6400 with other products in the Graphics cards category

1Product to compare no. 1
VS
2Product to compare no. 2
VS
3Product to compare no. 3 (optional)

Graphic comparison of AMD Radeon RX 6400 and other products in the Graphics cards category

No results found