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

MSI Radeon RX 6400 Aero ITX 4GB review: 117 specs compared

Avg. price:~£150VRAM:4 GBMemory bus width:64 bitThermal Design Power (TDP):53 W

MSI Radeon RX 6400 Aero ITX 4GB Review: Compare 117 technical specifications and 2 expert and video reviews to see how this product ranks in the Graphics cards category and whether it is worth buying.

MSI Radeon RX 6400 Aero ITX 4GB
5.6/10

Overall score

Score
5.6/ 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
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 93% of models
Score components

40%

4.6

Technical score

25%

4.6

Reviews score

25%

?

List scoreNot enough data yet, so we use 7.5, the mark of a weaker model in this category

10%

?

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

â–¼Worse than 93% of graphics cards
6.9

Value for money

Value for money
6.9/ 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 79% of models
Score components

70%

5.6

Overall score

30%

9.7

Price

â–¼Worse than 79%
4.6

Technical score

Technical score
4.6/ 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
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 89% of models
Score components

44%

3.3

Performance

24%

2.5

Memory

12%

7.7

Power

11%

8.7

Features

5%

8.8

Design

4%

5.9

Connectivity

â–¼Worse than 89%
4.6

Reviews score

Reviews score
4.6/ 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
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 92% of models

4.6

Mark 7.1 is below the typical mark 7.9 of this category, so it cannot lift the score above the technical score

80%

7.2

Average grade

20%

6.5

Popularity

Grades by review (2)
2 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.
â–¼Worse than 92%
?

List score

List score
7.5/ 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 (0)
Not in any best-of list yet, so this part counts as 7.5. Models in a list get 8 to 10.
Not in any best-of list yet
  • msi-radeon-rx-6400-aero-itx-4gb
msi-radeon-rx-6400-aero-itx-4gb
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.
Loading category ranking...

Technical Specifications of graphics card MSI Radeon RX 6400 Aero ITX 4GB

Technical score
Technical score
4.6/ 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
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 89% of models
Score components:

44%

3.3

Performance

24%

2.5

Memory

12%

7.7

Power

11%

8.7

Features

5%

8.8

Design

4%

5.9

Connectivity

4.6
Reviews score
4.6
List score
?
Value for money
Value for money
6.9/ 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 79% of models
Score components:

70%

5.6

Overall score

30%

9.7

Price

6.9
3DMark Time Spy benchmark score
3,800 points
Market range: <4.1k points – >30.1k 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 – >22.4k points
This graphics card scores 3,300 points in 3DMark Port Royal, which is lower than 77.6% 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 90.6% 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 92.1% of graphics cards.
FP32 performance
3.56 TFLOPS
Market range: <3.94 TFLOPS – >56.3 TFLOPS
This graphics card delivers 3.56 TFLOPS FP32 performance, which is lower than that of 90.5% of graphics cards.
Show more
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
?
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
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
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
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 65.3% of graphics cards and equal to 22.5% of graphics cards.
Show more
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
?
PCIe power spec
?
Show more
Size
?
Length
172 mm
Market range: <200 mm – >337 mm
This graphics card is 172 mm long, which is shorter than 94% of graphics cards and equal in length to 0.2% of graphics cards.
Height
112 mm
Market range: <109 mm – >146 mm
This graphics card is 112 mm tall, which is shorter than 76.6% of graphics cards and equal in height to 3.2% of graphics cards.
Slot width
?
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

MSI Radeon RX 6400 Aero ITX 4GB 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
  • 110.2 mm shorter card length
    This graphics card is shorter than the average graphics card (172 mm vs 282.2 mm). The average graphics card has a length of 282.2 mm.
    172 mm vs 282.2 mm
  • 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
  • 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
  • 3.47x cheaper
    MSI Radeon RX 6400 Aero ITX 4GB is cheaper than the average graphics card (£150 vs £520).
    £150 vs £520
  • 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
  • 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
  • 3.47x cheaper
    MSI Radeon RX 6400 Aero ITX 4GB is cheaper than the average graphics card (£150 vs £520).
    £150 vs £520
  • 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
  • 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
  • 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 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
  • 110.2 mm shorter card length
    This graphics card is shorter than the average graphics card (172 mm vs 282.2 mm). The average graphics card has a length of 282.2 mm.
    172 mm vs 282.2 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
  • 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
  • 36.1% lower review score
    Reviews score
    4.6/ 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
    â–¼
    <55-66-77-88-99-10
    â–¼ Worse than 92% of models

    4.6

    Mark 7.1 is below the typical mark 7.9 of this category, so it cannot lift the score above the technical score

    80%

    7.2

    Average grade

    20%

    6.5

    Popularity

    Grades by review (2)
    2 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.
    4.6 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
  • 36.1% lower review score
    Reviews score
    4.6/ 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
    â–¼
    <55-66-77-88-99-10
    â–¼ Worse than 92% of models

    4.6

    Mark 7.1 is below the typical mark 7.9 of this category, so it cannot lift the score above the technical score

    80%

    7.2

    Average grade

    20%

    6.5

    Popularity

    Grades by review (2)
    2 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.
    4.6 vs 7.2
  • 7.8% worse value for money
    MSI Radeon RX 6400 Aero ITX 4GB has worse value for money than the average graphics card (6.87 vs 7.4).
    6.87 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
  • 18.6% lower boost clock speed
    This graphics card has a lower boost GPU clock than the average graphics card (2039 MHz vs 2,505 MHz). The average graphics card has a boost GPU clock of 2,505 MHz.
    2,039 MHz vs 2,505 MHz
  • 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.
    3.56 TFLOPS vs 22.6 TFLOPS
  • 67.6% lower PassMark score
    This graphics card has a lower PassMark score than the average graphics card (7,324 points vs 22,638 points). The average graphics card has a PassMark score of 22,638 points.
    7,324 points vs 22,638 points
  • 74.3% lower gaming score
    This graphics card has a lower gaming score than the average graphics card (3,800 points vs 14,779 points). The average graphics card has a gaming score of 14,779 points.
    3,800 points vs 14,779 points
  • 63.9% lower ray tracing score
    This graphics card has a lower ray tracing score than the average graphics card (3,300 points vs 9,148 points). The average graphics card has a ray tracing score of 9,148 points.
    3,300 points vs 9,148 points
  • 76.9% lower compute score
    This graphics card has a lower compute score than the average graphics card (2,787 points vs 12,70.5 points). The average graphics card has a compute score of 12,070.5 points.
    2,787 points vs 12,070.5 points
  • 1 years older
    This graphics card was released earlier than the average graphics card (2022 vs 2023).
    2,022 vs 2,023
  • 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
  • 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
  • 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
  • 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 (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
  • No AI upscalers
    This graphics card does not support AI upscalers, the average graphics card does.
  • 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
  • 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.
  • 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
  • Not VR ready
    This graphics card is not VR ready, while the average graphics card is.
  • 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
  • 62.5% lower DisplayPort bandwidth
    This graphics card has a lower DisplayPort bandwidth than the average graphics card (8.1 Gbps vs 21.6 Gbps). The average graphics card has DisplayPort bandwidth of 21.6 Gbps.
    8.1 Gbps vs 21.6 Gbps
  • 2 fewer fans
    This graphics card has fewer fans than the average graphics card (1 vs 3).
    1 vs 3
  • 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

Video reviews

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

5.0
Nujukaye Tech
≈ estimated
30/10/2024
Hands-on review · gaming tests, temperatures and power draw
Verdict
MSI Radeon RX 6400 Aero ITX 4GB is power-efficient, but it costs too much at current prices and is hard to recommend over the GTX 1650 DDR6.
Shop video

Third-party reviews

What customers like about MSI Radeon RX 6400 Aero ITX 4GB

  • A 53 W power draw keeps the system load low.
  • A 350 W power supply is enough to run it.
  • 172 mm length and 112 mm height fit compact cases.
  • At 358 g it is light.
  • Ray tracing and FSR both work.
  • Overclocking is supported.

What customers don't like about MSI Radeon RX 6400 Aero ITX 4GB

  • Only one fan means less cooling.
  • 4 GB of memory is small for demanding games.
  • The 64-bit bus limits how fast data moves.
  • One DisplayPort output limits you to two displays.
  • There is no DLSS, no AV1 decoding and no VR support.

Verdict

At 53 W, the MSI Radeon RX 6400 Aero ITX 4GB is a low-power card for a small PC, and that is its main point. It is 172 mm long and 112 mm high, so it fits small cases that longer cards cannot use. Its low draw means a 350 W power supply is enough, and the card weighs just 358 g. Ray tracing and FSR both work on it. The trade-off is speed and memory. With 12 compute units and 4 GB on a 64-bit bus, it is slow in demanding games, and it has just one fan. It has one DisplayPort output and no AV1 decoding. It suits a buyer building a small, low-power PC for light gaming who does not need more speed.

Compare MSI Radeon RX 6400 Aero 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 MSI Radeon RX 6400 Aero ITX 4GB and other products in the Graphics cards category

No results found