Radeon RX 6400 vs UHD Graphics (Jasper Lake 32 EU)

Aggregate performance score

We've compared UHD Graphics (Jasper Lake 32 EU) with Radeon RX 6400, including specs and performance data.

UHD Graphics (Jasper Lake 32 EU)
2021
4 Watt
1.92

RX 6400 outperforms UHD Graphics (Jasper Lake 32 EU) by a whopping 903% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking938311
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluationno data38.67
Power efficiency13.5925.72
ArchitectureGen. 11 (2021)RDNA 2.0 (2020−2024)
GPU code nameGen. 11Navi 24
Market segmentLaptopDesktop
Release date11 January 2021 (4 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

Performance to price scatter graph

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 cores32768
Core clock speed350 MHz1923 MHz
Boost clock speed900 MHz2321 MHz
Number of transistorsno data5,400 million
Manufacturing process technology10 nm6 nm
Power consumption (TDP)4.8 - 10 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).

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 typeno dataGDDR6
Maximum RAM amountno data4 GB
Memory bus widthno data64 Bit
Memory clock speedno data2000 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-+

Supported technologies

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

Quick Sync+no data

API and SDK compatibility

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

DirectX12_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 HD8
−900%
80−85
+900%

Cost per frame, $

1080pno data1.99

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2 2−3
−800%
18−20
+800%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
−900%
40−45
+900%
Dead Island 2 5−6
−900%
50−55
+900%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5 4−5
−900%
40−45
+900%
Counter-Strike 2 2−3
−800%
18−20
+800%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
−900%
40−45
+900%
Dead Island 2 5−6
−900%
50−55
+900%
Far Cry 5 1
−900%
10−11
+900%
Fortnite 8−9
−900%
80−85
+900%
Forza Horizon 4 10−11
−900%
100−105
+900%
Forza Horizon 5 3−4
−900%
30−33
+900%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 10−12
−900%
110−120
+900%
Valorant 35−40
−821%
350−400
+821%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5 4−5
−900%
40−45
+900%
Counter-Strike 2 2−3
−800%
18−20
+800%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 35−40
−821%
350−400
+821%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
−900%
40−45
+900%
Dead Island 2 5−6
−900%
50−55
+900%
Dota 2 12
−900%
120−130
+900%
Far Cry 5 1
−900%
10−11
+900%
Fortnite 8−9
−900%
80−85
+900%
Forza Horizon 4 10−11
−900%
100−105
+900%
Forza Horizon 5 3−4
−900%
30−33
+900%
Grand Theft Auto V 2
−800%
18−20
+800%
Metro Exodus 3−4
−900%
30−33
+900%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 10−12
−900%
110−120
+900%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 4
−900%
40−45
+900%
Valorant 35−40
−821%
350−400
+821%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 4−5
−900%
40−45
+900%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
−900%
40−45
+900%
Dead Island 2 5−6
−900%
50−55
+900%
Dota 2 11
−900%
110−120
+900%
Far Cry 5 1
−900%
10−11
+900%
Forza Horizon 4 10−11
−900%
100−105
+900%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 10−12
−900%
110−120
+900%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 3
−900%
30−33
+900%
Valorant 35−40
−821%
350−400
+821%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Fortnite 8−9
−900%
80−85
+900%

1440p
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2 2−3
−800%
18−20
+800%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 12−14
−900%
130−140
+900%
Grand Theft Auto V 1−2
−900%
10−11
+900%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 12−14
−900%
130−140
+900%
Valorant 12−14
−900%
130−140
+900%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
−900%
10−11
+900%
Dead Island 2 5−6
−900%
50−55
+900%
Far Cry 5 2−3
−800%
18−20
+800%
Forza Horizon 4 4−5
−900%
40−45
+900%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 2−3
−800%
18−20
+800%

1440p
Epic Preset

Fortnite 3−4
−900%
30−33
+900%

4K
High Preset

Dead Island 2 3−4
−900%
30−33
+900%
Grand Theft Auto V 16−18
−900%
160−170
+900%
Valorant 9−10
−900%
90−95
+900%

4K
Ultra Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 0−1 0−1
Dead Island 2 3−4
−900%
30−33
+900%
Dota 2 4−5
−900%
40−45
+900%
Far Cry 5 0−1 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 3−4
−900%
30−33
+900%

4K
Epic Preset

Fortnite 3−4
−900%
30−33
+900%

This is how UHD Graphics (Jasper Lake 32 EU) and RX 6400 compete in popular games:

  • RX 6400 is 900% faster in 1080p

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 1.92 19.26
Recency 11 January 2021 19 January 2022
Chip lithography 10 nm 6 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 4 Watt 53 Watt

UHD Graphics (Jasper Lake 32 EU) has 1225% lower power consumption.

RX 6400, on the other hand, has a 903.1% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 1 year, and a 66.7% more advanced lithography process.

The Radeon RX 6400 is our recommended choice as it beats the UHD Graphics (Jasper Lake 32 EU) in performance tests.

Be aware that UHD Graphics (Jasper Lake 32 EU) 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.


Intel UHD Graphics (Jasper Lake 32 EU)
UHD Graphics (Jasper Lake 32 EU)
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.


3.9 19 votes

Rate UHD Graphics (Jasper Lake 32 EU) on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4.1 2185 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 UHD Graphics (Jasper Lake 32 EU) or Radeon RX 6400, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.