Sapphire Radeon RX 6400 PULSE Low Profile GPU Pictured

[Uskompuf]

Sapphire looks set to launch one of the first low-profile RDNA2 graphics cards with the single-slot Radeon RX 6400 PULSE that has recently been leaked by VideoCardz. The card features a nearly identical design to the companies existing low-profile Radeon PRO W6400 product offering a single HDMI 2.1 and DisplayPort 1.4 port along with an optional half-height bracket. The Sapphire Radeon RX 6400 PULSE features 768 Stream Processors and 12 Ray Accelerators along with 4 GB of GDDR6 memory running at 16 Gbps. The card doesn't require any additional power connectors with a TDP of 53 W which could make it a good option for low-power builds. The Radeon RX 6400 was first announced by AMD in January for the OEM market with DIY market products set to launch in a few days on April 20th.



View at TechPowerUp Main Site | Source

 

[ixi]

I need to see benchmarks , is this worthy replacement for GTX 1050ti?

 

[Chrispy_]

Nice to see single-slot half-height. It's not a card I have a need for, but I know it's an HTPC niche that is often ignored by OEMs.

Sadly, the Navi24 silicon powering this is lacking some important encode/decode support that makes it inferior for HTPC duty compared to several older cards (and IGPs, for that matter). If people have a half-height PC under their TV though, it could at least be an upgrade for casual gaming.

I need to see benchmarks , is this worthy replacement for GTX 1050ti?

Highly unlikely.

The 6400 is around 2/3rds the performance of a 6500XT; It has 25% fewer shaders and 17% lower clockspeeds and it also lacks the AV1 decode and VP9/H.264/H.265 encode of newer GPUs.
The 1050Ti is about 2/3rds the performance of a 6500XT running in a PCIe 3.0 slot which you presumably have if your PC is the same age as your 1050Ti.

So, this is an estimate (extrapolating performance data from the 6500XT vs 1050Ti) You will get:

• No real performance increase
• No new hardware encode/decode support
• Similar power draw and noise levels
• Raytracing that is so slow that it's completely unusable in any situation whatsoever.
• A ~$150 dent in your wallet
• A dusty old 1050Ti to sell on ebay for ~$100.

TL;DR - if you can be bothered to sell your old card on ebay, you'll pay about $50 for awful, unusable raytracing and not much else.

 

[Rexter]

Finally! A single slot half-height card that ISN'T a Geforce 1030. The market for those types of GPU's has been severely overlooked in many years now. This isn't all that remarkable at all performance wise, I firmly believe its possible to make a faster card within that physical and power envelope but oh well.
But AMD could have least have updated it's video encoding/decoding engine...

 

[AusWolf]

Gimme gimme gimme!

I know it's only pci-e x4, but I'll take anything low profile at this point.

 

[beautyless]

I'm sticking with my aged RX470 for 1080p/med for another year.
Next upgrade may be in 2023 which I hope I can find RX6800 level at 300$ price points.
And then I will also buy 1440p monitor altogether.

 

[catulitechup]

oh my god when you think about nothing worst can appear than rx 6500 xt appear this thing:

Finally! A single slot half-height card that ISN'T a Geforce 1030. The market for those types of GPU's has been severely overlooked in many years now. This isn't all that remarkable at all performance wise, I firmly believe its possible to make a faster card within that physical and power envelope but oh well.
But AMD could have least have updated it's video encoding/decoding engine...

yeah only cost about 2x gt 1030 and give around 130us 2017 gpu performance aka gtx 1050ti

resuming same performance than 130us gpu appear in 2017 and with less features: less decoding-encoding capabilities, lack of pci-e lanes and now with possible same price than 2017 or maybe more around 130us or 150us

 

[Chrispy_]

oh my god when you think about nothing worst can appear than rx 6500 xt appear

It's not that bad; The last 50W card AMD made was the RX550 and this should be significantly faster than that. The price has increased of course, but so has the price of absolutely every other GPU, without exception, so that's no surprise and no fault of the RX 6400, specifically.

resuming same performance than 130us gpu appear in 2017 and with less features: less decoding-encoding capabilities, lack of pci-e lanes

The GT 1030 is only a 3.0 x4 card so it has the same number of lanes but is unable to take advantage of PCIe 4.0 motherboards.
The GT 1030 also lacks AV1 decode and VP9/H.264/H.265 encode.
The GT 1030 lacks DXR features. Not that the RX6400 DXR performance is anything worth mentioning, but in a tickbox contest, the RX6400 has features the GT1030 does not.
The GT 1030 is also pretty slow. 1050Ti-level performance isn't really worth an upgrade if you already have a 1030 but at least the RX6400 is progress in the right direction.

I get that you hate this card and you're right that it's not going to be the best performance/$ on the market - but it's not aimed at that market. It's aimed at people with SFF PCs that are unable to provide PCIe power, or fit a full-size card.

 

[AusWolf]

oh my god when you think about nothing worst can appear than rx 6500 xt appear this thing:

yeah only cost about 2x gt 1030 and give around 130us 2017 gpu performance aka gtx 1050ti

resuming same performance than 130us gpu appear in 2017 and with less features: less decoding-encoding capabilities, lack of pci-e lanes and now with possible same price than 2017 or maybe more around 130us or 150us

One can laugh at its performance level, but you have to consider that there is literally no low profile card available apart from the 1030. Price isn't a valid point, either, in a world where a 3050 costs £300+ and really high-end GPUs sell North of £1000. It's not a good thing - just the reality of 2022.

So if you want a low profile card, you have this for presumably £130-150, or the 1030 for £100. It's not a bad offer if you look at it this way.

 

[TheinsanegamerN]

It's not that bad; The last 50W card AMD made was the RX550 and this should be significantly faster than that. The price has increased of course, but so has the price of absolutely every other GPU, without exception, so that's no surprise and no fault of the RX 6400, specifically.

SHOULD is the key word there. The 6500xt, limited to 75 watt, isnt any faster then their old 560x 75w edition. I'd place healthy bets that the 6400 cannot reliably outperform the 550.

The GT 1030 is only a 3.0 x4 card so it has the same number of lanes but is unable to take advantage of PCIe 4.0 motherboards.
The GT 1030 also lacks AV1 decode and VP9/H.264/H.265 encode.
The GT 1030 lacks DXR features. Not that the RX6400 DXR performance is anything worth mentioning, but in a tickbox contest, the RX6400 has features the GT1030 does not.
The GT 1030 is also pretty slow. 1050Ti-level performance isn't really worth an upgrade if you already have a 1030 but at least the RX6400 is progress in the right direction.

The GT 1030 was also available for $75. This card will likely be over $150, which is totally unjustifiable, inflation or not.

I get that you hate this card and you're right that it's not going to be the best performance/$ on the market - but it's not aimed at that market. It's aimed at people with SFF PCs that are unable to provide PCIe power, or fit a full-size card.

And for thos epeople the old 1050ti is suprior and the 1650 offered better performance and better price/perf 4 years ago.

 

[catulitechup]

It's not that bad; The last 50W card AMD made was the RX550 and this should be significantly faster than that. The price has increased of course, but so has the price of absolutely every other GPU, without exception, so that's no surprise and no fault of the RX 6400, specifically.

The GT 1030 is only a 3.0 x4 card so it has the same number of lanes but is unable to take advantage of PCIe 4.0 motherboards.
The GT 1030 also lacks AV1 decode and VP9/H.264/H.265 encode.
The GT 1030 lacks DXR features. Not that the RX6400 DXR performance is anything worth mentioning, but in a tickbox contest, the RX6400 has features the GT1030 does not.
The GT 1030 is also pretty slow. 1050Ti-level performance isn't really worth an upgrade if you already have a 1030 but at least the RX6400 is progress in the right direction.

I get that you hate this card and you're right that it's not going to be the best performance/$ on the market - but it's not aimed at that market. It's aimed at people with SFF PCs that are unable to provide PCIe power, or fit a full-size card.

according price:

The RX 6400 is only a 4.0 x4 card and on most users have pci-e 3.0 and this card in pci-e 3.0 4x will be a loss compared GTX 1050ti because have full pci-e 3.0 x16.

The GTX 1050ti also lacks of AV1 decode but have H.264/H.265 encode meanwhile RX 6400 dont have anything

The GTX 1050ti lacks DXR features. but raytracing performance in RX 6400 will be a huge joke

The GTX 1050ti possible have similar performance than RX 6400 only left if amd can put 150us or more for this trash

Resuming amd redifine trash, one step more lower with RX 6400

Waiting for intel no more money for amd and nvidia with trash products like RX 6500 XT and RX 6400 (mobile chips adapted to desktop) or outdated products like GTX 1050ti

 

[defaultluser]

do not want

 

[catulitechup]

what a cheap company with this details in around 150us to 170us gpu

well sapphire give another step to low more RX 6400 than really is

 

[Chrispy_]

according price:

The RX 6400 is only a 4.0 x4 card and on most users have pci-e 3.0 and this card in pci-e 3.0 4x will be a loss compared GTX 1050ti because have full pci-e 3.0 x16.

The GTX 1050ti also lacks of AV1 decode but have H.264/H.265 encode meanwhile RX 6400 dont have anything

The GTX 1050ti lacks DXR features. but raytracing performance in RX 6400 will be a huge joke

The GTX 1050ti possible have similar performance than RX 6400 only left if amd can put 150us or more for this trash

Resuming amd redifine trash, one step more lower with RX 6400

Waiting for intel no more money for amd and nvidia with trash products like RX 6500 XT and RX 6400 (mobile chips adapted to desktop) or outdated products like GTX 1050ti

I'm not going to argue with that, if you already have a half-height, 75W GTX 1050Ti then the 6400 is not an upgrade.
What it comes down to is this card filling a very specific niche. If you need to buy a new, half-height, sub-75W card, there really isn't a lot of choice.

 

[catulitechup]

I'm not going to argue with that, if you already have a half-height, 75W GTX 1050Ti then the 6400 is not an upgrade.
What it comes down to is this card filling a very specific niche. If you need to buy a new, half-height, sub-75W card, there really isn't a lot of choice.

personally prefer gtx 1050ti because is more complete card (decode-encode capabilities, pci-e more lanes on 3.0)
but now is too old

arc A350 seems more interesting because have pci-e 4.0 8x compared pci-e 4.0 4x in RX 6400 and have AV1 decode and encode capabilities*

*in my case is a killer feature

 

[Chrispy_]

personally prefer gtx 1050ti because is more complete card (decode-encode capabilities, pci-e more lanes on 3.0)
but now is too old

arc A350 seems more interesting because have pci-e 4.0 8x compared pci-e 4.0 4x in RX 6400 and have AV1 decode and encode capabilities*

*in my case is a killer feature

Another option if you can wait for AM5 is a Rembrandt APU as per the Ryzen 6000-series laptops, or see if Nvidia bother with the sub-75W segment with the 4000-series. Given that they've not done so since Pascal architecture, and dropped the Turing NVENC block from the low-end 1650, it's unlikely that Nvidia care about it any more.

 

[Keullo-e]

With the high-end power hogs a card like this isn't going to happen. There are lots of budget gamers who buys those older SFF office PCs. And inb4 "but they're only PCIe 3.0 and this is a x4 card", well, GT 1030 is also a x4 card. And this wipes the floor with it.

 

[catulitechup]

Another option if you can wait for AM5 is a Rembrandt APU as per the Ryzen 6000-series laptops, or see if Nvidia bother with the sub-75W segment with the 4000-series. Given that they've not done so since Pascal architecture, and dropped the Turing NVENC block from the low-end 1650, it's unlikely that Nvidia care about it any more.

AM5 APU possible a expensive product, personally i dont seem rare if them put 250 to 300us for gtx 1050ti performance
resuming a big heist

Respect nvidia maybe can make others gpus with ampere maybe revive xx40 series because xx30 since GT 1030 aka GP108 is a horrible card especially compared in features with GT 730 GK208 and this model have encode capabilities meanwhile GT 1030 dont have anything

however GTX 1650 non super have volta encoder and now this is better a dont have any encoder

Nvidia Slips Volta NVENC Into GeForce GTX 1650 Instead Of Turing NVENC

The specifications for the GeForce GTX 1650 reveals that the graphics card is packing the old Volta NVENC encoder instead of the Turing NVENC encoder.

www.tomshardware.com

But i want a intel gpu because decode and encode capabilities seems very good, more pci-e lanes, raytracing dont care and use linux mainly

No more money for nvidia or amd

 

[docnorth]

Gimme gimme gimme!

I know it's only pci-e x4, but I'll take anything low profile at this point.

6500xt loses 13% on PCIe 3 compared to PCIe 4 on average, tested here at TPU. 6400 with 2/3(?) of 6500xt performance should lose much less on PCIe 3, at least that's how I understand it. Let's hope it can match or exceed 1650 non-S, I need at least one slot-powered GPU and the 1650 cards are still 50% overpriced.

P.S. 6400 might be worth it even on PCIe 2, if I can make a wild guess. Let's wait for the reviews and PCI-e scaling tests.

 

[AusWolf]

6500xt loses 13% on PCIe 3 compared to PCIe 4 on average, tested here at TPU. 6400 with 2/3(?) of 6500xt performance should lose much less on PCIe 3, at least that's how I understand it. Let's hope it can match or exceed 1650 non-S, I need at least one slot-powered GPU and the 1650 cards are still 50% overpriced.

P.S. 6400 might be worth it even on PCIe 2, if I can make a wild guess. Let's wait for the reviews and PCI-e scaling tests.

I agree, though I don't need it for gaming - I have a 2070 in my main rig for that purpose. I only need it as a HTPC card because of its HDMI 2.1 port. So far, the 1650 is the only card that has it and has a low profile version as well, but it's not only expensive, but also has been unavailable for quite some time. My 1030 only does 4k 60 Hz with some serious chroma subsampling. Not that it's a big deal, but if the price is right, I'd gladly swap it for something like this LP 6400.

 

[Chrispy_]

In case anyone's wondering where I pulled 2/3rds of a 6500XT from, It's a very crude extrapolation that's barely better than me pulling numbers out of my ass.

6400 = 2321MHz * 12CU = 27,852
6500XT = 2815MHz * 16CU = 45,040

27,852/45,040 = 62%, but scaling down is never a linear loss so fudge it to 2/3rds, job's a gud'un.

 

[AusWolf]

In case anyone's wondering where I pulled 2/3rds of a 6500XT from, It's a very crude extrapolation that's barely better than me pulling numbers out of my ass.

View attachment 244157

6400 = 2321MHz * 12CU = 27,852
6500XT = 2815MHz * 16CU = 45,040

27,852/45,040 = 62%, but scaling down is never a linear loss so fudge it to 2/3rds, job's a gud'un.

Good enough to make sure you don't suffocate it with a PCI-e 3.0 bus.

 

[trsttte]

This can be great in a pinch instead of things the ancient gt1030 or gt730 but I'd rather wait for the cheapest Intel Arc that will have a full media engine and 4 display outs (whenever they finally launch it )

 

[catulitechup]

This can be great in a pinch instead of things the ancient gt1030 or gt730 but I'd rather wait for the cheapest Intel Arc that will have a full media engine and 4 display outs (whenever they finally launch it )

 

[simlife]

who is this for the maassive market of 1060s or lower? even then it might be bad or a lateral upgrade wasting money of the ppl the card is intended for poor ppl