Radeon RX 6400 vs Arc A350M

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Arc A350M with Radeon RX 6400, including specs and performance data.

Arc A350M
2022
4 GB GDDR6, 25 Watt
14.36

RX 6400 outperforms Arc A350M by a substantial 36% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking363286
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluationno data53.69
Power efficiency40.0625.78
ArchitectureGeneration 12.7 (2022−2023)RDNA 2.0 (2020−2024)
GPU code nameDG2-128Navi 24
Market segmentLaptopDesktop
Release date30 March 2022 (2 years ago)19 January 2022 (3 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)no data$159

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

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 cores768768
Core clock speed300 MHz1923 MHz
Boost clock speed1150 MHz2321 MHz
Number of transistors7,200 million5,400 million
Manufacturing process technology6 nm6 nm
Power consumption (TDP)25 Watt53 Watt
Texture fill rate55.20111.4
Floating-point processing power1.766 TFLOPS3.565 TFLOPS
ROPs2432
TMUs4848
Ray Tracing Cores612

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).

InterfacePCIe 4.0 x8PCIe 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 typeGDDR6GDDR6
Maximum RAM amount4 GB4 GB
Memory bus width64 Bit64 Bit
Memory clock speed1750 MHz2000 MHz
Memory bandwidth112.0 GB/s128.0 GB/s
Shared memory--

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 outputs1x HDMI 2.1, 1x DisplayPort 1.4a
HDMI-+

API compatibility

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

DirectX12 Ultimate (12_2)12 Ultimate (12_2)
Shader Model6.66.7
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL3.02.2
Vulkan1.31.3

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 HD35
−28.6%
45−50
+28.6%
1440p16
−31.3%
21−24
+31.3%
4K9
−33.3%
12−14
+33.3%

Cost per frame, $

1080pno data3.53
1440pno data7.57
4Kno data13.25

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2 24−27
−20%
30−33
+20%
Cyberpunk 2077 27
−29.6%
35−40
+29.6%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5 45−50
−27.7%
60−65
+27.7%
Counter-Strike 2 24−27
−20%
30−33
+20%
Cyberpunk 2077 9
−33.3%
12−14
+33.3%
Forza Horizon 4 66
−36.4%
90−95
+36.4%
Forza Horizon 5 32
−25%
40−45
+25%
Metro Exodus 40−45
−25%
50−55
+25%
Red Dead Redemption 2 35−40
−25%
45−50
+25%
Valorant 56
−33.9%
75−80
+33.9%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5 45−50
−27.7%
60−65
+27.7%
Counter-Strike 2 24−27
−20%
30−33
+20%
Cyberpunk 2077 8
−25%
10−11
+25%
Dota 2 38
−31.6%
50−55
+31.6%
Far Cry 5 27
−29.6%
35−40
+29.6%
Fortnite 80−85
−35.8%
110−120
+35.8%
Forza Horizon 4 53
−32.1%
70−75
+32.1%
Forza Horizon 5 35−40
−31.6%
50−55
+31.6%
Grand Theft Auto V 26
−34.6%
35−40
+34.6%
Metro Exodus 40−45
−25%
50−55
+25%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 100−110
−33.3%
140−150
+33.3%
Red Dead Redemption 2 35−40
−25%
45−50
+25%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 40−45
−36.4%
60−65
+36.4%
Valorant 55−60
−35.6%
80−85
+35.6%
World of Tanks 190−200
−31.6%
250−260
+31.6%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 45−50
−27.7%
60−65
+27.7%
Counter-Strike 2 24−27
−20%
30−33
+20%
Cyberpunk 2077 6
−33.3%
8−9
+33.3%
Dota 2 59
−35.6%
80−85
+35.6%
Far Cry 5 50−55
−32.1%
70−75
+32.1%
Forza Horizon 4 45
−33.3%
60−65
+33.3%
Forza Horizon 5 21
−28.6%
27−30
+28.6%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 100−110
−33.3%
140−150
+33.3%
Valorant 55−60
−35.6%
80−85
+35.6%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2 10
−20%
12−14
+20%
Grand Theft Auto V 10
−20%
12−14
+20%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 130−140
−35.3%
180−190
+35.3%
Red Dead Redemption 2 12−14
−23.1%
16−18
+23.1%
World of Tanks 100−110
−27.5%
130−140
+27.5%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 27−30
−20.7%
35−40
+20.7%
Cyberpunk 2077 10−12
−27.3%
14−16
+27.3%
Far Cry 5 35−40
−28.6%
45−50
+28.6%
Forza Horizon 4 37
−35.1%
50−55
+35.1%
Forza Horizon 5 21−24
−30.4%
30−33
+30.4%
Metro Exodus 30−35
−25%
40−45
+25%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 18−20
−26.3%
24−27
+26.3%
Valorant 35−40
−25%
45−50
+25%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2 7−8
−28.6%
9−10
+28.6%
Dota 2 11
−27.3%
14−16
+27.3%
Grand Theft Auto V 11
−27.3%
14−16
+27.3%
Metro Exodus 10−11
−20%
12−14
+20%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 40−45
−27.9%
55−60
+27.9%
Red Dead Redemption 2 9−10
−33.3%
12−14
+33.3%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 11
−27.3%
14−16
+27.3%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 14−16
−28.6%
18−20
+28.6%
Counter-Strike 2 7−8
−28.6%
9−10
+28.6%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
−25%
5−6
+25%
Dota 2 24−27
−34.6%
35−40
+34.6%
Far Cry 5 18−20
−33.3%
24−27
+33.3%
Fortnite 16−18
−31.3%
21−24
+31.3%
Forza Horizon 4 19
−26.3%
24−27
+26.3%
Forza Horizon 5 10−12
−27.3%
14−16
+27.3%
Valorant 16−18
−31.3%
21−24
+31.3%

This is how Arc A350M and RX 6400 compete in popular games:

  • RX 6400 is 29% faster in 1080p
  • RX 6400 is 31% faster in 1440p
  • RX 6400 is 33% faster in 4K

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 14.36 19.59
Recency 30 March 2022 19 January 2022
Power consumption (TDP) 25 Watt 53 Watt

Arc A350M has an age advantage of 2 months, and 112% lower power consumption.

RX 6400, on the other hand, has a 36.4% higher aggregate performance score.

The Radeon RX 6400 is our recommended choice as it beats the Arc A350M in performance tests.

Be aware that Arc A350M is a notebook 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.

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 Arc A350M
Arc A350M
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.


3.8 57 votes

Rate Arc A350M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4 2051 vote

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about this comparison, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.