You recently purchased an RX 6400 but feel let down.
You recently purchased an RX 6400 but feel let down.
What motherboard or PC are you using? It might be running at PCIE 2.0, which can lead to problems. You can confirm this by checking the GPU Z and the bus interface. Combined with the CPU, this setup often causes issues. I ran an i5 4590 (4 cores, 4 threads) with an RX 6400 on a gen 2 system, which was quite challenging. Switching to a gen 3 motherboard helped significantly, and adding an i7 4790 (4 cores, 8 threads, higher clock speed) improved performance for games needing more threads and better frame rates.
You took the discussion in an unexpected direction. It seems you didn’t address resolution, graphics options, or expected frame rates. Your focus appears to center only on ray tracing, which isn’t the main point of comparison. It looks like you might have overlooked the significant performance gap between a 3060Ti and a 1650 at 1440p or higher. A 1650 delivers much more raw power, making it suitable for modern games without relying heavily on ray tracing. TBH, I’m not sure why ray tracing is being emphasized—it’s not a priority for most players. In short, the comparison doesn’t make sense for typical users, and each card serves very different needs.
It seems you were focusing on a different aspect of the comparison. If your games don’t rely on ray-tracing, a GTX1650 offers much better value at around $185–265 compared to the RTX3060ti’s $500–700 price tag. You’re right to question whether the extra cost for ray-tracing is justified when it isn’t necessary. The earlier model even ran faster in theory due to higher clock speeds, making an RTX card seem excessive unless you really need it.
I suspect you may not have grasped my response fully. I emphasized doubting the comparison between these two cards, completely overlooking ray tracing aspects. Essentially, ray tracing is irrelevant here; focusing on rasterization performance makes no sense. Comparing clock speed as a performance measure comes across as suspicious since the actual raw performance of these cards is very different. Have you checked benchmark data to understand their real-world scores? The 1650 rating might not even appear in the rankings because it’s significantly slower. For example, HUB’s 1080p 18-game average for the 3060Ti doesn’t reflect this number. It’s hard to see how such a comparison even makes sense. Customers expecting the 3060Ti’s performance won’t be happy with 1650.
It varies depending on the situation. I’ve noticed graphs showing it lagging behind. It consumes less power and costs less. There might have been improvements in the drivers. AMD tends to stick with fewer PCIe lanes for budget cards, which caused issues in earlier generations and led to criticism. You’d expect better design if they wanted to fix it. They often limit lanes just enough to keep the card running smoothly on a PCIe4 board, but if it’s a PCIe3 system, performance drops significantly. The company seems to be leaning toward convincing users that expensive boards will solve everything, even though that rarely works in practice. The weakest compatible boards are usually the B550 series; older models like A520 or B450 fall short. They don’t support PCIe4 at all, and those are the boards people would use for such cards. It’s a mistake to push users toward them. Most likely, AMD is just trying to steer customers toward more expensive options.
I'm not focusing on the speed gap. I believe it's not as significant as some claim. I'm assessing the general quality of the results. Yes, I did notice a difference when moving from 1650 to 3060. In BeamNG and ATS with the 3060, 80 mph feels like 80 mph. 180 mph still feels like 180 mph. Not much better than with the 1650, but it wouldn't be a huge gap between a HellCat and a Civic. Comparing a 2020 Hellcat to a 93 Z28 might be fairer. I don't think the 1650 deserves full credit. My 1650S with 4GB RAM could handle ATS smoothly at 4K, though 1440p, 1280p, or 1080p gave a bit more clarity and scaling. Still, I don't see much difference in how the video looks overall. Of course, ATS and BeamNG aren't the main factors for this comparison.
Understood, though that point didn’t connect with my main concern. It’s just about the notion that a 1650 is similar to a 3060Ti, which isn’t accurate.
Video output quality from different cards with identical settings remains consistent—it doesn’t vary that way. Performance will change significantly. We’re seeing FPS in the 30s compared to over 90 in a modern AAA game, even at low resolution like 1080p. That’s a major difference.