Benchmarks featuring an AMD Radeon RX 6400 graphics card have been spotted on Geekbench. Benchleaks has shared a quartet of Geekbench browser results for what appears to be a singular PC system going through multiple Geekbench runs, perhaps checking the performance changes after system tweaks. As Geekbench isn't really a good GPU benchmark, take these results with a grain of salt.
The Radeon RX 6400 was launched at the same time as the Radeon RX 6500 XT, but it's an OEM-only part (for now). While that should mean the scores come from a pre-built PC, it's entirely possible to remove the card and test it in a different system — there's nothing locking the card to only certain motherboards, for example. The particular system specs consist of an AMD Ryzen 5 5600X, installed on an ASRock X570 Taichi, with 32GB of dual-channel DDR4 RAM. The system had Windows 11 installed and ran v 5.4.1 of Geekbench.
It's worth noting that ASRock has a history of working a bit outside the lines, so it's possible these results are from ASRock testing the GPU for a potential retail release.
|Run 1||Run 2||Run 3||Run 4|
|Vulkan Score||Vulkan Score||OpenCL Score||OpenCL Score|
If we take the above as typical results for an RX 6400, we can make some rough performance comparisons. First of all, the RX 6400 is going to obviously live in the shadow of its bigger brother, the RX 6500 XT. The biggest differences between the siblings are that the RX 6400 has 25% fewer cores, has a nominal 53W TGP (Total Graphics Power), and runs nearly 500MHz slower than the RX 6500 XT that boosts up to 2.815 GHz (reference). So, how much slower do these changes make the RX 6400?
According to the Vulkan score comparisons, having picked through the Geekbench database, it looks like the RX 6400 is just 7% slower than the RX 6500 XT, which isn't too terrible considering how much has been chopped from the silicon. But again, this is Geekbench. Some other comparisons might help show the kind of company the RX 6400 keeps. Its score of 34,749 is easily beaten by the GeForce GTX 1060 6GB (37,185), but is almost level with the GTX 1650 (34,764), while the higher of the two results puts it ahead of the typical RX 6500 XT scores.
Moving along to OpenCL scores, let us say the RX 6400 can achieve 40,272 in this benchmark (half way between the above leaked OpenCL results pairing). Doing the same three comparisons, the RX 6500 XT scores 52,287, which is nearly 30% faster than the unreleased smaller sibling. The RX 6400 performance in this test (40,272), which usually shows AMD GPUs in a good light, takes revenge on the GTX 1060 6GB (36,405), and beats the GTX 1650 (38,111) by a small margin.
The AMD Radeon RX 6500 XT and the Radeon RX 6400 both went official in early January. Together they represented AMD's first assault on the sub-$200 graphics card market with the RDNA/2 architecture, but so far we have only been able to see examples of the former released. Large OEMs often have longer lead times when it comes to adopting new hardware, and it looks like the Radeon RX 6400 is now out in the wild. Whether we'll ever see a retail launch, and what the price might be, remain to be seen.
Given the significantly lower TGP, the only real draw for the RX 6400 is that it doesn't require any form of external power connector. That means it can work in virtually any PC built within the past decade. That's the good news. The bad news is that with any older PC that doesn't support PCIe 4.0, performance will suffer — we measured an 8% drop on average when testing the card on a PCIe 3.0 i9-9900K system compared to our i9-12900K baseline. It could be much worse on older PCs that also lack resizable BAR support.
The Radeon RX 6500 XT hasn't been selling all that well, based on the GPU prices we're tracking on eBay, so not even scalpers are able to sell the cards. Cutting performance another 20–30% shouldn't win any additional buyers.
On the flip side, the ~55W TDP does make it tempting as a GT 710 replacement for anyone looking for something like that.
Well, I will say this: if these benchmarks are representative of real world gaming performance, then this is, technically, a better card than the 6500XT.
30% lower performance, but 50% lower power consumption, makes it a more efficient card.
And, let's be honest, there's still a market for the GT 1030 GDDR5, isn't there? This outperforms it. Hell, Nvidia decided that there was a market for the GT 1030 DDR4 variant.
There's also still a market for those 1650 GDDR5 cards that are still around, so there's a market for this, particularly given that, a smidgen less performance than the 1650 GDDR5, but with about 30% less power consumption.
Sure, it's weaksauce overall, but still better than any iGPU, even the Ryzen 5x00G APUs. There's a niche for it, if it's inexpensive enough.
EDIT: what would I have changed? I'd have called the RX 6500 XT the RX 6400.. and the RX 6400 I'd have called the RX 6300.
The more options there are, the less pressure on supply there will be and the more chances we have of prices returning to some semblance of sanity..
According to the article, the 6500xt isn't even selling well. Nobody wants to spend so much money, on such a terrible card.