Radeon RX 6400 vs HD 8970M Crossfire

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon HD 8970M Crossfire with Radeon RX 6400, including specs and performance data.

HD 8970M Crossfire
2012
200 Watt
16.07

RX 6400 outperforms HD 8970M Crossfire by a small 6% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.

Place in the ranking312296
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluationno data50.89
Power efficiency6.3725.58
ArchitectureGCN (2012−2015)RDNA 2.0 (2020−2024)
GPU code nameNeptune CFNavi 24
Market segmentLaptopDesktop
Release date1 May 2012 (12 years ago)19 January 2022 (3 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)no data$159

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.

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 cores2560768
Core clock speed850 MHz1923 MHz
Boost clock speed900 MHz2321 MHz
Number of transistorsno data5,400 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm6 nm
Power consumption (TDP)200 Watt53 Watt
Texture fill rateno data111.4
Floating-point processing powerno data3.565 TFLOPS
ROPsno data32
TMUsno data48
Ray Tracing Coresno data12

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 sizelargeno data
Interfaceno dataPCIe 4.0 x4
Widthno data1-slot
Supplementary power connectorsno dataNone

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 typeGDDR5GDDR6
Maximum RAM amountno data4 GB
Memory bus width2x 256 Bit64 Bit
Memory clock speed4800 MHz2000 MHz
Memory bandwidthno data128.0 GB/s
Shared memory--
Resizable BAR-+

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 Connectorsno data1x HDMI 2.1, 1x DisplayPort 1.4a
HDMI-+

API and SDK compatibility

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

DirectX11.112 Ultimate (12_2)
Shader Modelno data6.7
OpenGLno data4.6
OpenCLno data2.2
Vulkan-1.3

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 HD69
−1.4%
70−75
+1.4%

Cost per frame, $

1080pno data2.27

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Atomic Heart 45−50
+2.2%
45−50
−2.2%
Counter-Strike 2 100−105
+0%
100−105
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 35−40
+5.7%
35−40
−5.7%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Atomic Heart 45−50
+2.2%
45−50
−2.2%
Battlefield 5 70−75
−1.4%
75−80
+1.4%
Counter-Strike 2 100−105
+0%
100−105
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 35−40
+5.7%
35−40
−5.7%
Far Cry 5 55−60
−1.7%
60−65
+1.7%
Fortnite 95−100
−5.3%
100−105
+5.3%
Forza Horizon 4 70−75
−4.2%
75−80
+4.2%
Forza Horizon 5 55−60
+1.8%
55−60
−1.8%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 65−70
−6.1%
70−75
+6.1%
Valorant 130−140
−3.7%
140−150
+3.7%

Full HD
High Preset

Atomic Heart 45−50
+2.2%
45−50
−2.2%
Battlefield 5 70−75
−1.4%
75−80
+1.4%
Counter-Strike 2 100−105
+0%
100−105
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 128
−1.6%
130−140
+1.6%
Cyberpunk 2077 35−40
+5.7%
35−40
−5.7%
Dota 2 100−110
+3%
100−105
−3%
Far Cry 5 55−60
−1.7%
60−65
+1.7%
Fortnite 95−100
−5.3%
100−105
+5.3%
Forza Horizon 4 70−75
−4.2%
75−80
+4.2%
Forza Horizon 5 55−60
+1.8%
55−60
−1.8%
Grand Theft Auto V 65−70
−6.1%
70−75
+6.1%
Metro Exodus 35−40
+5.7%
35−40
−5.7%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 65−70
−6.1%
70−75
+6.1%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 45−50
−2%
50−55
+2%
Valorant 130−140
−3.7%
140−150
+3.7%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 70−75
−1.4%
75−80
+1.4%
Cyberpunk 2077 35−40
+5.7%
35−40
−5.7%
Dota 2 100−110
+3%
100−105
−3%
Far Cry 5 55−60
−1.7%
60−65
+1.7%
Forza Horizon 4 70−75
−4.2%
75−80
+4.2%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 65−70
−6.1%
70−75
+6.1%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 45−50
−2%
50−55
+2%
Valorant 130−140
−3.7%
140−150
+3.7%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Fortnite 95−100
−5.3%
100−105
+5.3%

1440p
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2 35−40
+2.9%
35−40
−2.9%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 120−130
−1.6%
130−140
+1.6%
Grand Theft Auto V 30−33
+0%
30−33
+0%
Metro Exodus 21−24
+4.8%
21−24
−4.8%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 160−170
−3.7%
170−180
+3.7%
Valorant 170−180
−5.9%
180−190
+5.9%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Far Cry 5 35−40
−2.6%
40−45
+2.6%
Forza Horizon 4 40−45
−2.3%
45−50
+2.3%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 27−30
+3.7%
27−30
−3.7%

1440p
Epic Preset

Fortnite 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%

4K
High Preset

Atomic Heart 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 14−16
+7.1%
14−16
−7.1%
Grand Theft Auto V 30−35
+6.7%
30−33
−6.7%
Metro Exodus 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 24−27
+4.2%
24−27
−4.2%
Valorant 95−100
−2%
100−105
+2%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 24−27
−3.8%
27−30
+3.8%
Counter-Strike 2 14−16
+7.1%
14−16
−7.1%
Cyberpunk 2077 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Dota 2 60−65
+1.7%
60−65
−1.7%
Far Cry 5 18−20
+5.6%
18−20
−5.6%
Forza Horizon 4 30−35
+3.3%
30−33
−3.3%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 16−18
−5.9%
18−20
+5.9%

4K
Epic Preset

Fortnite 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%

This is how HD 8970M Crossfire and RX 6400 compete in popular games:

  • RX 6400 is 1% faster in 1080p

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 16.07 17.09
Recency 1 May 2012 19 January 2022
Chip lithography 28 nm 6 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 200 Watt 53 Watt

RX 6400 has a 6.3% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 9 years, a 366.7% more advanced lithography process, and 277.4% lower power consumption.

Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between Radeon HD 8970M Crossfire and Radeon RX 6400.

Be aware that Radeon HD 8970M Crossfire is a notebook card while Radeon RX 6400 is a desktop one.

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite graphics card.


AMD Radeon HD 8970M Crossfire
Radeon HD 8970M Crossfire
AMD Radeon RX 6400
Radeon RX 6400

Other comparisons

We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.

Community ratings

Here you can see the user ratings of the compared graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.


4.8 4 votes

Rate Radeon HD 8970M Crossfire on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4.1 2128 votes

Rate Radeon RX 6400 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about Radeon HD 8970M Crossfire or Radeon RX 6400, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.