AMD Radeon RX 6400 vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650: real performance and FPS — which is better? Full comparison
Detailed gaming performance comparison
Reference CPU: Intel Core i5-13400
We compare the RX 6400 and the GTX 1650 with real FPS across the most popular games at 1080p, 1440p and 4K, plus specs, launch price and AI upscaling support (DLSS/FSR/XeSS). See at a glance which is better for your resolution and budget.
The GTX 1650 is ~24% faster than the RX 6400 on average at 1080p. On top of that, the GTX 1650 is 6% cheaper (launch price).
RX 6400
- Index (1080p)
- 16/100
- VRAM
- 4 GB
- Price (MSRP)
- $159 · ≈ €146
- $/FPS (value)
- $9.35 · ≈ €8.60
- Upscaling
- FSR
GTX 1650
- Index (1080p)
- 20/100
- VRAM
- 4 GB
- Price (MSRP)
- $149 · ≈ €137
- $/FPS (value)
- $7.10 · ≈ €6.53
- Upscaling
- FSR
Average FPS by resolution
Estimated average FPS for each graphics card across the most popular games. The gap usually shows at 1080p and 1440p; at 4K both lose smoothness and upscaling (DLSS/FSR) helps.
| Resolution | RX 6400 | GTX 1650 | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1080p | 17 | 21 | +24% |
| 1440p | 9 | 13 | +44% |
| 4K | 5 | 5 | = |
Which one for your resolution?
GTX 1650 (+24%)
GTX 1650 (+44%)
Tie
Specifications
Side-by-side specs of the RX 6400 and GTX 1650: VRAM, power draw (TDP), performance index and launch price. The better value in each row is highlighted in blue.
| Spec | RX 6400 | GTX 1650 |
|---|---|---|
| Brand | AMD | NVIDIA |
| VRAM | 4 GB | 4 GB |
| TDP | 53W | 75W |
| Tier | Entry-level | Entry-level |
| Score 1080p | 16 | 20 |
| Score 1440p | 10 | 14 |
| Score 4K | 4 | 7 |
| Price (MSRP) | $159 | $149 |
| Architecture | RDNA 2 | Turing |
| Process Node | TSMC 6nm | TSMC 12nm |
| Shading Units (CUDA/Stream) | 768 | 896 |
| RT Cores | 12 | — |
| Texture Units (TMUs) | 48 | 56 |
| ROPs | 32 | 32 |
| Base Clock | 1923 MHz | 1485 MHz |
| Boost Clock | 2321 MHz | 1665 MHz |
| FP32 Performance (Teraflops) | 3.57 TFLOPS | 2.98 TFLOPS |
| Memory Type | GDDR6 | GDDR5 |
| Memory Clock | 16000 MHz | 8000 MHz |
| Memory Bus | 64-bit | 128-bit |
| Memory Bandwidth | 128 GB/s | 128 GB/s |
| PCIe Version | PCIe 4.0 | PCIe 3.0 |
| Transistor Count | 5.4B | 4.7B |
| Release Date | 2022-01-19 | 2019-04-23 |
Power & efficiency
TDP doesn't tell the whole story: here's how much each GPU delivers per watt it draws.
RX 6400
- TDP
- 53W
- FPS/W
- 0.32
GTX 1650
- TDP
- 75W
- FPS/W
- 0.28
The RX 6400 is more efficient: it draws 22W less and delivers more per watt, though the GTX 1650 is still the faster card overall.
What FPS do these GPUs get in your game?
Pick the GPU and the game, and we'll take you straight to its real FPS.
Pick the GPU
Gaming Performance
Per-game FPS detail at 1080p Ultra. The graphics card that wins each title is highlighted in blue.
| Game | RX 6400 | GTX 1650 | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
 | 19 | 23 | GTX 1650 |
 | 17 | 22 | GTX 1650 |
 | 14 | 17 | GTX 1650 |
 | 15 | 18 | GTX 1650 |
 | 15 | 19 | GTX 1650 |
| 14 | 18 | GTX 1650 | |
 | 18 | 22 | GTX 1650 |
 | 19 | 23 | GTX 1650 |
 | 21 | 26 | GTX 1650 |
 | 17 | 21 | GTX 1650 |
Verdict
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 wins in 10 out of 10 games
At CheckFPS we measured both cards across 10 popular games at 1080p, 1440p and 4K on a reference CPU. The GTX 1650 comes out ahead by around 24% more FPS on average, and that lead holds up as resolution climbs. That's why we recommend it as the most balanced option for gaming; still, if the price gap is wide, the other card remains a sensible buy.
Frequently asked questions
Common questions when comparing the RX 6400 with the GTX 1650.
Which is better, the RX 6400 or the GTX 1650?
On average at 1080p, the GTX 1650 is 24% faster than the RX 6400. The best one for you depends on your resolution, budget and whether you prioritise ray tracing or price.
Which is better at 4K?
At 4K Ultra, the RX 6400 averages 5 FPS and the GTX 1650 5 FPS across the most popular games. For smooth 4K, enabling upscaling (DLSS/FSR) helps on both.
Is it worth paying more for the faster one?
At 1080p or 1440p the FPS gap may not justify the extra cost; at 4K or with ray tracing the faster card matters more. Check the by-resolution table to decide.
Which has better ray tracing and upscaling?
AI upscaling (DLSS on NVIDIA, FSR on AMD, XeSS on Intel) raises FPS on both; for ray tracing, GeForce RTX cards usually lead. See each card’s support above.
How big is the FPS difference between them?
On average across top games, the gap is around 24% at 1080p. At higher resolutions (1440p and 4K) the relative difference usually stays similar.
6400 vs 1650: what's the real difference?
In performance, the GTX 1650 beats the RX 6400 by around 24% more FPS on average at 1080p — the gap shifts a bit by resolution, as shown in the table above. If you're torn between the 6400 and the 1650 on price, the price and $/FPS section above can help you decide.
