Radeon RX 6400 vs GeForce GTX 980M

Place in the ranking	294	283
Place by popularity	not in top-100	92
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	no data	54.02
Power efficiency	13.19	25.83
Architecture	Maxwell 2.0 (2014−2019)	RDNA 2.0 (2020−2024)
GPU code name	GM204	Navi 24
Market segment	Laptop	Desktop
Release date	7 October 2014 (10 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	1536	768
Core clock speed	1038 MHz	1923 MHz
Boost clock speed	1127 MHz	2321 MHz
Number of transistors	5,200 million	5,400 million
Manufacturing process technology	28 nm	6 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	unknown	53 Watt
Texture fill rate	51.84	111.4
Floating-point processing power	1.659 TFLOPS	3.565 TFLOPS
ROPs	64	32
TMUs	96	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	large	no data
Bus support	PCI Express 3.0	no data
Interface	MXM-B (3.0)	PCIe 4.0 x4
Width	no data	1-slot
Supplementary power connectors	None	None
SLI options	+	-

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	8 GB	4 GB
Memory bus width	256 Bit	64 Bit
Memory clock speed	2500 MHz	2000 MHz
Memory bandwidth	160 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
VGA аnalog display support	+	no data
DisplayPort Multimode (DP++) support	+	no data
HDMI	+	+
G-SYNC support	+	-

Supported technologies

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

GameStream	+	-
GeForce ShadowPlay	+	-
GPU Boost	2.0	no data
GameWorks	+	-
H.264, VC1, MPEG2 1080p video decoder	+	-
Optimus	+	-
BatteryBoost	+	-
Ansel	+	-

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	6.4	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.

GTX 980M 19.13

RX 6400 19.85
+3.8%

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 980M 7354

RX 6400 7629
+3.7%

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	173 +1.8%	170−180 −1.8%
Full HD	71 +1.4%	70−75 −1.4%
1440p	34 −2.9%	35−40 +2.9%
4K	28 +3.7%	27−30 −3.7%

Cost per frame, $

1080p	no data	2.27
1440p	no data	4.54
4K	no data	5.89

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2	30−35 +10%	30−33 −10%
Cyberpunk 2077	35−40 +8.6%	35−40 −8.6%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5	56 +1.8%	55−60 −1.8%
Counter-Strike 2	30−35 +10%	30−33 −10%
Cyberpunk 2077	35−40 +8.6%	35−40 −8.6%
Forza Horizon 4	80−85 +0%	80−85 +0%
Forza Horizon 5	50−55 +2%	50−55 −2%
Metro Exodus	60 +0%	60−65 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	40−45 −2.3%	45−50 +2.3%
Valorant	75−80 +2.7%	75−80 −2.7%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5	59 −1.7%	60−65 +1.7%
Counter-Strike 2	30−35 +10%	30−33 −10%
Cyberpunk 2077	35−40 +8.6%	35−40 −8.6%
Dota 2	40 +0%	40−45 +0%
Far Cry 5	65−70 +0%	65−70 +0%
Fortnite	88 −2.3%	90−95 +2.3%
Forza Horizon 4	80−85 +0%	80−85 +0%
Forza Horizon 5	50−55 +2%	50−55 −2%
Grand Theft Auto V	60 +0%	60−65 +0%
Metro Exodus	40 +0%	40−45 +0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	182 +1.1%	180−190 −1.1%
Red Dead Redemption 2	40−45 −2.3%	45−50 +2.3%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	58 −3.4%	60−65 +3.4%
Valorant	75−80 +2.7%	75−80 −2.7%
World of Tanks	230 +0%	230−240 +0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	50 +0%	50−55 +0%
Counter-Strike 2	30−35 +10%	30−33 −10%
Cyberpunk 2077	35−40 +8.6%	35−40 −8.6%
Dota 2	65−70 −2.9%	70−75 +2.9%
Far Cry 5	65−70 +0%	65−70 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	80−85 +0%	80−85 +0%
Forza Horizon 5	50−55 +2%	50−55 −2%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	49 −2%	50−55 +2%
Valorant	75−80 +2.7%	75−80 −2.7%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2	30−33 +0%	30−33 +0%
Grand Theft Auto V	30−33 +0%	30−33 +0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	160−170 −0.6%	170−180 +0.6%
Red Dead Redemption 2	16−18 +6.3%	16−18 −6.3%
World of Tanks	130−140 +0%	130−140 +0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	34 −2.9%	35−40 +2.9%
Counter-Strike 2	30−35 +6.7%	30−33 −6.7%
Cyberpunk 2077	14−16 +7.1%	14−16 −7.1%
Far Cry 5	50−55 +2%	50−55 −2%
Forza Horizon 4	45−50 −2%	50−55 +2%
Forza Horizon 5	30−33 +0%	30−33 +0%
Metro Exodus	38 +8.6%	35−40 −8.6%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	27−30 +0%	27−30 +0%
Valorant	45−50 −2%	50−55 +2%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2	14−16 +7.1%	14−16 −7.1%
Dota 2	41 +2.5%	40−45 −2.5%
Grand Theft Auto V	41 +2.5%	40−45 −2.5%
Metro Exodus	12 +0%	12−14 +0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	48 +6.7%	45−50 −6.7%
Red Dead Redemption 2	12−14 +0%	12−14 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	41 +2.5%	40−45 −2.5%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	17 +6.3%	16−18 −6.3%
Counter-Strike 2	14−16 +7.1%	14−16 −7.1%
Cyberpunk 2077	6−7 +0%	6−7 +0%
Dota 2	30−35 +6.7%	30−33 −6.7%
Far Cry 5	24−27 +4.2%	24−27 −4.2%
Fortnite	21 +0%	21−24 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	27−30 +3.7%	27−30 −3.7%
Forza Horizon 5	14−16 +7.1%	14−16 −7.1%
Valorant	21−24 +4.8%	21−24 −4.8%

This is how GTX 980M and RX 6400 compete in popular games:

GTX 980M is 2% faster in 900p
GTX 980M is 1% faster in 1080p
RX 6400 is 3% faster in 1440p
GTX 980M is 4% faster in 4K

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	19.13	19.85
Recency	7 October 2014	19 January 2022
Maximum RAM amount	8 GB	4 GB
Chip lithography	28 nm	6 nm

GTX 980M has a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount.

RX 6400, on the other hand, has a 3.8% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 7 years, and a 366.7% more advanced lithography process.

Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between GeForce GTX 980M and Radeon RX 6400.

Be aware that GeForce GTX 980M 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.