AMD Radeon RX 6400 vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 Ti
Comparative analysis of AMD Radeon RX 6400 and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 Ti videocards for all known characteristics in the following categories: Essentials, Technical info, Video outputs and ports, Compatibility, dimensions and requirements, API support, Memory. Benchmark videocards performance analysis: PassMark - G2D Mark, PassMark - G3D Mark, 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score, Geekbench - OpenCL, CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s), GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps), GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps), GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps).
Differences
Reasons to consider the AMD Radeon RX 6400
- Videocard is newer: launch date 1 year(s) 9 month(s) later
- Around 42% higher core clock speed: 1923 MHz vs 1350 MHz
- Around 56% higher boost clock speed: 2321 MHz vs 1485 MHz
- Around 17% higher texture fill rate: 111.4 GTexel/s vs 95.04 GTexel/s
- A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running videocard: 6 nm vs 12 nm
- Around 33% higher memory clock speed: 2000 MHz, 16 Gbps effective vs 1500 MHz (12000 MHz effective)
- Around 86% better performance in PassMark - G2D Mark: 713 vs 383
- Around 1% better performance in PassMark - G3D Mark: 7633 vs 7542
Specifications (specs) | |
Launch date | 19 Jan 2022 vs 2 Apr 2020 |
Core clock speed | 1923 MHz vs 1350 MHz |
Boost clock speed | 2321 MHz vs 1485 MHz |
Texture fill rate | 111.4 GTexel/s vs 95.04 GTexel/s |
Manufacturing process technology | 6 nm vs 12 nm |
Memory clock speed | 2000 MHz, 16 Gbps effective vs 1500 MHz (12000 MHz effective) |
Benchmarks | |
PassMark - G2D Mark | 713 vs 383 |
PassMark - G3D Mark | 7633 vs 7542 |
Reasons to consider the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 Ti
- Around 33% higher pipelines: 1024 vs 768
- Around 6% lower typical power consumption: 50 Watt vs 53 Watt
- 20.4x better performance in 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score: 3656 vs 179
- Around 28% better performance in Geekbench - OpenCL: 42000 vs 32886
Specifications (specs) | |
Pipelines | 1024 vs 768 |
Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 50 Watt vs 53 Watt |
Benchmarks | |
3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 3656 vs 179 |
Geekbench - OpenCL | 42000 vs 32886 |
Compare benchmarks
GPU 1: AMD Radeon RX 6400
GPU 2: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 Ti
PassMark - G2D Mark |
|
|
||||
PassMark - G3D Mark |
|
|
||||
3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score |
|
|
||||
Geekbench - OpenCL |
|
|
Name | AMD Radeon RX 6400 | NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 Ti |
---|---|---|
PassMark - G2D Mark | 713 | 383 |
PassMark - G3D Mark | 7633 | 7542 |
3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 179 | 3656 |
Geekbench - OpenCL | 32886 | 42000 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 152.235 | |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 1843.045 | |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 10.681 | |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 115.607 | |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 644.098 | |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 12180 | |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 8926 | |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 8062 | |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 12180 | |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 8926 | |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 8062 |
Compare specifications (specs)
AMD Radeon RX 6400 | NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 Ti | |
---|---|---|
Essentials |
||
Architecture | RDNA 2.0 | Turing |
Code name | Navi 24 | TU117 |
Launch date | 19 Jan 2022 | 2 Apr 2020 |
Place in performance rating | 269 | 270 |
Type | Laptop | |
Technical info |
||
Boost clock speed | 2321 MHz | 1485 MHz |
Compute units | 12 | |
Core clock speed | 1923 MHz | 1350 MHz |
Manufacturing process technology | 6 nm | 12 nm |
Peak Double Precision (FP64) Performance | 222.8 GFLOPS (1:16) | 95.04 GFLOPS (1:32) |
Peak Half Precision (FP16) Performance | 7.130 TFLOPS (2:1) | 6.083 TFLOPS (2:1) |
Peak Single Precision (FP32) Performance | 3.565 TFLOPS | 3.041 TFLOPS |
Pipelines | 768 | 1024 |
Pixel fill rate | 74.27 GPixel/s | 47.52 GPixel/s |
Texture fill rate | 111.4 GTexel/s | 95.04 GTexel/s |
Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 53 Watt | 50 Watt |
Transistor count | 5400 million | 4700 million |
Video outputs and ports |
||
Display Connectors | 1x HDMI 2.1, 1x DisplayPort 1.4a | No outputs |
Compatibility, dimensions and requirements |
||
Form factor | Single-slot | |
Interface | PCIe 4.0 x4 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
Recommended system power (PSU) | 250 Watt | |
Supplementary power connectors | None | None |
API support |
||
DirectX | 12 Ultimate (12_2) | 12.1 |
OpenCL | 2.2 | 1.2 |
OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
Shader Model | 6.7 | 6.5 |
Vulkan | ||
Memory |
||
Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 4 GB |
Memory bandwidth | 128.0 GB/s | 192.0 GB/s |
Memory bus width | 64 bit | 128 bit |
Memory clock speed | 2000 MHz, 16 Gbps effective | 1500 MHz (12000 MHz effective) |
Memory type | GDDR6 | GDDR6 |