News Early Radeon RX 6400 Review Reveals GTX 1650-Level Performance

[Admin]

Chinese publication Expreview shares the first review of AMD's latest Radeon RX 6400 gaming graphics card.

Early Radeon RX 6400 Review Reveals GTX 1650-Level Performance : Read more

 

[logainofhades]

I'd rather have the 1650. At least it can live on as an HTPC card, and not get hamstrung by the x4 bus, on gen 3 systems.

 

[drtweak]

Probably beats the FPS out of my 4GB GTX 960 tho XD

 

[logainofhades]

Probably beats the FPS out of my 4GB GTX 960 tho XD

Maybe if it is in a gen 4 capable rig. Gen 3, I doubt it will fare so well. Your GTX 960 is pretty close to 1050ti performance. The 6500xt matches the GTX 1650, on a 3.0 bus. The 6400 is going to be even worse. You might be even, at best.

 

[King_V]

Any indication as to whether the GTX 1650 being referenced is a GDDR5 or a GDDR6 version?

Aside from that, slightly better performance for less than 3/4 the price, and with lower power consumption, sounds pretty darn good for a budget card.

Of course, I don't consider the RX 6400 and GTX 1650 to really be $160 and $220 cards, respectively, anyway, but, that's the market we live in right now.

 

[-Fran-]

Ah... Just imagine a world where AMD made the sensible decision of making the full Navi 24 die without a power plug, slim, single bracket and at $170 MSRP instead! And call that RX6500 (wink wink, AMD, wink wink) for everyone looking for either a stop-gap, a low priced able-to-game-some card then let AIBs to just make OC'ed versions for $200+ instead.

I'm pretty sure they would've saved themselves all the bad press and instead they would have been praised somewhat for filling the under-200 MSRP slot with something that's not vapor fumes and can actually run games.

There's plenty OEM systems out there begging for such a card and not the RX6400. Alas, this is what AMD could come up with instead. Sadge.

Regards.

 

[watzupken]

Ah... Just imagine a world where AMD made the sensible decision of making the full Navi 24 die without a power plug, slim, single bracket and at $170 MSRP instead! And call that RX6500 (wink wink, AMD, wink wink) for everyone looking for either a stop-gap, a low priced able-to-game-some card then let AIBs to just make OC'ed versions for $200+ instead.

I'm pretty sure they would've saved themselves all the bad press and instead they would have been praised somewhat for filling the under-200 MSRP slot with something that's not vapor fumes and can actually run games.

There's plenty OEM systems out there begging for such a card and not the RX6400. Alas, this is what AMD could come up with instead. Sadge.

Regards.

My understanding is that the RX 6500 XT is using the full Navi 24 die. The problems stem from the poorly intended design of the chip, i.e. lack of video encoding/ decoding, lack of # of display out, lack of PCI-E bus, lack of cache/ VRAM, etc. So no matter what they do to it now, it does not matter. These will probably sell decently well to OEMs. It runs well on PCI-E 4.0 x4, but considering this sorts of entry level GPUs are targeting budget gamers, I don’t really think PCI-E 4.0 is all that common at this point in time in a budget gaming system. If it performs close or worst than a GTX 1650, I rather buy the Nvidia card since performance is not worst, and it is a better featured card despite its age.

 

[logainofhades]

Yea AMD cut too many corners, on these chips. They need to be at least an x8 bus, and have the video encoding/decoding features. I could live with the 2 outputs.

 

[-Fran-]

My understanding is that the RX 6500 XT is using the full Navi 24 die. The problems stem from the poorly intended design of the chip, i.e. lack of video encoding/ decoding, lack of # of display out, lack of PCI-E bus, lack of cache/ VRAM, etc. So no matter what they do to it now, it does not matter. These will probably sell decently well to OEMs. It runs well on PCI-E 4.0 x4, but considering this sorts of entry level GPUs are targeting budget gamers, I don’t really think PCI-E 4.0 is all that common at this point in time in a budget gaming system. If it performs close or worst than a GTX 1650, I rather buy the Nvidia card since performance is not worst, and it is a better featured card despite its age.

Everyone is over-abusing the "but why no one thinks of the children PCIe3 owners". Both AMD and Intel have PCIe4 now for new systems and while not ideal to have x4, it is serviceable and with just 4GB, this is a bottom of the barrel card. As for the decoding and encoding. I can agree on the decoding, but not the encoding. Bottom of the barrel systems just won't do a good job at streaming no matter the built-in encoding on the GPU; you'll still need to drop down quality and resolution of either the stream, game or both. Plus, chances are a bottom of the barrel system is using an iGPU and most, if not all, have encoding support on both Intel and AMD. As for the AV1 decoding, no excuses there for AMD as that is a hard miss. It does have H264 and H265 decoding though, I think?

I'm not saying this card is better than one or another either, but AMD could have made a much better argument for it; that's all. It is still a "bottom of the barrel" GPU and it shows. Also, if you need to game and your only choices are used cards and this for a new PC, what will you choose? I mean, the writing is on the wall for this one, since the fiercest competition of this card is used hardware more than anything new anyway. Keep in mind it is alone in this price range as new hardware.

Regards.

 

[logainofhades]

Many AMD users are on 300/400 series boards. Intel didn't add Gen 4 till 11 gen with 500 series chipset. The majority of people are going to still be on Gen 3.

 

[FullOfIt]

Maybe if it is in a gen 4 capable rig. Gen 3, I doubt it will fare so well. Your GTX 960 is pretty close to 1050ti performance. The 6500xt matches the GTX 1650, on a 3.0 bus. The 6400 is going to be even worse. You might be even, at best.

A 1050Ti is a full tier above the 960, the 960 was pretty much identical to the 1050 non Ti, which makes the 1050Ti at least 20% faster than the 960.

 

[logainofhades]

A 1050Ti is a full tier above the 960, the 960 was pretty much identical to the 1050 non Ti, which makes the 1050Ti at least 20% faster than the 960.

It is barely faster than a 960 2gb, on average. Some titles the 960 wins. With the 960 4gb model, it would hold up pretty much the same, today.
https://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/zotac_geforce_gtx_1050_ti_mini_review,14.html

 

[King_V]

A 1050Ti is a full tier above the 960, the 960 was pretty much identical to the 1050 non Ti, which makes the 1050Ti at least 20% faster than the 960.

Ok, I didn't know if I agreed with you one way or the other, but I felt like I was required to disagree with you.

Just so I could have this imaginary conversation in my head:

----
Nobody: Wait, but you think they might be right?

Me: Yes. Maybe.

Nobody: But, you disagree with them?

Me: Yes.

Nobody: Why??

Me: Because they're FullOfIt.
----

I'm probably too easily amused.

 

[bolweval]

My browser rig is an Optiplex 7070 SFF with a i7 9700, the x16 PCI slot is right next to the power supply so i'm limited to single slot LP cards. I currently run a GT 1030 which is about as fast as i can get until this RX6400 card came out, which i have already ordered.

I for one was very happy that AMD gave me a decent upgrade path. I don't normally game with this rig, but sometimes I feel like playing CS or TF2 and don't want to boot my (noisy) gaming rig. This card should be able to handle Source games better than my GT 1030.