AMD Radeon RX 6400 vs NVIDIA GeForce GT 1010 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only directly comparable measurement in the database is the Geekbench OpenCL test, and the result is lopsided. The AMD Radeon RX 6400 scores 32,011, while the NVIDIA GeForce GT 1010 scores 6,698. That is a delta of -79.1% for the GT 1010 relative to the RX 6400, meaning the RX 6400 is roughly 4.8 times faster in this compute workload. The gap is so wide that it is not a close contest; it is a generational and architectural chasm expressed in a single number.

However, the GT 1010 does hold a notable position in the broader database. Its percentile rank among all GPUs is 38, which places it slightly above the RX 6400's 35th percentile. That is an interesting inversion: in raw OpenCL compute, the RX 6400 obliterates the GT 1010, yet the GT 1010 sits higher in the overall percentile distribution. This suggests that the GT 1010's single recorded benchmark, while low in absolute terms, is still competitive against the long tail of older and weaker mobile and entry-level parts. The RX 6400, despite its massive OpenCL advantage, has a lower aggregate percentile because its average benchmark score of 6,001 is dragged down by other tests, including weak DirectX 9 and DirectX 10 results.

Looking at the nearest rivals in the database, the GT 1010's average score of 6,698 places it within 1% of the AMD Radeon R7 M370 (6,764, delta -1%) and within 1.3% of the AMD Radeon R7 M460 (6,612). It also sits 1.8% above the AMD Radeon HD 7730M (6,581) and 1.9% below the AMD FirePro M5100 (6,830). These are all closely matched mobile-class parts, meaning the GT 1010 occupies a familiar neighborhood: entry-level desktop performance that is essentially equivalent to mid-range laptop GPUs from several years ago.

The RX 6400, by contrast, has an average benchmark score of 6,001, but its nearest rivals tell a different story. It is within 0% of the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 770M (6,000), within 0.1% of the NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Server (5,996), within 0.2% of the AMD FirePro W4100 (5,987), and within 0.3% of the NVIDIA Quadro K4000M (5,986). The presence of a professional server GPU (RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Server) and workstation parts (FirePro W4100, Quadro K4000M) in its nearest rival list suggests that the RX 6400's aggregate score is being pulled down by its weaker legacy DirectX tests, even though its OpenCL score is far higher.

The database records zero wins for the GT 1010 and one win for the RX 6400 in head-to-head benchmarks. That single win, however, is decisive and quantifies the compute gap clearly.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different foundries, nodes, and design philosophies. The GT 1010 uses the GP108 chip, built on the Pascal architecture, fabricated by Samsung on a 14 nm process. It packs 1,800 million transistors into a 74 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 24.3 million per mm². The RX 6400 uses the Navi 24 chip, built on RDNA 2.0, fabricated by TSMC on a 6 nm process. It contains 5,400 million transistors on a 107 mm² die, for a density of 50.5 million per mm². That is more than double the transistor density of the GT 1010, a direct consequence of the newer process node.

Clock speeds differ substantially. The GT 1010 has a base clock of 1228 MHz and a boost of 1468 MHz. The RX 6400 runs at a base of 1923 MHz, a game clock of 2039 MHz, and a boost of 2321 MHz. The RX 6400's boost is 853 MHz higher than the GT 1010's boost, a 58% advantage in raw clock rate before accounting for architectural efficiency differences.

Memory configurations also diverge. The GT 1010 has 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 64-bit bus, with memory clocked at 1502 MHz (6 Gbps effective) and bandwidth of 48.06 GB/s. The RX 6400 has 4 GB of GDDR6, also on a 64-bit bus, but memory runs at 2000 MHz (16 Gbps effective), yielding 128.0 GB/s of bandwidth. That is 2.66 times the bandwidth of the GT 1010.

Compute resources are drastically different. The GT 1010 has 256 shaders, 16 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. The RX 6400 has 768 shaders, 48 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. The RX 6400 triples the shader count and TMU count, and quadruples the ROP count. The GT 1010 has no ray tracing cores and no tensor cores. The RX 6400 has 12 ray tracing cores, though it also lacks tensor cores. The RX 6400's pixel rate is 74.27 GPixel/s versus 11.74 GPixel/s for the GT 1010, and its texture rate is 111.4 GTexel/s versus 23.49 GTexel/s.

FP32 throughput shows the scale of the difference: the GT 1010 delivers 751.6 GFLOPS, while the RX 6400 delivers 3.565 TFLOPS, which is 4.7 times higher. The RX 6400 also has FP16 capability at 7.130 TFLOPS (2:1 ratio), while the GT 1010 has no recorded FP16 rating.

API support differs as well. The GT 1010 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The RX 6400 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The DirectX 12_2 feature level on the RX 6400 indicates support for newer rendering features that the GT 1010 cannot handle.

The GT 1010 uses PCIe 3.0 x4, while the RX 6400 uses PCIe 4.0 x4, which doubles the per-lane bandwidth available for data transfers. Display outputs also differ: the GT 1010 offers 1x DVI and 1x mini-HDMI 2.0, while the RX 6400 offers 1x HDMI 2.1 and 1x DisplayPort 1.4a.

Power and physical characteristics are worth noting. The GT 1010 has a TDP of 30 W, while the RX 6400 has a TDP of 53 W. Both are single-slot and require no power connectors. The suggested PSU is 200 W for the GT 1010 and 250 W for the RX 6400. The GT 1010 has a length of 147 mm (5.8 inches), while the RX 6400's dimensions are not recorded.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear conclusion for anyone choosing between these two: the AMD Radeon RX 6400 is the superior performer in compute workloads, with a Geekbench OpenCL score of 32,011 versus 6,698 for the GT 1010, a 79.1% margin. The RX 6400 also has more memory (4 GB vs 2 GB), faster memory (128.0 GB/s vs 48.06 GB/s), a newer architecture (RDNA 2.0 vs Pascal), a smaller process node (6 nm vs 14 nm), and support for DirectX 12 Ultimate. It even includes ray tracing cores, which the GT 1010 lacks entirely.

The GT 1010's only statistical advantage is its percentile rank of 38 versus 35, and its average benchmark score of 6,698 versus 6,001. That higher average is driven by the fact that the database has only one benchmark for the GT 1010 (Geekbench OpenCL), while the RX 6400 has ten benchmarks, several of which are low-scoring legacy DirectX tests. The RX 6400's PassMark DirectX 9 score of 93, DirectX 10 score of 54, DirectX 11 score of 70, and DirectX 12 score of 30 are all low in absolute terms, which drags its average down. But those low scores do not change the fact that in the only test where both GPUs were measured head-to-head, the RX 6400 was nearly five times faster.

From a purely data-driven standpoint, the RX 6400 is the pick for any workload that benefits from compute throughput, memory bandwidth, or modern API features. The GT 1010 makes sense only in scenarios where its lower TDP (30 W vs 53 W), single-slot design, and lack of power connectors are critical constraints, and where the workload is light enough that the performance gap does not matter.

FAQ

Q: How much faster is the AMD Radeon RX 6400 than the NVIDIA GeForce GT 1010 in Geekbench OpenCL?

A: The RX 6400 scores 32,011, while the GT 1010 scores 6,698, a delta of -79.1% for the GT 1010, which means the RX 6400 is about 4.8 times faster.

Q: Which GPU has a higher percentile rank among all GPUs?

A: The GT 1010 has a percentile rank of 38, which is higher than the RX 6400's 35th percentile.

Q: Does either GPU support ray tracing?

A: The RX 6400 has 12 ray tracing cores. The GT 1010 has no ray tracing cores.

Q: What are the memory sizes and types?

A: The GT 1010 has 2 GB of GDDR5, while the RX 6400 has 4 GB of GDDR6.

Q: Which GPU requires more power from the system PSU?

A: The RX 6400 has a suggested PSU of 250 W, while the GT 1010 has a suggested PSU of 200 W. The RX 6400 also has a higher TDP at 53 W versus 30 W.

Q: What DirectX versions do they support?

A: The GT 1010 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), while the RX 6400 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2).

Where Each One Wins

The RX 6400 wins in every performance-critical category recorded in the database. Its OpenCL score is 32,011 versus 6,698, a 79.1% advantage. Its FP32 throughput is 3.565 TFLOPS versus 751.6 GFLOPS, a 4.7 times difference. Its memory bandwidth is 128.0 GB/s versus 48.06 GB/s, a 2.66 times difference. Its pixel rate is 74.27 GPixel/s versus 11.74 GPixel/s, and its texture rate is 111.4 GTexel/s versus 23.49 GTexel/s. It has more shaders (768 vs 256), more TMUs (48 vs 16), more ROPs (32 vs 8), and 12 ray tracing cores where the GT 1010 has none. It also supports DirectX 12 Ultimate, while the GT 1010 is limited to DirectX 12_1.

The GT 1010 wins in efficiency metrics. Its TDP is 30 W versus 53 W, its suggested PSU is 200 W versus 250 W, and it is smaller at 147 mm in length. It also has a higher percentile rank (38 vs 35) and a higher average benchmark score (6,698 vs 6,001), though those figures are artifacts of benchmark coverage differences. The GT 1010 uses PCIe 3.0 x4, which is older but also less demanding on the system bus.

For users building a low-power, single-slot system with minimal cooling and no extra power connectors, the GT 1010 is the safer choice from a power perspective. For anyone who actually wants to run modern games, compute workloads, or applications that use DirectX 12 Ultimate features, the RX 6400 is the only rational option. The performance delta is too large to ignore, and the RX 6400's additional memory and bandwidth make it far more future-proof.

Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA GeForce GT 1010 | AMD Radeon RX 6400 |

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

| Architecture | Pascal | RDNA 2.0 |

| Process Node | 14 nm | 6 nm |

| Foundry | Samsung | TSMC |

| Transistors | 1,800 million | 5,400 million |

| Die Size | 74 mm² | 107 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 24.3M / mm² | 50.5M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 1228 MHz | 1923 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 1468 MHz | 2321 MHz |

| Game Clock | Not recorded | 2039 MHz |

| Memory Size | 2 GB | 4 GB |

| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR6 |

| Memory Clock | 1502 MHz (6 Gbps effective) | 2000 MHz (16 Gbps effective) |

| Memory Bandwidth | 48.06 GB/s | 128.0 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 256 | 768 |

| TMUs | 16 | 48 |

| ROPs | 8 | 32 |

| Ray Tracing Cores | None | 12 |

| Pixel Rate | 11.74 GPixel/s | 74.27 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 23.49 GTexel/s | 111.4 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 751.6 GFLOPS | 3.565 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | Not recorded | 7.130 TFLOPS (2:1) |

| TDP | 30 W | 53 W |

| Suggested PSU | 200 W | 250 W |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 3.0 x4 | PCIe 4.0 x4 |

| Display Outputs | 1x DVI, 1x mini-HDMI 2.0 | 1x HDMI 2.1, 1x DisplayPort 1.4a |

| DirectX | 12 (12_1) | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |

| Release Date | 2021-01-12 | 2022-01-18 |

| Launch MSRP | Not recorded | 159 USD |