Radeon RX 6400 vs GeForce GTX 1650
Radeon RX 6400
Popular choices:
GeForce GTX 1650
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
Performance Comparison
About G3D Mark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
🚀 Performance Leadership
The GeForce GTX 1650 is the superior choice for raw performance. It leads with a 1.8% higher G3D Mark score. This advantage makes it significantly better for higher resolutions (1440p/4K) and graphic-intensive titles compared to the Radeon RX 6400.
| Insight | Radeon RX 6400 | GeForce GTX 1650 |
|---|---|---|
| Performance | ❌Lower raw frame rates (-1.8%) | ✅Leading raw performance (+1.8%) |
| Longevity | RDNA 2.0 (2020−2025) (6nm) | Turing (2018−2022) (12nm) |
| Ecosystem | Supports FSR Upscaling | Supports FSR Upscaling |
| VRAM | ❌ Less VRAM capacity | ✅ More VRAM (+0%) |
| Efficiency | 💡 Excellent Perf/Watt | ⚡ Higher Power Consumption |
| Case Fit | 📏 Compact / SFF Friendly | 📏 Compact / SFF Friendly |
💎 Value Proposition
The GeForce GTX 1650 offers a compelling cost-to-performance ratio. Priced at $75 versus $139 for the Radeon RX 6400, it costs 46% less. While it maintains competitive performance, this results in a 88.7% higher cost efficiency score.
| Insight | Radeon RX 6400 | GeForce GTX 1650 |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ❌Lower cost efficiency | ✅Better overall value (+88.7%) |
| Upfront Cost | ⚠️Higher upfront cost ($139) | ✅More affordable ($75) |
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 GTX 1650
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 GTX 1650
The GeForce GTX 1650 is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in April 23 2019. It features the Turing architecture. The core clock ranges from 1485 MHz to 1665 MHz. It has 896 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 75W. Manufactured using 12 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 7,869 points. Launch price was $149.
Graphics Performance
The Radeon RX 6400 scores 7,728 and the GeForce GTX 1650 reaches 7,869 in the G3D Mark benchmark — just a 1.8% difference, making them near-identical in rasterization performance. The Radeon RX 6400 is built on RDNA 2.0 while the GeForce GTX 1650 uses Turing, both on 6 nm vs 12 nm. Shader units: 768 (Radeon RX 6400) vs 896 (GeForce GTX 1650). Raw compute: 3.565 TFLOPS (Radeon RX 6400) vs 2.984 TFLOPS (GeForce GTX 1650). Boost clocks: 2321 MHz vs 1665 MHz.
| Feature | Radeon RX 6400 | GeForce GTX 1650 |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 7,728 | 7,869+2% |
| Architecture | RDNA 2.0 | Turing |
| Process Node | 6 nm | 12 nm |
| Shading Units | 768 | 896+17% |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 3.565 TFLOPS+19% | 2.984 TFLOPS |
| Boost Clock | 2321 MHz+39% | 1665 MHz |
| ROPs | 32 | 32 |
| TMUs | 48 | 56+17% |
| L1 Cache | 256 KB | 896 KB+250% |
| L2 Cache | 1 MB | 1 MB |
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 GTX 1650 lacks specific hardware/driver support for this native frame generation tier.
| Feature | Radeon RX 6400 | GeForce GTX 1650 |
|---|---|---|
| Upscaling Tech | FSR 3 (Native) | FSR 2.1 (Compatible) |
| Frame Generation | FSR 3 / AFMF (Driver) | FSR 3 (Compatible) |
| Ray Reconstruction | No | No |
| Low Latency | AMD Anti-Lag | Standard |
Video Memory (VRAM)
Both cards feature 4 GB of video memory. Bus width: 64-bit vs 128-bit.
| Feature | Radeon RX 6400 | GeForce GTX 1650 |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 4 GB | 4 GB |
| Memory Type | GDDR6 | GDDR5 |
| Memory Bandwidth | 128 GB/s | 128 GB/s |
| Bus Width | 64-bit | 128-bit+100% |
| L2 Cache | 1 MB | 1 MB |
Display & API Support
DirectX support: 12.2 (Radeon RX 6400) vs 12 (GeForce GTX 1650). Vulkan: 1.3 vs 1.4. OpenGL: 4.6 vs 4.6. Maximum simultaneous displays: 2 vs 3.
| Feature | Radeon RX 6400 | GeForce GTX 1650 |
|---|---|---|
| DirectX | 12.2+2% | 12 |
| Vulkan | 1.3 | 1.4+8% |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| Max Displays | 2 | 3+50% |
Media & Encoding
Hardware encoder: None (Radeon RX 6400) vs NVENC 5th gen (Volta) (GeForce GTX 1650). Decoder: VCN 3.0 (Limited) vs NVDEC 4th gen. Supported codecs: MPEG-2,H.264 (Decode),HEVC (Decode) (Radeon RX 6400) vs H.264,H.265/HEVC,VP8,VP9 (GeForce GTX 1650).
| Feature | Radeon RX 6400 | GeForce GTX 1650 |
|---|---|---|
| Encoder | None | NVENC 5th gen (Volta) |
| Decoder | VCN 3.0 (Limited) | NVDEC 4th gen |
| Codecs | MPEG-2,H.264 (Decode),HEVC (Decode) | H.264,H.265/HEVC,VP8,VP9 |
Power & Dimensions
The Radeon RX 6400 draws 53W versus the GeForce GTX 1650's 75W — a 34.4% difference. The Radeon RX 6400 is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 350W (Radeon RX 6400) vs 300W (GeForce GTX 1650). Power connectors: None vs None. Card length: 172mm vs 229mm, occupying 1 vs 2 slots. Typical load temperature: 75°C vs 70°C.
| Feature | Radeon RX 6400 | GeForce GTX 1650 |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 53W-29% | 75W |
| Recommended PSU | 350W | 300W-14% |
| Power Connector | None | None |
| Length | 172mm | 229mm |
| Height | 112mm | 111mm |
| Slots | 1-50% | 2 |
| Temp (Load) | 75°C | 70°C-7% |
| Perf/Watt | 145.8+39% | 104.9 |
Value Analysis
The Radeon RX 6400 launched at $159 MSRP and currently averages $139, while the GeForce GTX 1650 launched at $149 and now averages $75. The GeForce GTX 1650 costs 46% less ($64 savings) at current market prices. Performance per dollar (G3D Mark / price): 55.6 (Radeon RX 6400) vs 104.9 (GeForce GTX 1650) — the GeForce GTX 1650 offers 88.7% better value. The Radeon RX 6400 is the newer GPU (2022 vs 2019).
| Feature | Radeon RX 6400 | GeForce GTX 1650 |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $159 | $149-6% |
| Avg Price (30d) | $139 | $75-46% |
| Performance per Dollar | 55.6 | 104.9+89% |
| Codename | Navi 24 | TU117 |
| Release | January 19 2022 | April 23 2019 |
| Ranking | #330 | #323 |
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 GTX 1650
