AMD Radeon 610M vs AMD Radeon RX 6400 Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon RX 6400 and the AMD Radeon 610M serve two completely different purposes, and the benchmark data reflects that split. The RX 6400 is a discrete graphics card, while the 610M is an integrated graphics processor (IGP) built into a mobile chip. This fundamental distinction drives every performance gap between them.

In the recorded head-to-head benchmarks, the RX 6400 wins every single test. There are only two shared benchmark results in the database, and the RX 6400 dominates both. The most extreme gap appears in Geekbench OpenCL, where the RX 6400 scores 32,011 against the 610M's 4,535, a 605.9% advantage. That is not a marginal difference; it is a generational chasm. The Geekbench Vulkan result is closer but still one-sided: the RX 6400 posts 16,372 versus 6,353, a 157.7% lead.

The win count is decisive: the RX 6400 takes 2 wins, the 610M takes 0. For any workload that leans on raw compute or API-level rendering, the RX 6400 is the clear choice. The 610M, by contrast, is not designed to compete in this space; it is a low-power IGP intended for basic display output and light acceleration, not for gaming or heavy compute.

However, the 610M has its own domain. Its 15 W TDP, versus 53 W for the RX 6400, makes it suitable for thin-and-light laptops where power draw and thermals are the primary constraints. The RX 6400 requires a dedicated slot and a 250 W suggested PSU, while the 610M is an IGP with no separate power connectors. If the use case is a portable device with minimal cooling, the 610M is the only viable option despite its lower scores.

The percentile rankings tell a similar story. The RX 6400 sits at the 35th percentile among all GPUs, while the 610M sits at the 32nd. Both are below the midpoint, but the RX 6400 still holds a measurable edge in the aggregate. The average benchmark score for the RX 6400 is 6,001, against 5,444 for the 610M. That gap is smaller than the head-to-head results suggest because the 610M's limited benchmark set (only two tests) does not drag down its average as much as a fuller set might.

Architecture Differences

Both GPUs share the same RDNA 2.0 architecture, but they are built on very different silicon. The RX 6400 uses the Navi 24 chip, fabricated on a 6 nm process at TSMC. The 610M uses the Mendocino chip, also on 6 nm at TSMC, but with a smaller die: 100 mm² versus 107 mm². The RX 6400 does not list a transistor count for the 610M, but the RX 6400 carries 5,400 million transistors on its larger die.

The core configurations are wildly different. The RX 6400 has 768 shading units, 48 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 32 render output units (ROPs). The 610M has 128 shading units, 8 TMUs, and 4 ROPs. That is a 6x difference in shading units, a 6x difference in TMUs, and an 8x difference in ROPs. The RX 6400 also features 12 ray tracing cores, while the 610M has only 2. These numbers explain the massive compute gap: the RX 6400 delivers 3.565 TFLOPS FP32, while the 610M manages just 486.4 GFLOPS, a 7.3x difference.

Memory architecture is another major divergence. The RX 6400 has 4 GB of dedicated GDDR6 memory on a 64-bit bus, yielding 128.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The 610M uses system shared memory, with its bandwidth listed as "System Dependent." That means the 610M's memory performance varies entirely with the host system's RAM configuration, a limitation that the RX 6400 does not face.

Clock speeds also differ. The RX 6400 has a base clock of 1923 MHz, a game clock of 2039 MHz, and a boost clock of 2321 MHz. The 610M has a base of 1500 MHz and a boost of 1900 MHz, with no game clock listed. The RX 6400's memory runs at 2000 MHz (16 Gbps effective), while the 610M's memory clock is simply "System Shared."

The bus interface differs as well: the RX 6400 uses PCIe 4.0 x4, while the 610M uses PCIe 4.0 x8. This is notable because the 610M, despite being an IGP, has a wider PCIe lane allocation than the discrete card. The RX 6400's x4 interface could be a bottleneck in some scenarios, but the benchmark data does not isolate that effect.

Both support the same API set: DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The RX 6400 has fixed display outputs (1x HDMI 2.1 and 1x DisplayPort 1.4a), while the 610M's outputs are "Portable Device Dependent," meaning they vary by laptop design.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher raw compute performance?

A: The RX 6400 delivers 3.565 TFLOPS FP32, while the 610M delivers 486.4 GFLOPS FP32. The RX 6400 is over 7 times faster in this metric.

Q: Can the Radeon 610M run modern DirectX titles?

A: Yes, it supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), as does the RX 6400. However, its low shading unit count (128 vs 768) means it will struggle with demanding workloads.

Q: How do their memory configurations differ?

A: The RX 6400 has 4 GB of dedicated GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus with 128.0 GB/s bandwidth. The 610M uses system shared memory with bandwidth described as "System Dependent."

Q: Which GPU is more power-efficient?

A: The 610M has a 15 W TDP, while the RX 6400 has a 53 W TDP. The 610M also requires no power connectors and is an IGP, while the RX 6400 is a single-slot discrete card with a 250 W suggested PSU.

Q: Which GPU scores higher in Geekbench Vulkan?

A: The RX 6400 scores 16,372 versus 6,353 for the 610M, a 157.7% advantage for the RX 6400.

Q: Are these GPUs still in production?

A: Both are listed as end-of-life. The RX 6400 was released on 2022-01-18, and the 610M on 2022-09-19.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Radeon RX 6400 | AMD Radeon 610M |

|----------------|--------------------|------------------|

| Chip | Navi 24 | Mendocino |

| Process Node | 6 nm | 6 nm |

| Die Size | 107 mm² | 100 mm² |

| Transistors | 5,400 million | Not listed |

| Shading Units | 768 | 128 |

| TMUs | 48 | 8 |

| ROPs | 32 | 4 |

| RT Cores | 12 | 2 |

| FP32 | 3.565 TFLOPS | 486.4 GFLOPS |

| FP16 | 7.130 TFLOPS (2:1) | 972.8 GFLOPS (2:1) |

| Pixel Rate | 74.27 GPixel/s | 7.600 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 111.4 GTexel/s | 15.20 GTexel/s |

| Memory Size | 4 GB GDDR6 | System Shared |

| Memory Bus | 64 bit | System Shared |

| Memory Bandwidth | 128.0 GB/s | System Dependent |

| Base Clock | 1923 MHz | 1500 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 2321 MHz | 1900 MHz |

| Game Clock | 2039 MHz | Not listed |

| TDP | 53 W | 15 W |

| Slot Width | Single-slot | IGP |

| Power Connectors | None | None |

| Suggested PSU | 250 W | Not listed |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 4.0 x4 | PCIe 4.0 x8 |

| Display Outputs | 1x HDMI 2.1, 1x DisplayPort 1.4a | Portable Device Dependent |

| Release Date | 2022-01-18 | 2022-09-19 |

| Launch MSRP | 159 USD | Not listed |

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains exactly two shared benchmark results for these GPUs, and the RX 6400 wins both by wide margins.

The first and most lopsided test is Geekbench OpenCL. The RX 6400 scores 32,011, while the 610M scores 4,535. The delta is 605.9%, meaning the RX 6400 is roughly 7 times faster. This test is compute-heavy, and the RX 6400's 768 shading units and 48 TMUs overwhelm the 610M's 128 shading units and 8 TMUs. The 610M's shared memory subsystem also likely contributes to the gap, as it lacks the dedicated 128.0 GB/s bandwidth of the RX 6400.

The second test, Geekbench Vulkan, shows a smaller but still decisive gap. The RX 6400 scores 16,372, and the 610M scores 6,353, a 157.7% lead for the RX 6400. Vulkan tends to scale with shader count and memory bandwidth, both of which favor the RX 6400. The 610M's 2 RT cores versus the RX 6400's 12 may also factor into API-level performance, though the benchmark does not isolate ray tracing.

Context from the nearest rivals helps position these scores. The RX 6400's average benchmark score of 6,001 places it alongside the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 770M (6,000, 0% delta) and just ahead of the NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Server (5,996, 0.1% delta). The 610M's average of 5,444 sits near the NVIDIA Quadro M4000 (5,467, -0.4% delta) and the AMD Radeon R7 M365X (5,416, 0.5% delta). In practical terms, the RX 6400 performs like a mid-range laptop GPU from a previous generation, while the 610M lines up with older entry-level mobile parts.

The percentile data reinforces this. The RX 6400 is at the 35th percentile of all GPUs, the 610M at the 32nd. That three-percentile gap is modest, but the head-to-head scores show a much larger performance differential in absolute terms. The RX 6400's higher power budget and dedicated memory give it a decisive edge in any sustained workload, while the 610M's only advantage is its drastically lower power draw and integrated form factor.

For anyone choosing between these two, the decision is not about benchmark scores alone. The RX 6400 is a discrete card with a 159 USD launch MSRP, a 53 W TDP, and a 250 W suggested PSU. The 610M is an IGP with no standalone price, a 15 W TDP, and no PSU requirement. The RX 6400 wins every recorded performance test, but the 610M is the only option for a system that cannot accommodate a discrete GPU. The data shows a clear performance hierarchy, but the appropriate choice depends entirely on the host platform's constraints.