AMD Radeon RX 6400 Review: Tiny Low-Power Package

[Nobina]

Mobile GPU's exist outside mobile too.

Companies are selling these for desktops, true. That is problem because Feel free to tell me better offering at similar price. New products only. Current prices. Go ahead.

Not so awful any more?

That absolutely doesn't make it better.

If I offer you a turd for a dollar it doesn't become a good deal because nobody else is selling it for a similar price. The product is still a turd and it's worthless.

And when you ask for a better offering, why would you put these unnecessary limitations? There's nothing wrong with buying a used GPU that is a couple of generations old.

 

[HardReset]

That absolutely doesn't make it better.

If I offer you a turd for a dollar it doesn't become a good deal because nobody else is selling it for a similar price. The product is still a turd and it's worthless.

And when you ask for a better offering, why would you put these unnecessary limitations? There's nothing wrong with buying a used GPU that is a couple of generations old.

You probably haven't never been in situation where you need something and you need it now. You must choose best available choice, no matter how "bad" it is. That's how it is. No matter how bad this card is speed or spec wise, unless there are better choices for same price, then it has it's place. It Does make it better. Like it or not.

You rarely can buy used CPU just walking into shop and buy it. That's one reason why you cannot compare used one and new one. Especially if you are not looking card for home but business use...

 

[scavengerspc]

People are still scooping up the 1050 Ti for affordable lower-end gaming and raving about it even though it is still $50 over its MSRP, yet the 6400 is as fast or slightly faster and $35 cheaper, but it's an enemy of the state.

I will never understand nerds.

 

[Nobina]

You probably haven't never been in situation where you need something and you need it now. You must choose best available choice, no matter how "bad" it is. That's how it is. No matter how bad this card is speed or spec wise, unless there are better choices for same price, then it has it's place. It Does make it better. Like it or not.

You rarely can buy used CPU just walking into shop and buy it. That's one reason why you cannot compare used one and new one. Especially if you are not looking card for home but business use...

So you say AMD is praying upon unfortunate people who for whatever reason have to buy any GPU right that moment. Well, that just proves my point. Also, why would their target auidence be people who are in the situation you described? That's like a tiny fraction of customers. You are definetely going way out of your way to think of a scenario where someone would need this GPU.

 

[tellmewhy]

AMD has to bring something impressive (something like the Zen2) if they want to improve their poor reputation in GPUs (there are people who don’t want use AMD gpu even if you give them the card for free and pay them to use it).

It’s disappointing too see them to use the short advantage which they have from the access to the 6nm node so silently.

They should bring an impressive and cheap GPU card to take them out from the mud. Did I said “impressive” enough times?

 

[HardReset]

So you say AMD is praying upon unfortunate people who for whatever reason have to buy any GPU right that moment. Well, that just proves my point. Also, why would their target auidence be people who are in the situation you described? That's like a tiny fraction of customers. You are definetely going way out of your way to think of a scenario where someone would need this GPU.

To put it another way: Assume that pGPU situation right now is "normal". There is no shortage of any kind, prices are normal etc etc. Would AMD release this chip and 6500XT into desktop market?

Easy answer: no. This is released to desktop market because that's basically all AMD could do right now to make GPU availability better. Something some people have great difficulty to understand.

It’s disappointing too see them to use the short advantage which they have from the access to the 6nm node so silently.

They should bring an impressive and cheap GPU card to take them out from the mud. Did I said “impressive” enough times?

Perhaps disappointing but it makes sense 6nm is new node and this is basically another test chip. Also most 6nm capacity probably will go for another products.

This is RDNA2 based card, quite old tech already. Don't worry, RDNA3 is coming.

 

[bexwhitt]

The RX570 (4gb) I paid £100 for in late 2020 seems a bargain compared to this.

 

[Nobina]

To put it another way: Assume that pGPU situation right now is "normal". There is no shortage of any kind, prices are normal etc etc. Would AMD release this chip and 6500XT into desktop market?

Easy answer: no. This is released to desktop market because that's basically all AMD could do right now to make GPU availability better. Something some people have great difficulty to understand.

Perhaps disappointing but it makes sense 6nm is new node and this is basically another test chip. Also most 6nm capacity probably will go for another products.

This is RDNA2 based card, quite old tech already. Don't worry, RDNA3 is coming.

I agree, they released this GPU just cause they know they can get away with it at this time which is not a good look for them.

 

[HardReset]

I agree, they released this GPU just cause they know they can get away with it at this time which is not a good look for them.

So if choices are 6400 or no graphic card at all, latter one is better choice?

 

[WhiteLeaff]

I disagree, there is no GPU at this price, the 1650 is priced above the rx 6500. given current market conditions this is a good/ok gpu due to lack of options.

Another point is that all games should be tested on medium. Its a low-end gpu. Test it as low-end.

 

[Nobina]

So if choices are 6400 or no graphic card at all, latter one is better choice?

Why two choices? You're making up scenarios that are never going to happen and keep moving the goalpost. In the real world, there are always other options.

 

[HardReset]

Why two choices? You're making up scenarios that are never going to happen and keep moving the goalpost. In the real world, there are always other options.

Choices like what? In case you need new graphic card with certain budget where 6400 fits, then...

1. 6400 cards exist
2. 6400 cards do not exist

You say option 2 is better. Yeah right

 

[Watzupken]

The real fail is not the gaming performance. It's the omission of hardware AV1 decode and the hardware encoders, just like the RX 6500 XT. It means that the card doesn't fit the bill for what should have been its primary use case: home theater PCs. Only two video outputs means that it's also a fail as a cheap and cheerful way to drive a multi-display setup where gaming-level performance is not needed, such as video walls.

To me, I agree the real fail is not so much the performance of the card. The card can perform alright if a condition is met, I.e. PCI-E 4.0 slot. In fact, this being a GT 1030 class of GPU performs quite well matching the GTX 1650 in performance when running in PCI-E 4.0 x4. The problem with the Navi 24 is that it falls short in almost every possible use case. For example, the form factor of the card makes it a good candidate for HTPC, but it lacks latest decoder, and no encoder. For multi display, I think 3 display out is a good start, but this card supports only 2 when a Vega based iGPU can run 3 displays. The only way I feel AMD can sell the Navi 24 based cards will be to price them really low to the retail and to OEMs (OEMs now have the option of using Intel and Nvidia GPUs as well).

 

[Watzupken]

I disagree, there is no GPU at this price, the 1650 is priced above the rx 6500. given current market conditions this is a good/ok gpu due to lack of options.

Another point is that all games should be tested on medium. Its a low-end gpu. Test it as low-end.

This depends. I've found GTX 1650 Super that's available and cheaper than the RX 6500 XT in my country. The availability of the GTX 1650 or 1650 Super is very limited, and no surprises since its an old card with likely very limited units being produced. So that leaves the RX 6500 XT being the only card that is widely available in the price range.

 

[WhiteLeaff]

This depends. I've found GTX 1650 Super that's available and cheaper than the RX 6500 XT in my country. The availability of the GTX 1650 or 1650 Super is very limited, and no surprises since its an old card with likely very limited units being produced. So that leaves the RX 6500 XT being the only card that is widely available in the price range.

Right, Here the only gpu with a price close to 6400 is the rx 550, below there are old GT740 cards etc... none of these even come close to the Navi24 in performance.

I think the review should try to have a more realistic view of the current market, considering inflation, cost of shipping on the moon, etc... in any analysis you rate it looking around and considering the competition (non-existent at the moment). Not the prices of the past...

 

[Avro Arrow]

I don't see the point of this product. It's going to be a terrible and short-lived gaming solution but it's overkill for an office or HTPC (since a 4K HTPC can use a modern APU alone).

 

[HardReset]

I don't see the point of this product. It's going to be a terrible and short-lived gaming solution but it's overkill for an office or HTPC (since a 4K HTPC can use a modern APU alone).

Point has been told many times. There are shortage of chips and there is basically anything available from AMD on price range RX 6400 offers. Additionally it didn't actually consume any of AMD's resources as it's designed to be mobile chip.

In other words, it does not cost AMD basically anything to release RX 6400 on desktop. And since there is still chip shortage, why not? RX 6500XT and RX 6400 releases are both "if there is chip shortage, it will be released on desktop. If not, then it stays mobile only" -type.

Needless to say, AMD should not waste resources to develop RDNA2 desktop chip at this time. Nvidia didn't do so either.

 

[Avro Arrow]

Point has been told many times. There are shortage of chips and there is basically anything available from AMD on price range RX 6400 offers. Additionally it didn't actually consume any of AMD's resources as it's designed to be mobile chip.

In other words, it does not cost AMD basically anything to release RX 6400 on desktop. And since there is still chip shortage, why not? RX 6500XT and RX 6400 releases are both "if there is chip shortage, it will be released on desktop. If not, then it stays mobile only" -type.

Needless to say, AMD should not waste resources to develop RDNA2 desktop chip at this time. Nvidia didn't do so either.

I just don't know who it's aimed at. I can't think of anyone who would want to buy it.

 

[HardReset]

I just don't know who it's aimed at. I can't think of anyone who would want to buy it.

Those who want new GPU and have budget that RX 6400 fits?

Only real purpose for 6400 and 6500XT is to improve GPU availability. As they also use 6nm node, they won't reduce RDNA2 or future RDNA3 card availability.

 

[Avro Arrow]

Those who want new GPU and have budget that RX 6400 fits?

The thing is, we're talking about a card (according to TechPowerUp's database) that's only 11% faster than the HD 7970. Performance-wise, it would get absolutely crushed by one of my old R9 Furies that came out six years ago. Just how old/bad a card would a person have that would make this a decent upgrade? That's what I'm finding confusing.

AMD Radeon RX 6400 Specs

AMD Navi 24, 2321 MHz, 768 Cores, 48 TMUs, 32 ROPs, 4096 MB GDDR6, 2000 MHz, 64 bit

www.techpowerup.com

Only real purpose for 6400 and 6500XT is to improve GPU availability. As they also use 6nm node, they won't reduce RDNA2 or future RDNA3 card availability.

Well, at least they didn't put "XT" at the end like they did on the RX 6500 XT. Having the "XT" suffix ("extreme" in ATi's naming language) on the 6500 XT made me cringe as it is.

 

[HardReset]

The thing is, we're talking about a card (according to TechPowerUp's database) that's only 11% faster than the HD 7970. Performance-wise, it would get absolutely crushed by one of my old R9 Furies that came out six years ago. Just how old/bad a card would a person have that would make this a decent upgrade? That's what I'm finding confusing.

I didn't talk about upgrade. Many people who buy graphics cards don't have any.

7970 has 352mm2 die size. For comparison, GTX 980 is 398mm2 (both 28nm). So yes, 7970 is large.

6400 die size is only 107mm2. For comparison, high end RX 6800 is 520mm2, 6400 is ultra small. I took AMD so that comparison is TSMC 6nm vs 7nm.

AMD Radeon RX 6400 Specs

AMD Navi 24, 2321 MHz, 768 Cores, 48 TMUs, 32 ROPs, 4096 MB GDDR6, 2000 MHz, 64 bit

www.techpowerup.com

Well, at least they didn't put "XT" at the end like they did on the RX 6500 XT. Having the "XT" suffix ("extreme" in ATi's naming language) on the 6500 XT made me cringe as it is.

That's something I agree. However those extra letters have not been in line for years.

 

[Avro Arrow]

I didn't talk about upgrade. Many people who buy graphics cards don't have any.

7970 has 352mm2 die size. For comparison, GTX 980 is 398mm2 (both 28nm). So yes, 7970 is large.

6400 die size is only 107mm2. For comparison, high end RX 6800 is 520mm2, 6400 is ultra small. I took AMD so that comparison is TSMC 6nm vs 7nm.

That's something I agree. However those extra letters have not been in line for years.

Actually, they always have been used but they were used as internal coding for GPU levels like "Tahiti LE", "Tahiti Pro" and "Tahiti XT".

Speaking of Tahiti, perhaps one of the other stupidest uses of the "XT" suffix was the HD 7870 XT. Since the GPU was "Tahiti LE" and not one of the "Pitcairn" models, it should have been called the HD 7930.

 

[HardReset]

Actually, they always have been used but they were used as internal coding for GPU levels like "Tahiti LE", "Tahiti Pro" and "Tahiti XT".

Speaking of Tahiti, perhaps one of the other stupidest uses of the "XT" suffix was the HD 7870 XT. Since the GPU was "Tahiti LE" and not one of the "Pitcairn" models, it should have been called the HD 7930.

Yeah, perhaps there is Some logic on those special codes and numbering scheme, but I stopped searching for that logic long time ago

 

[bexwhitt]

It's crazy that my 5 year old rx570 which I got for £100 is better than the RX6400

 

[tacobravo]

Compared to Intel's Arc 3 A380, this is clearly a better choice lol.