AMD Radeon RX 6400 vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 765M Comparison

The Verdict

The recorded data delivers a decisive outcome: the AMD Radeon RX 6400 wins every head-to-head benchmark in the database against the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 765M. The RX 6400 leads by 346.1% in Geekbench OpenCL and by 143.8% in Geekbench Vulkan. For any workload that stresses compute or modern graphics APIs, the RX 6400 is the clear choice. The GTX 765M, by contrast, remains a legacy mobile part whose only advantage is that it was designed for portable devices, but the benchmark evidence shows no scenario where it outperforms the RX 6400. Users seeking maximum performance from the database's measurements should select the RX 6400. Those constrained to a portable MXM form factor may have no choice but the GTX 765M, but they will sacrifice substantial compute performance.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different architectural generations and manufacturing eras. The AMD Radeon RX 6400 uses the Navi 24 chip built on RDNA 2.0 architecture, fabricated on a 6 nm process at TSMC. It contains 5,400 million transistors on a 107 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 50.5 million per mm². The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 765M uses the GK106 chip based on Kepler architecture, also from TSMC but on a much older 28 nm process. It packs 2,540 million transistors across a 221 mm² die, giving a density of only 11.5 million per mm². The RX 6400's smaller, denser die reflects a modern design approach.

Feature support diverges sharply. The RX 6400 includes 12 ray tracing cores, while the GTX 765M has none. The RX 6400 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) and Vulkan 1.4, whereas the GTX 765M tops out at DirectX 12 (11_0) and Vulkan 1.2.175. Both support OpenGL 4.6. The RX 6400's memory subsystem uses 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus, providing 128.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The GTX 765M uses 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, but only achieves 64.13 GB/s. Despite the GTX 765M's wider bus, the RX 6400's faster memory technology more than doubles the bandwidth.

Core counts show a mixed picture. Both GPUs have 768 shading units. The GTX 765M has 64 texture mapping units versus 48 on the RX 6400. The RX 6400 counters with 32 ROPs versus 16 on the GTX 765M. The RX 6400's pixel rate is 74.27 GPixel/s versus 13.81 GPixel/s for the GTX 765M, and its texture rate is 111.4 GTexel/s versus 55.23 GTexel/s. FP32 compute tells the same story: the RX 6400 delivers 3.565 TFLOPS, while the GTX 765M manages 1,325.6 GFLOPS. The RX 6400 also supports FP16 at 7.130 TFLOPS (2:1), a feature the GTX 765M lacks entirely.

Clock speeds differ substantially. The RX 6400 runs at a base of 1923 MHz and boosts to 2321 MHz. The GTX 765M operates at 797 MHz base and 863 MHz boost. The RX 6400's memory clock is 2000 MHz with 16 Gbps effective, versus 1002 MHz with 4 Gbps effective for the GTX 765M. Power consumption favors the RX 6400 as well: it has a TDP of 53 W and requires no power connectors, while the GTX 765M draws 75 W. The RX 6400 is single-slot with PCIe 4.0 x4 interface, while the GTX 765M is an MXM Module with MXM-B (3.0) interface. Display outputs also differ: the RX 6400 offers 1x HDMI 2.1 and 1x DisplayPort 1.4a, while the GTX 765M's outputs are described as portable device dependent.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in compute benchmarks?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 6400 dominates. In Geekbench OpenCL, the RX 6400 scores 32,011 versus 7,176 for the GTX 765M, a 346.1% advantage. In Geekbench Vulkan, the RX 6400 scores 16,372 versus 6,714, a 143.8% lead.

Q: Does the GTX 765M have any benchmark win over the RX 6400?

A: No. The database records two head-to-head benchmarks, and the RX 6400 wins both. The wins tally is 2 for the RX 6400 and 0 for the GTX 765M.

Q: Can the RX 6400 handle ray tracing?

A: Yes. The RX 6400 includes 12 dedicated ray tracing cores as part of its RDNA 2.0 architecture. The GTX 765M has no ray tracing cores at all.

Q: How do their memory specifications compare?

A: The RX 6400 uses 4 GB of GDDR6 with a 64-bit bus and 128.0 GB/s bandwidth. The GTX 765M uses 2 GB of GDDR5 with a 128-bit bus but only 64.13 GB/s bandwidth. The RX 6400 delivers double the bandwidth despite half the bus width.

Q: Which GPU is newer and more modern?

A: The RX 6400 was released on January 18, 2022, while the GTX 765M came out on May 29, 2013. The RX 6400 uses a 6 nm process versus 28 nm, and its architecture is RDNA 2.0 versus Kepler.

Q: What is the thermal design power of each GPU?

A: The RX 6400 has a TDP of 53 W and requires no power connectors. The GTX 765M has a higher TDP of 75 W and also needs no external power connectors.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Radeon RX 6400 | NVIDIA GeForce GTX 765M |

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

| Architecture | RDNA 2.0 | Kepler |

| Process Node | 6 nm | 28 nm |

| Transistors | 5,400 million | 2,540 million |

| Die Size | 107 mm² | 221 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 50.5M / mm² | 11.5M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 1923 MHz | 797 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 2321 MHz | 863 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 2000 MHz (16 Gbps effective) | 1002 MHz (4 Gbps effective) |

| Memory Size | 4 GB | 2 GB |

| Memory Type | GDDR6 | GDDR5 |

| Memory Bus Width | 64 bit | 128 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 128.0 GB/s | 64.13 GB/s |

| TMUs | 48 | 64 |

| ROPs | 32 | 16 |

| RT Cores | 12 | None |

| Pixel Rate | 74.27 GPixel/s | 13.81 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 111.4 GTexel/s | 55.23 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 3.565 TFLOPS | 1,325.6 GFLOPS |

| FP16 | 7.130 TFLOPS (2:1) | None |

| TDP | 53 W | 75 W |

| Slot Width | Single-slot | MXM Module |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 4.0 x4 | MXM-B (3.0) |

| DirectX Support | 12 Ultimate (12_2) | 12 (11_0) |

| Vulkan Support | 1.4 | 1.2.175 |

| Release Date | 2022-01-18 | 2013-05-29 |

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains two direct comparisons, and both are lopsided victories for the AMD Radeon RX 6400. The largest gap appears in Geekbench OpenCL, where the RX 6400 scores 32,011 against the GTX 765M's 7,176. That is a 346.1% margin, meaning the RX 6400 delivers more than four times the compute throughput. OpenCL workloads such as general-purpose GPU computing, physics simulations, and certain rendering tasks would heavily favor the RX 6400.

The second comparison, Geekbench Vulkan, shows a narrower but still commanding lead. The RX 6400 scores 16,372, while the GTX 765M manages 6,714. The delta here is 143.8%, so the RX 6400 is roughly 2.4 times faster. Vulkan is a modern cross-platform graphics API, and the RX 6400's newer architecture with DirectX 12 Ultimate support aligns with its stronger showing. The GTX 765M's Vulkan support is limited to version 1.2.175, which predates many of the optimizations found in the RX 6400's RDNA 2.0 design.

Beyond these direct tests, the broader benchmark records reinforce the gap. The RX 6400 has an average benchmark score of 6,001, placing it in the 35th percentile of all GPUs. The GTX 765M averages 5,501 and sits in the 32nd percentile. The RX 6400's nearest rivals include the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 770M with an identical average score of 6,000, the NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Server at 5,996, and the AMD FirePro W4100 at 5,987. The GTX 765M's nearest rivals cluster tightly around it: the NVIDIA GeForce MX130 at 5,508, the AMD Radeon R7 M440 at 5,483, and the AMD FirePro M4000 at 5,537.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon RX 6400 wins in every measured category. Its compute advantage is overwhelming, as shown by the 346.1% OpenCL lead. Its Vulkan performance is also far superior, with a 143.8% margin. The RX 6400's architecture brings modern features like ray tracing, FP16 support, and DirectX 12 Ultimate, none of which the GTX 765M can offer. Its memory bandwidth is exactly double, at 128.0 GB/s versus 64.13 GB/s. Its pixel rate is over five times higher, and its texture rate is roughly double. The RX 6400 also runs cooler at 53 W versus 75 W, and it uses a smaller, denser chip on a far more advanced process node.

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 765M's only advantage is its form factor. It is an MXM Module designed for portable devices, while the RX 6400 is a single-slot desktop card. For users with MXM-based laptops, the GTX 765M is the only physically compatible option. The GTX 765M also has more texture mapping units (64 versus 48) and a wider memory bus (128-bit versus 64-bit), though the RX 6400's faster memory compensates completely. In terms of raw performance, the database shows no scenario where the GTX 765M wins. The GTX 765M's nearest rivals, such as the NVIDIA GeForce MX130 and AMD FirePro M4000, are all within a few percent of its average score, indicating it sits in a similar performance class to those older or lower-tier parts. The RX 6400, by contrast, is closer to the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 770M in average score, despite being a modern low-power part. For any user who can mount a desktop or PCIe card, the RX 6400 is the definitive choice from the data. For those locked into an MXM platform, the GTX 765M remains functional but measurably slower in every recorded benchmark.