OVERALL
ALTERNATIVES
SPECS
VS AVERAGE
REVIEWS
Scored using Graphics cards Methodology v1.0
Graphics cards Methodology v1.0
Mathematical & Unbiased Scoring
Products in this category are scored under Frontum Graphics cards Methodology v1.0: technical specifications plus authentic consumer ratings, with 0% commercial bias.
Explore Graphics cards Methodology v1.0

ASRock Radeon RX 6400 Challenger ITX 4GB Review | 118 Data compared

Avg. price:~£110VRAM:4 GBMemory bus width:64 bitThermal Design Power (TDP):53 W

ASRock Radeon RX 6400 Challenger ITX 4GB Review: Compare 118 technical specifications and user reviews to see how this product ranks in the Graphics cards category and whether it is worth buying.

ASRock Radeon RX 6400 Challenger ITX 4GB
5.0/10

Overall score

Score
5.0/ 10
✕
What it is
An overall evaluation of the graphics card's quality, based on technical analyses and user reviews.
When it matters
When you need a quick reference to identify the best graphics cards on the market.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 87% of models
Score components

90%

4.7

Technical score

10%

7.9

User score

â–¼Worse than 87% of graphics cards
6.5

Value for money

Value for money
6.5/ 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
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 80% of models
Score components

70%

5.0

Overall score

30%

9.9

Price

â–¼Worse than 80%
4.7

Technical score

Technical score
4.7/ 10
✕
What it is
An assessment of technical performance for products in the Graphics cards category across these key areas: Performance, Memory, Platform & Features, Connectivity & Media, Power & Cooling, Design.
When it matters
When you want to compare graphics cards based on technical performance and available features.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 88% of models
Score components

44%

3.6

Performance

24%

2.5

Memory

12%

7.1

Power & Cooling

11%

8.7

Platform & Features

5%

8.9

Design

4%

6.0

Connectivity & Media

â–¼Worse than 88%
7.9

User score

User score
7.9/ 10
✕
What it is
A rating that combines user reviews and the total number of reviews received by the graphics card.
When it matters
When you want to understand how a graphics card performs in real use and how reliable it is in terms of performance, temperatures, noise, stability, and long-term ownership.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 84% of models
Score components

70%

8.4

User ratings

30%

6.9

Number of reviews

Based on ratings from across the web.
â–¼Worse than 84%
  • asrock-radeon-rx-6400-challenger-itx-4gb
  • asrock-radeon-rx-6400-challenger-itx-4gb
  • asrock-radeon-rx-6400-challenger-itx-4gb
  • asrock-radeon-rx-6400-challenger-itx-4gb
  • asrock-radeon-rx-6400-challenger-itx-4gb
asrock-radeon-rx-6400-challenger-itx-4gb
asrock-radeon-rx-6400-challenger-itx-4gb
asrock-radeon-rx-6400-challenger-itx-4gb
asrock-radeon-rx-6400-challenger-itx-4gb
asrock-radeon-rx-6400-challenger-itx-4gb
Best prices
*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.
Loading category ranking...

Technical Specifications of graphics card ASRock Radeon RX 6400 Challenger ITX 4GB

Technical score
Technical score
4.7/ 10
✕
What it is
An assessment of technical performance for products in the Graphics cards category across these key areas: Performance, Memory, Platform & Features, Connectivity & Media, Power & Cooling, Design.
When it matters
When you want to compare graphics cards based on technical performance and available features.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 88% of models
Score components:

44%

3.6

Performance

24%

2.5

Memory

12%

7.1

Power & Cooling

11%

8.7

Platform & Features

5%

8.9

Design

4%

6.0

Connectivity & Media

4.7
User score
User score
7.9/ 10
✕
What it is
A rating that combines user reviews and the total number of reviews received by the graphics card.
When it matters
When you want to understand how a graphics card performs in real use and how reliable it is in terms of performance, temperatures, noise, stability, and long-term ownership.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 84% of models
Score components

70%

8.4

User ratings

30%

6.9

Number of reviews

Based on ratings from across the web.
7.9
Popularity
Popularity
6.9/ 10
✕
What it is
An indicator based on the number of reviews received by the graphics card.
When it matters
When you prefer a graphics card that has already been chosen and reviewed by many other users.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–² Better than 65% of models
Popularity:
ASRock Radeon RX 6400 Challenger ITX 4GB has a popularity score of 6.9 points, which is higher than that of 65% of products in this category.
6.9
Value for money
Value for money
6.5/ 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
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 80% of models
Score components:

70%

5.0

Overall score

30%

9.9

Price

6.5
3DMark Time Spy benchmark score
3,800 points
Market range: <4k points – >34k points
This graphics card scores 3,800 points in 3DMark Time Spy, which is lower than 91.1% of graphics cards and equal to 0.1% of graphics cards.
3DMark Port Royal score
3,300 points
Market range: <0 points – >25k points
This graphics card scores 3,300 points in 3DMark Port Royal, which is lower than 77.8% of graphics cards and equal to 0.1% of graphics cards.
PassMark (G3D) result
7,324 points
Market range: <7.7k points – >36k points
This graphics card scores 7,324 points in PassMark G3D, which is lower than 90.9% of graphics cards.
PassMark (DirectCompute) result
2,787 points
Market range: <3.1k points – >26.3k points
This graphics card scores 2,787 points in PassMark DirectCompute, which is lower than 92.3% of graphics cards.
Floating-point performance
3.57 TFLOPS
Market range: <4.38 TFLOPS – >57.42 TFLOPS
This graphics card delivers 3.57 TFLOPS floating-point performance, which is lower than that of 91.5% of graphics cards.
Show more
VRAM
4 GB
Market range: <4 GB – >24 GB
This graphics card has 4 GB of VRAM, which is less than 88% of graphics cards and equal to 6% of graphics cards.
Memory type
GDDR6
GDDR version
GDDR6
This graphics card uses GDDR6 memory, which is newer than on 15.9% of graphics cards and equal to 40.3% of graphics cards.
Memory bus width
64 bit
Market range: <64 bit – >384 bit
This graphics card uses a 64 bit memory bus, which is narrower than that of 97.2% of graphics cards and equal to that of 2.8% 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 92.6% of graphics cards and equal to that of 0.7% of graphics cards.
Show more
PCI Express (PCIe) version
4
This graphics card supports PCIe 4, which is newer than on 22.3% of graphics cards and equal to 52.1% of graphics cards.
PCIe lanes
x4
This graphics card uses x4 PCIe lanes, which is fewer than 99% of graphics cards and equal to 1.1% of graphics cards.
DirectX version
12 Ultimate
This graphics card supports DirectX 12 Ultimate, which is more advanced than on 22.6% of graphics cards and equal to 77.4% of graphics cards.
Vulkan version
1.4
This graphics card supports Vulkan 1.4, which is more advanced than on 20.7% of graphics cards and equal to 79.3% of graphics cards.
OpenGL version
4.6
This graphics card supports OpenGL 4.6, which is more advanced than on 1.9% of graphics cards and equal to 98.1% of graphics cards.
Show more
Max displays supported
2
Market range: <4 – >4
This graphics card supports up to 2 displays, which is fewer than 97.8% 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% of graphics cards and equal to that of 91% of graphics cards.
DisplayPort outputs
1
Market range: <1 – >3
This graphics card offers 1 DisplayPort outputs, which is fewer than 88.7% of graphics cards and equal to 8.6% of graphics cards.
DisplayPort version
1.4a
This graphics card supports DisplayPort 1.4a, which is more advanced than on 19.5% of graphics cards and equal to 47.1% of graphics cards.
DisplayPort link rates
8.1 Gbps
Market range: <5.4 Gbps – >80 Gbps
This graphics card supports DisplayPort link rates up to 8.1 Gbps, which is slower than on 65% of graphics cards and equal to 22.7% of graphics cards.
Show more
Thermal Design Power (TDP)
53 W
Market range: <60 W – >360 W
This graphics card has a TDP of 53 W, which is lower than that of 96.3% of graphics cards and equal to that of 0.1% of graphics cards.
Power consumption while under peak load
53 W
Market range: <100 W – >400 W
This graphics card draws 53 W under peak load, which is lower than 97% of graphics cards and equal to 0.1% 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 93.2% of graphics cards and equal to that of 1.2% of graphics cards.
Board power limit
53 W
Market range: <100 W – >400 W
This graphics card has a board power limit of 53 W, which is lower than that of 96.9% of graphics cards and equal to that of 0.1% of graphics cards.
PCIe power spec
53 W
Show more
Size
162x 112x 39 mm
This graphics card measures 162x112x 39 mm, which is more compact than 98.6% of graphics cards.
Length
162 mm
Market range: <200 mm – >350 mm
This graphics card is 162 mm long, which is shorter than 97.3% of graphics cards and equal in length to 0.3% of graphics cards.
Height
112 mm
Market range: <109 mm – >146 mm
This graphics card is 112 mm tall, which is shorter than 76.5% of graphics cards and equal in height to 3.1% of graphics cards.
Slot width
2 slot/s
Market range: <2 slot/s – >3.25 slot/s
This graphics card occupies 2 slot/s, which is slimmer than 53.4% of graphics cards and equal in width to 42.5% of graphics cards.
Weight
275 g
Market range: <500 g – >2k g
This graphics card weighs 275 g, which is lighter than 98.1% of graphics cards.
Show more

ASRock Radeon RX 6400 Challenger ITX 4GB vs the average graphics card

246810TotalPerformanceMemoryPlatform & FeaturesConnectivity & MediaPower & CoolingDesign
  • 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
  • 123 mm shorter card length
    This graphics card is shorter than the average graphics card (162 mm vs 285 mm). The average graphics card has a length of 285 mm.
    162 mm vs 285 mm
  • 76.4% lower board power limit
    This graphics card has a lower board power limit than the average graphics card (53 W vs 225 W). The average graphics card has a board power limit of 225 W.
    53 W vs 225 W
  • 0.5 slot/s slimmer design
    This graphics card occupies fewer slots than the average graphics card (2 slot/s vs 2.5 slot/s). The average graphics card occupies 2.5 slot/s.
    2 slot/s vs 2.5 slot/s
  • 14.3% faster VRAM clock
    This graphics card has a higher VRAM clock than the average graphics card (2000 MHz vs 1750 MHz). The average graphics card runs its VRAM at 1750 MHz.
    2,000 MHz vs 1,750 MHz
  • More compact card size
    This graphics card is more compact than the average graphics card (162x112 x 39 mm vs 285x127 x 52 mm). The average graphics card has a size of 285x127 x 52 mm.
    162x112 x 39 mm vs 285x127 x 52 mm
  • 13 mm lower card height
    This graphics card is shorter than the average graphics card (112 mm vs 125 mm). The average graphics card has a height of 125 mm.
    112 mm vs 125 mm
  • 4.82x cheaper
    ASRock Radeon RX 6400 Challenger ITX 4GB is cheaper than the average graphics card (£110 vs £530).
    £110 vs £530
  • Better FP64 ratio
    This graphics card has a better FP64 ratio than the average graphics card (1:16 vs 1:64).
    1:16 vs 1:64
  • 14.3% faster VRAM clock
    This graphics card has a higher VRAM clock than the average graphics card (2000 MHz vs 1750 MHz). The average graphics card runs its VRAM at 1750 MHz.
    2,000 MHz vs 1,750 MHz
  • 63.7% smaller GPU die
    This graphics card has a lower GPU die size than the average graphics card (107 mm² vs 295 mm²). The average graphics card has a GPU die size of 295 mm².
    107 mm² vs 295 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
  • 76.4% lower board power limit
    This graphics card has a lower board power limit than the average graphics card (53 W vs 225 W). The average graphics card has a board power limit of 225 W.
    53 W vs 225 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
  • 123 mm shorter card length
    This graphics card is shorter than the average graphics card (162 mm vs 285 mm). The average graphics card has a length of 285 mm.
    162 mm vs 285 mm
  • 0.5 slot/s slimmer design
    This graphics card occupies fewer slots than the average graphics card (2 slot/s vs 2.5 slot/s). The average graphics card occupies 2.5 slot/s.
    2 slot/s vs 2.5 slot/s
  • More compact card size
    This graphics card is more compact than the average graphics card (162x112 x 39 mm vs 285x127 x 52 mm). The average graphics card has a size of 285x127 x 52 mm.
    162x112 x 39 mm vs 285x127 x 52 mm
  • 13 mm lower card height
    This graphics card is shorter than the average graphics card (112 mm vs 125 mm). The average graphics card has a height of 125 mm.
    112 mm vs 125 mm
  • 73.1% lighter card weight
    This graphics card is lighter than the average graphics card (275 g vs 1021 g). The average graphics card weighs 1021 g.
    275 g vs 1,021 g
  • 192 bit narrower memory bus
    This graphics card has a narrower memory bus than the average graphics card (64 bit vs 256 bit). The average graphics card has a memory bus width of 256 bit.
    64 bit vs 256 bit
  • 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
  • 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
  • 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
  • 10.9% worse value for money
    ASRock Radeon RX 6400 Challenger ITX 4GB has worse value for money than the average graphics card (6.49 vs 7.2).
    6.49 vs 7.2
  • 0.7% lower user score
    User score
    7.9/ 10
    ✕
    What it is
    A rating that combines user reviews and the total number of reviews received by the graphics card.
    When it matters
    When you want to understand how a graphics card performs in real use and how reliable it is in terms of performance, temperatures, noise, stability, and long-term ownership.
    Score distribution
    ▼▼
    <55-66-77-88-99-10
    ASRock Radeon RX 6400 Challenger ITX 4GB
    the average graphics card
    ASRock Radeon RX 6400 Challenger ITX 4GB has a lower user score than the average graphics card (7.94 vs 8.000).
    7.94 vs 8
  • 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
  • 70.8% lower texture rate
    This graphics card has a lower texture rate than the average graphics card (111.4 GTexel/s vs 381.2 GTexel/s). The average graphics card has a texture rate of 381.2 GTexel/s.
    111.4 GTexel/s vs 381.2 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
  • 54.5% lower pixel rate
    This graphics card has a lower pixel rate than the average graphics card (74.3 GPixel/s vs 163.2 GPixel/s). The average graphics card has a pixel rate of 163.2 GPixel/s.
    74.27 GPixel/s vs 163.2 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 22.57 TFLOPS). The average graphics card has FP32 performance of 22.57 TFLOPS.
    3.56 TFLOPS vs 22.57 TFLOPS
  • 7.3% lower boost clock speed
    This graphics card has a lower boost GPU clock than the average graphics card (2321 MHz vs 2505 MHz). The average graphics card has a boost GPU clock of 2505 MHz.
    2,321 MHz vs 2,505 MHz
  • 67.7% lower PassMark score
    This graphics card has a lower PassMark score than the average graphics card (7324 points vs 22653 points). The average graphics card has a PassMark score of 22653 points.
    7,324 points vs 22,653 points
  • 74.1% lower gaming score
    This graphics card has a lower gaming score than the average graphics card (3800 points vs 14678.5 points). The average graphics card has a gaming score of 14678.5 points.
    3,800 points vs 14,678.5 points
  • 64% lower ray tracing score
    This graphics card has a lower ray tracing score than the average graphics card (3300 points vs 9166 points). The average graphics card has a ray tracing score of 9166 points.
    3,300 points vs 9,166 points
  • 76.9% lower compute score
    This graphics card has a lower compute score than the average graphics card (2787 points vs 12074 points). The average graphics card has a compute score of 12074 points.
    2,787 points vs 12,074 points
  • 76% lower FP16 performance
    This graphics card has a lower FP16 performance than the average graphics card (7.1 TFLOPS vs 29.7 TFLOPS). The average graphics card has FP16 performance of 29.725 TFLOPS.
    7.13 TFLOPS vs 29.725 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
  • 84.5% lower compute throughput
    This graphics card has a lower compute throughput than the average graphics card (3.6 TFLOPS vs 22.98 TFLOPS). The average graphics card has compute throughput of 22.98 TFLOPS.
    3.57 TFLOPS vs 22.98 TFLOPS
  • 97.1% lower INT8 performance
    This graphics card has a lower INT8 performance than the average graphics card (7.1 TOPS vs 242 TOPS). The average graphics card has INT8 performance of 242 TOPS.
    7.13 TOPS vs 242 TOPS
  • 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
  • 192 bit narrower memory bus
    This graphics card has a narrower memory bus than the average graphics card (64 bit vs 256 bit). The average graphics card has a memory bus width of 256 bit.
    64 bit vs 256 bit
  • 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
  • 95.8% smaller L2 cache
    This graphics card has fewer L2 cache than the average graphics card (1 MB vs 24 MB). The average graphics card has 24 MB L2 cache.
    1 MB vs 24 MB
  • 15.8% slower memory speed
    This graphics card has a lower effective memory speed than the average graphics card (16000 MHz vs 19000 MHz). The average graphics card reaches an effective memory speed of 19000 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
  • No AI upscalers
    This graphics card does not support AI upscalers, the average graphics card does.
  • 20% larger process node
    This graphics card has a higher process node than the average graphics card (6 nm vs 5 nm). The average graphics card uses a process node of 5 nm.
    6 nm vs 5 nm
  • 1 older
    This graphics card was released earlier than the average graphics card (2022 vs 2023).
    April 2022
    2,022 vs 2,023
  • 76.4% fewer transistors
    This graphics card has fewer transistors than the average graphics card (5400 million vs 22900 million). The average graphics card has 22900 million transistors.
    5,400 million vs 22,900 million
  • Older FSR version
    This graphics card supports an older FSR version than the average graphics card (1 vs 3.1).
    1.0 vs 3.1
  • 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.
    No vs yes
  • 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.
    No vs yes
  • Not VR ready
    This graphics card is not VR ready, while the average graphics card is.
  • Narrower decode codec support
    This graphics card supports narrower hardware decode codec support than the average graphics card (H.264/H.265/AV1/VP9 vs H.264/H.265/AV1/VP9/MPEG-2/VC-1).
    H.264/H.265/AV1/VP9 vs H.264/H.265/AV1/VP9/MPEG-2/VC-1
  • 2 fewer monitors per output type
    This graphics card supports fewer monitors per output type than the average graphics card (1 vs 3). The average graphics card supports 3 monitors per output type.
    1 vs 3
  • 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.
    No vs yes
  • 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
  • 14 °C higher load temperature
    This graphics card has a higher load temperature than the average graphics card (81 °C vs 67 °C). The average graphics card has a load temperature of 67 °C.
    81 °C vs 67 °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

Expert reviews

In-depth analysis and verdict from leading tech publications

C
club386.com
07/07/2022
Summary of the review
ASRock Radeon RX 6400 Challenger ITX review - Club386 Would you like to narrow down tests evaluating this model on PCIe 3.0 vs PCIe 4.0 platforms, or...
C
computerbase.de
05/05/2022
Summary of the review
Leserartikel - Test der AMD Radeon RX 6400 (Update 02-2024)
(Translated)Show original

Third-party reviews

Based on ratings from across the web.
Reviews last updated: June 2026 · How we calculate this

What we like about ASRock Radeon RX 6400 Challenger ITX 4GB

  • No external power required; runs entirely off the PCIe slot (53W TDP)
  • Compact ITX form factor ideal for small-form-factor and OEM system upgrades
  • Whisper-quiet operation with 0dB silent cooling (fan stops under low load)
  • Significant performance jump over integrated graphics and the GTX 1630
  • Energy efficient with low heat generation during operation
  • Supports modern features like AMD FidelityFX Super Resolution (FSR) and Ray Tracing

What we don't like about ASRock Radeon RX 6400 Challenger ITX 4GB

  • Performance is significantly hobbled on older PCIe 3.0 systems due to 4-lane (x4) interface
  • Lacks essential hardware video encoders (H.264/H.265/AV1 encoding) and AV1 decoding
  • 4GB VRAM and 64-bit bus limit performance in demanding modern games and high textures
  • Locked overclocking prevents users from squeezing out extra performance
  • Poor value proposition compared to the slightly more expensive RX 6500 XT or RX 6600
  • Ray tracing performance is extremely poor, often resulting in unplayable frame rates

Verdict

The ASRock Radeon RX 6400 Challenger ITX 4GB is a compact, entry-level graphics card based on the AMD RDNA 2 architecture, featuring 768 stream processors, a boost clock up to 2321 MHz, and 4GB of GDDR6 memory on a 64-bit interface. Its primary advantages include an extremely low 53W power draw that requires no external PCIe power connectors, a space-saving single-fan ITX design, and support for modern features like DirectX 12 Ultimate and 0dB silent cooling. However, it is limited by a narrow PCIe 4.0 x4 bus that can bottleneck performance on older PCIe 3.0 systems, a lack of H.264/H.265 video encoding capabilities, and a restrictive 4GB VRAM capacity that struggles with demanding modern titles at high settings.

Compare ASRock Radeon RX 6400 Challenger ITX 4GB 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 ASRock Radeon RX 6400 Challenger ITX 4GB and other products in the Graphics cards category

No results found