GPU Comparison
Select up to 2 GPUs to analyze their pricing, performance, and specifications side-by-side.
On performance, the GeForce GTX 1650 and Radeon RX 6400 are effectively a dead heat — under a few percent apart.
Maximum Capacity Reached. Remove a model to add another. (2/2)
GeForce GTX 1650 vs Radeon RX 6400: In-Depth Breakdown
Performance: GeForce GTX 1650 vs Radeon RX 6400
The GeForce GTX 1650 and Radeon RX 6400 post nearly the same score in our performance index, so neither holds a meaningful raw-speed advantage. Both are best suited to entry-level 1080p gaming.
Power & Efficiency
The Radeon RX 6400 draws just 53W versus 75W for the GeForce GTX 1650, and it also delivers more performance per watt — so it runs cooler and quieter and needs less PSU headroom. Its more modern RDNA 2 architecture on a TSMC N6 process is part of why it does more with each watt.
Generation & Longevity
The Radeon RX 6400 is roughly 3 years newer than the GeForce GTX 1650 (RDNA 2 vs Turing), so it generally benefits from a more modern architecture and longer driver-support runway.
Features & Ecosystem
Beyond raw numbers, the GeForce GTX 1650 brings NVIDIA DLSS upscaling/frame generation and stronger ray tracing, while the Radeon RX 6400 offers AMD FSR upscaling and strong rasterization value. If you lean on upscaling or ray tracing, that ecosystem difference can matter as much as the frame-rate gap.
Which should you buy: GeForce GTX 1650 or Radeon RX 6400?
The GeForce GTX 1650 is the faster card. With live pricing limited for this pair, base your decision on the spec differences above — particularly VRAM and power draw — and check current stock before buying.