Radeon RX 6400 vs GeForce GTX 1650 Max-Q

Place in the ranking	337	285
Place by popularity	not in top-100	92
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	no data	53.19
Power efficiency	37.02	25.75
Architecture	Turing (2018−2022)	RDNA 2.0 (2020−2024)
GPU code name	TU117	Navi 24
Market segment	Laptop	Desktop
Release date	23 April 2019 (5 years ago)	19 January 2022 (3 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	1024	768
Core clock speed	930 MHz	1923 MHz
Boost clock speed	1125 MHz	2321 MHz
Number of transistors	4,700 million	5,400 million
Manufacturing process technology	12 nm	6 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	30 Watt	53 Watt
Texture fill rate	72.00	111.4
Floating-point processing power	2.304 TFLOPS	3.565 TFLOPS
ROPs	32	32
TMUs	64	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).

Laptop size	medium sized	no data
Interface	PCIe 3.0 x16	PCIe 4.0 x4
Width	no data	1-slot
Supplementary power connectors	None	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	GDDR5	GDDR6
Maximum RAM amount	4 GB	4 GB
Memory bus width	128 Bit	64 Bit
Memory clock speed	1751 MHz	2000 MHz
Memory bandwidth	112.1 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
HDMI	-	+

API compatibility

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

DirectX	12 (12_1)	12 Ultimate (12_2)
Shader Model	6.5	6.7
OpenGL	4.6	4.6
OpenCL	1.2	2.2
Vulkan	1.2.140	1.3
CUDA	7.5	-

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.

GTX 1650 Max-Q 15.52

RX 6400 19.07
+22.9%

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.

GTX 1650 Max-Q 6204

RX 6400 7622
+22.9%

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:

Full HD	59 −18.6%	70−75 +18.6%
1440p	29 −20.7%	35−40 +20.7%
4K	18 −16.7%	21−24 +16.7%

Cost per frame, $

1080p	no data	2.27
1440p	no data	4.54
4K	no data	7.57

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2	27−30 −20.7%	35−40 +20.7%
Cyberpunk 2077	30−35 −9.4%	35−40 +9.4%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5	53 −22.6%	65−70 +22.6%
Counter-Strike 2	27−30 −20.7%	35−40 +20.7%
Cyberpunk 2077	30−35 −9.4%	35−40 +9.4%
Forza Horizon 4	65−70 −21.2%	80−85 +21.2%
Forza Horizon 5	40−45 −16.3%	50−55 +16.3%
Metro Exodus	52 −15.4%	60−65 +15.4%
Red Dead Redemption 2	54 −20.4%	65−70 +20.4%
Valorant	65−70 −15.4%	75−80 +15.4%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5	59 −18.6%	70−75 +18.6%
Counter-Strike 2	27−30 −20.7%	35−40 +20.7%
Cyberpunk 2077	30−35 −9.4%	35−40 +9.4%
Dota 2	69 −15.9%	80−85 +15.9%
Far Cry 5	52 −15.4%	60−65 +15.4%
Fortnite	85−90 −12.4%	100−105 +12.4%
Forza Horizon 4	65−70 −21.2%	80−85 +21.2%
Forza Horizon 5	40−45 −16.3%	50−55 +16.3%
Grand Theft Auto V	56 −16.1%	65−70 +16.1%
Metro Exodus	36 −11.1%	40−45 +11.1%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	118 −18.6%	140−150 +18.6%
Red Dead Redemption 2	23 −17.4%	27−30 +17.4%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	50−55 −20%	60−65 +20%
Valorant	35 −14.3%	40−45 +14.3%
World of Tanks	167 −19.8%	200−210 +19.8%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	44 −13.6%	50−55 +13.6%
Counter-Strike 2	27−30 −20.7%	35−40 +20.7%
Cyberpunk 2077	30−35 −9.4%	35−40 +9.4%
Dota 2	88 −13.6%	100−105 +13.6%
Far Cry 5	59 −18.6%	70−75 +18.6%
Forza Horizon 4	65−70 −21.2%	80−85 +21.2%
Forza Horizon 5	40−45 −16.3%	50−55 +16.3%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	110−120 −22.8%	140−150 +22.8%
Valorant	65−70 −15.4%	75−80 +15.4%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2	24−27 −12.5%	27−30 +12.5%
Grand Theft Auto V	24−27 −20%	30−33 +20%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	150−160 −20%	180−190 +20%
Red Dead Redemption 2	14−16 −14.3%	16−18 +14.3%
World of Tanks	110−120 −16.1%	130−140 +16.1%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	29 −20.7%	35−40 +20.7%
Counter-Strike 2	14−16 −14.3%	16−18 +14.3%
Cyberpunk 2077	12−14 −16.7%	14−16 +16.7%
Far Cry 5	40−45 −12.5%	45−50 +12.5%
Forza Horizon 4	40−45 −12.5%	45−50 +12.5%
Forza Horizon 5	24−27 −20%	30−33 +20%
Metro Exodus	32 −9.4%	35−40 +9.4%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	21−24 −22.7%	27−30 +22.7%
Valorant	40−45 −22%	50−55 +22%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2	16−18 −5.9%	18−20 +5.9%
Dota 2	27−30 −7.1%	30−33 +7.1%
Grand Theft Auto V	27−30 −7.1%	30−33 +7.1%
Metro Exodus	10 −20%	12−14 +20%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	43 −16.3%	50−55 +16.3%
Red Dead Redemption 2	10−11 −20%	12−14 +20%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	27−30 −7.1%	30−33 +7.1%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	14 −14.3%	16−18 +14.3%
Counter-Strike 2	16−18 −5.9%	18−20 +5.9%
Cyberpunk 2077	5−6 −20%	6−7 +20%
Dota 2	27−30 −7.1%	30−33 +7.1%
Far Cry 5	20−22 −20%	24−27 +20%
Fortnite	19 −10.5%	21−24 +10.5%
Forza Horizon 4	21−24 −17.4%	27−30 +17.4%
Forza Horizon 5	12−14 −7.7%	14−16 +7.7%
Valorant	18−20 −16.7%	21−24 +16.7%

This is how GTX 1650 Max-Q and RX 6400 compete in popular games:

RX 6400 is 19% faster in 1080p
RX 6400 is 21% faster in 1440p
RX 6400 is 17% faster in 4K

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	15.52	19.07
Recency	23 April 2019	19 January 2022
Chip lithography	12 nm	6 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	30 Watt	53 Watt

GTX 1650 Max-Q has 76.7% lower power consumption.

RX 6400, on the other hand, has a 22.9% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 2 years, and a 100% more advanced lithography process.

The Radeon RX 6400 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTX 1650 Max-Q in performance tests.

Be aware that GeForce GTX 1650 Max-Q 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.