Radeon RX 6400 vs GeForce RTX 2050
Radeon RX 6400
Popular choices:
GeForce RTX 2050
Popular choices:
Performance Spectrum - GPU
About G3D Mark
G3D Mark is a standard benchmark that measures graphics performance in real-world gaming scenarios. It simplifies comparing cards from different brands, where higher scores directly correlate with better fps and smoother gaming experiences.
Value Upgrade Path
This is the official ChipVERSUS Value Rating, comparing raw performance (G3D Mark) per dollar. Components placed above yours deliver better value for money.
Avg price is the current average price collected from markets across the web.
Performance Per Dollar Radeon RX 6400
Performance Per Dollar GeForce RTX 2050
Performance Comparison
About G3D Mark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
🚀 Performance Leadership
The Radeon RX 6400 is the superior choice for raw performance. It leads with a 0.2% higher G3D Mark score. This advantage makes it significantly better for higher resolutions (1440p/4K) and graphic-intensive titles compared to the GeForce RTX 2050.
| Insight | Radeon RX 6400 | GeForce RTX 2050 |
|---|---|---|
| Performance | ✅Leading raw performance (+0.2%) | ❌Lower raw frame rates (-0.2%) |
| Longevity | RDNA 2.0 (2020−2025) (6nm) | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2018 / Turing (2018−2022)) |
| Ecosystem | Supports FSR Upscaling | ✨ DLSS 3/4 + Frame Gen Support |
| VRAM | ❌ Less VRAM capacity | ✅ More VRAM (+0%) |
| Efficiency | 💡 Excellent Perf/Watt | ⚡ Higher Power Consumption |
| Case Fit | 📏 Compact / SFF Friendly | — |
💎 Value Proposition
The Radeon RX 6400 offers a compelling cost-to-performance ratio. Priced at $139 versus $150 for the GeForce RTX 2050, it costs 7% less. While it maintains competitive performance, this results in a 8.1% higher cost efficiency score.
| Insight | Radeon RX 6400 | GeForce RTX 2050 |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ✅Better overall value (+8.1%) | ❌Lower cost efficiency |
| Upfront Cost | ✅More affordable ($139) | ⚠️Higher upfront cost ($150) |
Performance Check
Real-world benchmarks and performance projections based on comprehensive hardware analysis and comparative metrics. Values represent expected performance on High/Ultra settings at 1080p, 1440p, and 4K. Modeled using a Ryzen 7 7800X3D reference profile to minimize specific CPU bottlenecks.
Note: Performance behavior can vary per game. Specific architectures may perform better or worse depending on game engine optimizations and API implementation.
Technical Specifications
Side-by-side comparison of Radeon RX 6400 and GeForce RTX 2050
Radeon RX 6400
The Radeon RX 6400 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in January 19 2022. It features the RDNA 2.0 architecture. The core clock ranges from 1923 MHz to 2321 MHz. It has 768 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 53W. Manufactured using 6 nm process technology. It features 12 dedicated ray tracing cores for enhanced lighting effects. G3D Mark benchmark score: 7,728 points. Launch price was $159.
GeForce RTX 2050
The GeForce RTX 2050 is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in September 20 2018. It features the Turing architecture. The core clock ranges from 1515 MHz to 1710 MHz. It has 2944 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 215W. Manufactured using 12 nm process technology. It features 46 dedicated ray tracing cores for enhanced lighting effects. G3D Mark benchmark score: 7,714 points. Launch price was $699.
Graphics Performance
The Radeon RX 6400 scores 7,728 and the GeForce RTX 2050 reaches 7,714 in the G3D Mark benchmark — just a 0.2% difference, making them near-identical in rasterization performance. The Radeon RX 6400 is built on RDNA 2.0 while the GeForce RTX 2050 uses Turing, both on 6 nm vs 12 nm. Shader units: 768 (Radeon RX 6400) vs 2,944 (GeForce RTX 2050). Raw compute: 3.565 TFLOPS (Radeon RX 6400) vs 10.07 TFLOPS (GeForce RTX 2050). Boost clocks: 2321 MHz vs 1710 MHz. Ray tracing: 12 RT cores (Radeon RX 6400) vs 46 (GeForce RTX 2050) vs 368.
| Feature | Radeon RX 6400 | GeForce RTX 2050 |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 7,728 | 7,714 |
| Architecture | RDNA 2.0 | Turing |
| Process Node | 6 nm | 12 nm |
| Shading Units | 768 | 2944+283% |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 3.565 TFLOPS | 10.07 TFLOPS+182% |
| Boost Clock | 2321 MHz+36% | 1710 MHz |
| ROPs | 32 | 64+100% |
| TMUs | 48 | 184+283% |
| L1 Cache | 0.25 MB | 2.9 MB+1060% |
| L2 Cache | 1 MB | 4 MB+300% |
| Ray Tracing Cores | 12 | 46+283% |
Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)
A critical advantage for the Radeon RX 6400 is support for FSR 3 / AFMF. This allows it to generate entire frames using AI/Algorithms, essentially doubling the frame rate in CPU-bound scenarios or heavy ray-tracing titles. The GeForce RTX 2050 lacks specific hardware/driver support for this native frame generation tier.
| Feature | Radeon RX 6400 | GeForce RTX 2050 |
|---|---|---|
| Upscaling Tech | FSR 3 (Native) | DLSS 2.0 |
| Frame Generation | FSR 3 / AFMF (Driver) | FSR 3 / AFMF (Compatible) |
| Ray Reconstruction | No | No |
| Low Latency | AMD Anti-Lag | NVIDIA Reflex |
Video Memory (VRAM)
Both cards feature 4 GB of GDDR6. Memory bandwidth: 128 GB/s (Radeon RX 6400) vs 112 GB/s (GeForce RTX 2050) — a 14.3% advantage for the Radeon RX 6400. Bus width: 64-bit vs 64-bit. L2 Cache: 1 MB (Radeon RX 6400) vs 4 MB (GeForce RTX 2050) — the GeForce RTX 2050 has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.
| Feature | Radeon RX 6400 | GeForce RTX 2050 |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 4 GB | 4 GB |
| Memory Type | GDDR6 | GDDR6 |
| Memory Bandwidth | 128 GB/s+14% | 112 GB/s |
| Bus Width | 64-bit | 64-bit |
| L2 Cache | 1 MB | 4 MB+300% |
Display & API Support
DirectX support: 12.2 (Radeon RX 6400) vs 12.2 (GeForce RTX 2050). Vulkan: 1.3 vs 1.3. OpenGL: 4.6 vs 4.6. Maximum simultaneous displays: 2 vs 4.
| Feature | Radeon RX 6400 | GeForce RTX 2050 |
|---|---|---|
| DirectX | 12.2 | 12.2 |
| Vulkan | 1.3 | 1.3 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| Max Displays | 2 | 4+100% |
Media & Encoding
Hardware encoder: None (Radeon RX 6400) vs NVENC 8.0 (GeForce RTX 2050). Decoder: VCN 3.0 (Limited) vs PureVideo HD VP11. Supported codecs: MPEG-2,H.264 (Decode),HEVC (Decode) (Radeon RX 6400) vs MPEG-2,H.264,HEVC,VP9,AV1 (Decode) (GeForce RTX 2050).
| Feature | Radeon RX 6400 | GeForce RTX 2050 |
|---|---|---|
| Encoder | None | NVENC 8.0 |
| Decoder | VCN 3.0 (Limited) | PureVideo HD VP11 |
| Codecs | MPEG-2,H.264 (Decode),HEVC (Decode) | MPEG-2,H.264,HEVC,VP9,AV1 (Decode) |
Power & Dimensions
The Radeon RX 6400 draws 53W versus the GeForce RTX 2050's 215W — a 120.9% difference. The Radeon RX 6400 is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 350W (Radeon RX 6400) vs 300W (GeForce RTX 2050). Power connectors: None vs 6-pin. Card length: 172mm vs 0mm, occupying 1 vs 0 slots.
| Feature | Radeon RX 6400 | GeForce RTX 2050 |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 53W-75% | 215W |
| Recommended PSU | 350W | 300W-14% |
| Power Connector | None | 6-pin |
| Length | 172mm | 0mm |
| Height | 112mm | 0mm |
| Slots | 1 | 0-100% |
| Temp (Load) | 75°C | — |
| Perf/Watt | 145.8+306% | 35.9 |
Value Analysis
The Radeon RX 6400 launched at $159 MSRP and currently averages $139, while the GeForce RTX 2050 launched at $150 and now averages $150. The Radeon RX 6400 costs 7.3% less ($11 savings) at current market prices. Performance per dollar (G3D Mark / price): 55.6 (Radeon RX 6400) vs 51.4 (GeForce RTX 2050) — the Radeon RX 6400 offers 8.2% better value. The Radeon RX 6400 is the newer GPU (2022 vs 2018).
| Feature | Radeon RX 6400 | GeForce RTX 2050 |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $159 | $150-6% |
| Avg Price (30d) | $139-7% | $150 |
| Performance per Dollar | 55.6+8% | 51.4 |
| Codename | Navi 24 | TU104 |
| Release | January 19 2022 | September 20 2018 |
| Ranking | #330 | #94 |
Top Performing GPUs
The most powerful gpus ranked by G3D Mark benchmark scores.
You May Also Compare
Similar GPU comparisons based on Radeon RX 6400 and GeForce RTX 2050
