Radeon RX 6400 vs GeForce GT 735M

Place in the ranking	934	276
Place by popularity	not in top-100	100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	no data	53.35
Power efficiency	3.52	25.73
Architecture	Kepler 2.0 (2013−2015)	RDNA 2.0 (2020−2024)
GPU code name	GK208	Navi 24
Market segment	Laptop	Desktop
Release date	1 April 2013 (11 years ago)	19 January 2022 (2 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	no data	$159

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

no data

Detailed specifications

General parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.

Pipelines / CUDA cores	384	768
Core clock speed	575 MHz	1923 MHz
Boost clock speed	889 MHz	2321 MHz
Number of transistors	915 million	5,400 million
Manufacturing process technology	28 nm	6 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	33 Watt	53 Watt
Texture fill rate	18.40	111.4
Floating-point processing power	0.4416 TFLOPS	3.565 TFLOPS
ROPs	8	32
TMUs	32	48
Ray Tracing Cores	no data	12

Form factor & compatibility

Information on compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For desktop graphics cards it's interface and bus (motherboard compatibility), additional power connectors (power supply compatibility).

Bus support	PCI Express 3.0	no data
Interface	PCIe 3.0 x8	PCIe 4.0 x4
Width	no data	1-slot
Supplementary power connectors	no data	None

VRAM capacity and type

Parameters of VRAM installed: its type, size, bus, clock and resulting bandwidth. Integrated GPUs have no dedicated video RAM and use a shared part of system RAM.

Memory type	DDR3	GDDR6
Maximum RAM amount	2 GB	4 GB
Standard memory configuration	DDR3	no data
Memory bus width	64 Bit	64 Bit
Memory clock speed	900 MHz	2000 MHz
Memory bandwidth	14.4 GB/s	128.0 GB/s
Shared memory	-	-

Connectivity and outputs

Types and number of video connectors present on the reviewed GPUs. As a rule, data in this section is precise only for desktop reference ones (so-called Founders Edition for NVIDIA chips). OEM manufacturers may change the number and type of output ports, while for notebook cards availability of certain video outputs ports depends on the laptop model rather than on the card itself.

Display Connectors	No outputs	1x HDMI 2.1, 1x DisplayPort 1.4a
eDP 1.2 signal support	Up to 3840x2160	no data
LVDS signal support	Up to 1920x1200	no data
VGA аnalog display support	Up to 2048x1536	no data
DisplayPort Multimode (DP++) support	Up to 3840x2160	no data
HDMI	+	+
HDCP content protection	+	-
7.1 channel HD audio on HDMI	+	-
TrueHD and DTS-HD audio bitstreaming	+	-

Supported technologies

Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.

Blu-Ray 3D Support	+	-
H.264, VC1, MPEG2 1080p video decoder	+	-
Optimus	+	-
3D Vision / 3DTV Play	+	-

API compatibility

List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.

DirectX	12 API	12 Ultimate (12_2)
Shader Model	5.1	6.7
OpenGL	4.5	4.6
OpenCL	1.1	2.2
Vulkan	1.1.126	1.3
CUDA	+	-

Synthetic benchmark performance

Non-gaming benchmark results comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.

Combined synthetic benchmark score

This is our combined benchmark score. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.

GT 735M 1.68

RX 6400 19.70
+1073%

Passmark

This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark. It gives the graphics card a thorough evaluation under various types of load, providing four separate benchmarks for Direct3D versions 9, 10, 11 and 12 (the last being done in 4K resolution if possible), and few more tests engaging DirectCompute capabilities.

GT 735M 650

RX 6400 7598
+1069%

Gaming performance

Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.

Average FPS across all PC games

Here are the average frames per second in a large set of popular games across different resolutions:

900p	17 −1018%	190−200 +1018%
Full HD	20 −1050%	230−240 +1050%

Cost per frame, $

1080p

no data

0.69

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

4−5

−1025%

45−50
+1025%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	6−7 −1067%	70−75 +1067%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	5−6 −1000%	55−60 +1000%
Cyberpunk 2077	4−5 −1025%	45−50 +1025%
Far Cry 5	2−3 −950%	21−24 +950%
Far Cry New Dawn	4−5 −1025%	45−50 +1025%
Forza Horizon 4	5−6 −1000%	55−60 +1000%
Hitman 3	6−7 −1067%	70−75 +1067%
Horizon Zero Dawn	16−18 −1025%	180−190 +1025%
Red Dead Redemption 2	3−4 −1067%	35−40 +1067%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	9−10 −1011%	100−105 +1011%
Watch Dogs: Legion	30−35 −929%	350−400 +929%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	6−7 −1067%	70−75 +1067%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	5−6 −1000%	55−60 +1000%
Cyberpunk 2077	4−5 −1025%	45−50 +1025%
Far Cry 5	2−3 −950%	21−24 +950%
Far Cry New Dawn	4−5 −1025%	45−50 +1025%
Forza Horizon 4	5−6 −1000%	55−60 +1000%
Hitman 3	6−7 −1067%	70−75 +1067%
Horizon Zero Dawn	16−18 −1025%	180−190 +1025%
Red Dead Redemption 2	3−4 −1067%	35−40 +1067%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	9−10 −1011%	100−105 +1011%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	12−14 −1067%	140−150 +1067%
Watch Dogs: Legion	30−35 −929%	350−400 +929%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	6−7 −1067%	70−75 +1067%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	5−6 −1000%	55−60 +1000%
Cyberpunk 2077	4−5 −1025%	45−50 +1025%
Far Cry 5	2−3 −950%	21−24 +950%
Forza Horizon 4	5−6 −1000%	55−60 +1000%
Hitman 3	6−7 −1067%	70−75 +1067%
Horizon Zero Dawn	16−18 −1025%	180−190 +1025%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	9−10 −1011%	100−105 +1011%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	12−14 −1067%	140−150 +1067%
Watch Dogs: Legion	30−35 −929%	350−400 +929%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

3−4

−1067%

35−40
+1067%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5	2−3 −950%	21−24 +950%
Far Cry New Dawn	2−3 −950%	21−24 +950%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	1−2 −900%	10−11 +900%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	1−2 −900%	10−11 +900%
Cyberpunk 2077	1−2 −900%	10−11 +900%
Far Cry 5	2−3 −950%	21−24 +950%
Hitman 3	7−8 −1043%	80−85 +1043%
Horizon Zero Dawn	5−6 −1000%	55−60 +1000%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	1−2 −900%	10−11 +900%
Watch Dogs: Legion	9−10 −1011%	100−105 +1011%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

4−5

−1025%

45−50
+1025%

4K
High Preset

Far Cry New Dawn

1−2

−900%

10−11
+900%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	2−3 −950%	21−24 +950%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	1−2 −900%	10−11 +900%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	0−1	0−1
Far Cry 5	1−2 −900%	10−11 +900%
Watch Dogs: Legion	0−1	0−1

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

3−4

−1067%

35−40
+1067%

This is how GT 735M and RX 6400 compete in popular games:

RX 6400 is 1018% faster in 900p
RX 6400 is 1050% faster in 1080p

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	1.68	19.70
Recency	1 April 2013	19 January 2022
Maximum RAM amount	2 GB	4 GB
Chip lithography	28 nm	6 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	33 Watt	53 Watt

GT 735M has 60.6% lower power consumption.

RX 6400, on the other hand, has a 1072.6% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 8 years, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 366.7% more advanced lithography process.

The Radeon RX 6400 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GT 735M in performance tests.

Be aware that GeForce GT 735M is a notebook card while Radeon RX 6400 is a desktop one.

Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.