AMD Radeon RX 6400 vs Intel UHD Graphics 730 Comparison

The AMD Radeon RX 6400 and Intel UHD Graphics 730 occupy opposite ends of the graphics spectrum, and the data reflects a decisive performance gap. The RX 6400, a discrete Radeon RX 6000 series part, delivers over five times the OpenCL score of Intel's integrated solution, while the UHD 730 trails in every measurable benchmark. This comparison is not a contest of equals; it is a study in how far a dedicated GPU outpaces an iGPU, and where each still makes sense.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon RX 6400 wins every head-to-head benchmark in the data set, and it does so by massive margins. In Geekbench OpenCL, it scores 32,011 against Intel's 5,988, a 434.6% advantage. In Geekbench Vulkan, the RX 6400 posts 16,372 versus 5,870, a 178.9% lead. Beyond the two direct comparisons, the RX 6400 also has a full suite of Passmark scores—DirectX 9 (93), DirectX 10 (54), DirectX 11 (70), DirectX 12 (30), G2D (722), G3D (7,673), and GPU Compute (2,812)—whereas the UHD 730 has none of those results listed. The RX 6400's average benchmark score of 6,001 places it in the 35th percentile of all GPUs, while the UHD 730's average of 5,929 lands in the 33rd percentile.

The Intel UHD Graphics 730's only "win" is in power efficiency and integration, but even that is not a benchmark victory. Its 15 W TDP is far below the RX 6400's 53 W, and it uses system-shared memory with no dedicated VRAM. However, the data shows zero benchmark wins for the Intel part. Its niche is not performance; it is the absence of a discrete card altogether, relying on the motherboard for display outputs. The RX 6400 wins on raw compute, rasterization (32 ROPs vs 8), and texture work (48 TMUs vs 12), with a 74.27 GPixel/s pixel rate versus 10.40 GPixel/s.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap is generational and physical. The AMD Radeon RX 6400 uses the Navi 24 chip on RDNA 2.0 architecture, built on a 6 nm TSMC process. It packs 5,400 million transistors into a 107 mm² die, achieving a transistor density of 50.5 million per mm². The Intel UHD Graphics 730, by contrast, is a Generation 12.1 part based on the Rocket Lake chip, fabricated on Intel's 14 nm+++ process. Intel lists no transistor count, die size, or density for this iGPU, but the node difference—6 nm versus 14 nm+++—is stark.

Core configurations differ sharply. The RX 6400 has 768 shading units, 48 texture mapping units, and 32 ROPs, plus 12 dedicated ray tracing cores. The UHD 730 has just 192 shading units, 12 TMUs, and 8 ROPs, with no ray tracing hardware at all. Clock speeds amplify the gap: the RX 6400 runs at 1,923 MHz base, 2,039 MHz game clock, and 2,321 MHz boost. The Intel part starts at 300 MHz base and boosts to 1,300 MHz. Memory is another chasm—the RX 6400 uses 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus, delivering 128.0 GB/s of bandwidth, while the UHD 730 relies on system-shared memory with bandwidth described only as "System Dependent."

Feature support also diverges. The RX 6400 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, while the UHD 730 manages DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The older DirectX feature level on Intel's part limits advanced rendering paths. The RX 6400's FP32 throughput is 3.565 TFLOPS, and FP16 is 7.130 TFLOPS (2:1). The UHD 730's FP32 is 499.2 GFLOPS, with FP16 at 998.4 GFLOPS (2:1)—a seven-fold difference in raw compute. The RX 6400 also has a dedicated 4 GB memory pool, a 64-bit bus, and PCIe 4.0 x4 interface; the UHD 730 uses a Ring Bus and shares system memory.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The two direct comparisons are lopsided. In Geekbench OpenCL, the RX 6400 scores 32,011 against the UHD 730's 5,988. That is a 434.6% delta, meaning the AMD card is roughly 5.3 times faster in compute workloads. The RX 6400's average benchmark score of 6,001 also sits near its nearest rivals—the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 770M at 6,000 (0% delta), the NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Server at 5,996 (0.1% delta), the AMD FirePro W4100 at 5,987 (0.2%), and the NVIDIA Quadro K4000M at 5,986 (0.3%). The UHD 730's average of 5,929 is below its own nearest rivals, trailing the NVIDIA Quadro K4000 by 0.9%.

In Geekbench Vulkan, the RX 6400 posts 16,372 versus 5,870 for the UHD 730, a 178.9% delta—nearly three times the performance. While OpenCL measures general compute, Vulkan is a graphics API, and the RX 6400's lead there is narrower but still overwhelming. The RX 6400's Vulkan score alone is higher than the UHD 730's entire benchmark suite combined. For DirectX workloads, the RX 6400's Passmark scores show a mixed profile: DirectX 9 at 93, DirectX 11 at 70, DirectX 12 at 30, and DirectX 10 at 54. These are not directly comparable to the UHD 730 because no such scores exist for the Intel part, but the pattern suggests the RX 6400 is strongest in older APIs and weaker in modern ones, yet still functional across all.

The RX 6400's G3D score of 7,673 and GPU Compute score of 2,812 further cement its position. The UHD 730 has no equivalent data points, so the comparison relies on the two Geekbench tests where AMD wins by 434.6% and 178.9%, respectively. The data set shows 2 wins for the RX 6400 and 0 for the UHD 730.

The Verdict

The data points to a single conclusion: the AMD Radeon RX 6400 is the superior performer by every measurable metric. It wins both head-to-head benchmarks, has a higher average score (6,001 vs 5,929), and offers a full suite of DirectX and compute benchmarks that the Intel UHD Graphics 730 lacks entirely. The RX 6400's 35th percentile ranking versus the UHD 730's 33rd is a modest gap in percentile, but the raw deltas—434.6% in OpenCL and 178.9% in Vulkan—reveal the true scale.

Who should pick the RX 6400? Anyone needing a discrete GPU with dedicated GDDR6 memory, ray tracing support, and the ability to handle compute-heavy tasks. It is a single-slot card with no power connectors, requiring only a 250 W PSU, and it supports DirectX 12 Ultimate. The launch MSRP is 159 USD. It offers 4 GB of VRAM, which is modest but dedicated, and its 53 W TDP makes it a low-power discrete option. The RX 6400 is end-of-life, but its architecture (RDNA 2.0, 6 nm) is recent enough to matter.

Who should pick the UHD 730? Only those who have no choice—it is an integrated GPU (IGP) with a 15 W TDP, meaning no extra card, no power connectors, and no cost beyond the CPU. It scores 5,988 in OpenCL and 5,870 in Vulkan, which is close to its average of 5,929, but it trails the RX 6400 by hundreds of percent. Its nearest rivals are mobile and professional parts like the AMD Radeon HD 8730M (0.4% faster) and NVIDIA Quadro K620M (0.5% faster), indicating it sits at the very bottom of the performance pool. The UHD 730 is for basic display output and light 2D work, nothing more.

FAQ

Q: How much faster is the AMD Radeon RX 6400 than the Intel UHD Graphics 730 in OpenCL?

A: The RX 6400 scores 32,011 in Geekbench OpenCL, while the UHD 730 scores 5,988, giving AMD a 434.6% advantage.

Q: Does the Intel UHD Graphics 730 have any benchmark wins over the RX 6400?

A: No. The head-to-head data shows 2 wins for the RX 6400 and 0 for the UHD 730.

Q: What is the memory configuration difference between the two?

A: The RX 6400 has 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus with 128.0 GB/s bandwidth. The UHD 730 uses system-shared memory with system-dependent bandwidth.

Q: Which GPU supports ray tracing?

A: Only the RX 6400 has ray tracing cores—12 of them. The UHD 730 has no ray tracing hardware.

Q: What are the average benchmark scores for each GPU?

A: The RX 6400 averages 6,001, putting it in the 35th percentile of all GPUs. The UHD 730 averages 5,929, in the 33rd percentile.

Q: How do the TDPs compare?

A: The RX 6400 has a 53 W TDP, while the UHD 730 is rated at 15 W. The RX 6400 is a single-slot discrete card with no power connectors, and the UHD 730 is an integrated GPU.