Radeon RX 6400 vs Quadro P2000

Place in the ranking	299	285
Place by popularity	not in top-100	92
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	9.77	53.95
Power efficiency	17.36	25.77
Architecture	Pascal (2016−2021)	RDNA 2.0 (2020−2024)
GPU code name	GP106	Navi 24
Market segment	Workstation	Desktop
Release date	6 February 2017 (7 years ago)	19 January 2022 (3 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	$585	$159

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

RX 6400 has 452% better value for money than Quadro P2000.

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	1076 MHz	1923 MHz
Boost clock speed	1480 MHz	2321 MHz
Number of transistors	4,400 million	5,400 million
Manufacturing process technology	16 nm	6 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	75 Watt	53 Watt
Texture fill rate	94.72	111.4
Floating-point processing power	3.031 TFLOPS	3.565 TFLOPS
ROPs	40	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).

Interface	PCIe 3.0 x16	PCIe 4.0 x4
Length	201 mm	no data
Width	1-slot	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	5 GB	4 GB
Memory bus width	160 Bit	64 Bit
Memory clock speed	1752 MHz	2000 MHz
Memory bandwidth	140.2 GB/s	128.0 GB/s

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	4x DisplayPort	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	6.4	6.7
OpenGL	4.6	4.6
OpenCL	1.2	2.2
Vulkan	+	1.3
CUDA	6.1	-

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.

Quadro P2000 18.91

RX 6400 19.84
+4.9%

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.

Quadro P2000 7268

RX 6400 7625
+4.9%

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	58 −3.4%	60−65 +3.4%
1440p	20 +11.1%	18−21 −11.1%
4K	17 +6.3%	16−18 −6.3%

Cost per frame, $

1080p	10.09 −281%	2.65 +281%
1440p	29.25 −231%	8.83 +231%
4K	34.41 −246%	9.94 +246%

RX 6400 has 281% lower cost per frame in 1080p
RX 6400 has 231% lower cost per frame in 1440p
RX 6400 has 246% lower cost per frame in 4K

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2	30−35 −2.9%	35−40 +2.9%
Cyberpunk 2077	35−40 +8.6%	35−40 −8.6%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5	60−65 +0%	60−65 +0%
Counter-Strike 2	30−35 −2.9%	35−40 +2.9%
Cyberpunk 2077	35−40 +8.6%	35−40 −8.6%
Forza Horizon 4	75−80 −1.3%	80−85 +1.3%
Forza Horizon 5	50−55 +0%	50−55 +0%
Metro Exodus	50−55 +2%	50−55 −2%
Red Dead Redemption 2	40−45 −2.3%	45−50 +2.3%
Valorant	75−80 +1.3%	75−80 −1.3%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5	60−65 +0%	60−65 +0%
Counter-Strike 2	30−35 −2.9%	35−40 +2.9%
Cyberpunk 2077	35−40 +8.6%	35−40 −8.6%
Dota 2	34 −2.9%	35−40 +2.9%
Far Cry 5	72 −4.2%	75−80 +4.2%
Fortnite	100−110 +1%	100−105 −1%
Forza Horizon 4	75−80 −1.3%	80−85 +1.3%
Forza Horizon 5	50−55 +0%	50−55 +0%
Grand Theft Auto V	65−70 −4.5%	70−75 +4.5%
Metro Exodus	50−55 +2%	50−55 −2%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	137 −2.2%	140−150 +2.2%
Red Dead Redemption 2	40−45 −2.3%	45−50 +2.3%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	55−60 −1.7%	60−65 +1.7%
Valorant	75−80 +1.3%	75−80 −1.3%
World of Tanks	220−230 −2.7%	230−240 +2.7%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	60−65 +0%	60−65 +0%
Counter-Strike 2	30−35 −2.9%	35−40 +2.9%
Cyberpunk 2077	35−40 +8.6%	35−40 −8.6%
Dota 2	98 −2%	100−105 +2%
Far Cry 5	65−70 +0%	65−70 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	75−80 −1.3%	80−85 +1.3%
Forza Horizon 5	50−55 +0%	50−55 +0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	40 +0%	40−45 +0%
Valorant	75−80 +1.3%	75−80 −1.3%

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 −1.2%	170−180 +1.2%
Red Dead Redemption 2	16−18 +6.3%	16−18 −6.3%
World of Tanks	120−130 −0.8%	130−140 +0.8%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	35−40 +8.6%	35−40 −8.6%
Counter-Strike 2	16−18 +6.3%	16−18 −6.3%
Cyberpunk 2077	14−16 +7.1%	14−16 −7.1%
Far Cry 5	50−55 +0%	50−55 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	45−50 −4.2%	50−55 +4.2%
Forza Horizon 5	30−33 +0%	30−33 +0%
Metro Exodus	40−45 −4.7%	45−50 +4.7%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	24−27 −3.8%	27−30 +3.8%
Valorant	45−50 −4.2%	50−55 +4.2%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2	18−20 +0%	18−20 +0%
Dota 2	30−35 +6.7%	30−33 −6.7%
Grand Theft Auto V	30−35 +6.7%	30−33 −6.7%
Metro Exodus	14−16 +0%	14−16 +0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	39 −2.6%	40−45 +2.6%
Red Dead Redemption 2	12−14 +0%	12−14 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	30−35 +6.7%	30−33 −6.7%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	18−20 +5.6%	18−20 −5.6%
Counter-Strike 2	18−20 +0%	18−20 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	6−7 +0%	6−7 +0%
Dota 2	30−35 +6.7%	30−33 −6.7%
Far Cry 5	24−27 +0%	24−27 +0%
Fortnite	21−24 +4.8%	21−24 −4.8%
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 Quadro P2000 and RX 6400 compete in popular games:

RX 6400 is 3% faster in 1080p
Quadro P2000 is 11% faster in 1440p
Quadro P2000 is 6% faster in 4K

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	18.91	19.84
Recency	6 February 2017	19 January 2022
Maximum RAM amount	5 GB	4 GB
Chip lithography	16 nm	6 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	75 Watt	53 Watt

Quadro P2000 has a 25% higher maximum VRAM amount.

RX 6400, on the other hand, has a 4.9% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 4 years, a 166.7% more advanced lithography process, and 41.5% lower power consumption.

Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between Quadro P2000 and Radeon RX 6400.

Be aware that Quadro P2000 is a workstation graphics 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.