RX 5500 XT vs RX 6400: Which Graphics Card Should You Buy?

The newer RX 6400 is actually slower than the RX 5500 XT, so the 5500 XT (ideally the 8 GB version) is the better gaming card for anyone whose PC has an 8-pin power cable and room for a dual-slot card; the RX 6400 only wins in small or low-profile office PCs that have no PCIe power connector and a weak power supply.

That ordering surprises many buyers because the RX 6400 belongs to AMD’s newer RDNA 2 generation. But the RX 6400 is a cut-down, laptop-derived chip designed for very low power, while the RX 5500 XT is a full desktop card with nearly twice the shaders and more than twice the power budget. Both are entry-level cards that now sit far below current options such as the Intel Arc B570, RTX 5050 and RX 9060 XT, so this comparison is mostly about upgrading a cheap or prebuilt PC on a minimal budget.

ASRock RX 5500 XT Challenger D 4G OC, RDNA, 1845MHz Boost, 4GB GDDR6 128-bit, PCIe 4.0 Graphics Card

Included for 'RX 5500 XT vs RX 6400: Which Graphics Card Should You Buy?' because the listing specifies RDNA and 1845MHz Boost, details this guide uses to compare options.

View on Amazon →

ASRock Radeon RX 6400 Challenger ITX 4GB Graphics Card, 2321 MHz Boost Clock, AMD RDNA 2 Architecture, GDDR6, Low-Profile, Single Fan, PCIe 4.0, HDMI 2.1, DisplayPort 1.4

Included for 'RX 5500 XT vs RX 6400: Which Graphics Card Should You Buy?' because the listing specifies 2321 MHz Boost Clock and AMD RDNA 2 Architecture, details this guide uses to compare options.

View on Amazon →

XFX Speedster SWFT105 Radeon RX 6400 Gaming Graphics Card with 4GB GDDR6, AMD RDNA 2 RX-64XL4SFG2

Included for 'RX 5500 XT vs RX 6400: Which Graphics Card Should You Buy?' because the listing specifies AMD RDNA 2 RX-64XL4SFG2, details this guide uses to compare options.

View on Amazon →

Specs Show Why the Older Card Wins

The RX 5500 XT was sold in 4 GB and 8 GB versions; the $169 launch price applied to the 4 GB model, and the 8 GB model cost more. When shopping used, the 8 GB version is the one to look for.

The RX 6400’s advantages are efficiency and form factor. Its disadvantages are structural: about half the shaders, half the memory bus width, a narrow PCIe 4.0 x4 link, only two display outputs, and no hardware video encoding. The 16 MB Infinity Cache helps, but it cannot make up the difference.

Gaming Performance

Aggregated benchmark data generally places the RX 5500 XT roughly 17-40 percent ahead of the RX 6400, depending on the test mix and which 5500 XT memory version is used. TechSpot’s RX 6400 review (Hardware Unboxed) framed the 6400 as underwhelming for its price but reasonable for a low-profile, slot-powered card, and it measured an average 9 percent performance drop when the card ran on PCIe 3.0, which left it slightly slower than a GTX 1650.

That PCIe point matters for this matchup. The typical RX 6400 buyer is upgrading an older office PC, which very often has a PCIe 3.0 slot. There, the RX 6400 runs at PCIe 3.0 x4, and games that exceed its 4 GB of VRAM suffer heavily. TechSpot noted that in Doom Eternal with medium textures, the RX 6400 was impractical to play on PCIe 3.0. The RX 5500 XT uses an x8 link and, in the 8 GB version, has far more memory before it ever needs to stream data across the bus.

Approximate expectations, varying with game, settings, CPU and platform:

• 1080p low-medium, modern AAA: RX 5500 XT 8 GB often around 40-70 fps; RX 6400 often around 30-50 fps on PCIe 4.0, lower on PCIe 3.0.
• Esports titles at 1080p: both deliver high frame rates; the 5500 XT has more headroom.
• 1440p: neither is suited to it beyond light or older games.

Ray Tracing and Upscaling

The RX 6400 technically supports hardware ray tracing and DirectX 12 Ultimate, while the RX 5500 XT supports neither. In practice, the RX 6400 is far too slow to use ray tracing in games, so the RT hardware is mostly a compatibility checkbox. The DX12 Ultimate support is more meaningful: a small number of newer games require mesh shaders and will not run, or run poorly, on RDNA 1 cards like the 5500 XT.

Both cards can use FSR 2 and FSR 3 upscaling and FSR 3 frame generation in supported games. Neither supports FSR 4, which targets RX 9000 cards. On cards this slow, upscaling is useful, but frame generation is of limited value because it needs a base frame rate around 50-60 fps to feel smooth. Both families also share the same driver status: AMD moved RX 5000 and RX 6000 cards to a maintenance-mode branch in late 2025, while clarifying that new-game support and fixes continue.

VRAM: 4 GB Is the RX 6400’s Biggest Weakness

• 4 GB: enough for esports, indie and older games; many new AAA games need low textures.
• 8 GB: handles medium-to-high textures at 1080p in most games.

Pairing 4 GB with a PCIe 3.0 x4 link compounds the problem, because overflowing the memory pushes data over a very narrow bus.

Power, PSU and Fit: Where the RX 6400 Wins

The RX 6400’s 53 W rating means it runs entirely from the motherboard slot with no power cable, and single-slot and low-profile versions exist. That makes it one of the few gaming-capable cards that fits slim office desktops with small proprietary power supplies.

PSU worked example (GPU + CPU + about 150 W headroom) with a 65 W CPU:

• RX 6400: 53 + 65 + 150 = 268 W, so most OEM 250-300 W supplies are adequate, since the headroom figure is conservative for a slot-powered card.
• RX 5500 XT: 130 + 65 + 150 = 345 W, so a quality 400-450 W unit with an 8-pin PCIe lead is needed.

The RX 5500 XT reference length is 180 mm and it is a dual-slot card, so it fits most standard ATX and micro-ATX towers, but not low-profile cases. If your system has no 8-pin PCIe cable, the 5500 XT also means a power supply upgrade.

Other Differences

• Video encoding: the RX 6400 has no hardware video encoder, which rules out efficient game streaming or recording; the RX 5500 XT includes H.264 and HEVC encoding.
• Display outputs: the RX 6400 has two outputs, the 5500 XT has four.
• HDMI: the RX 6400’s HDMI 2.1 is newer, though few buyers in this class will use its higher bandwidth.

Value and Used Prices

Launch prices were close: $169 for the RX 5500 XT 4 GB and $159 for the RX 6400. With the 5500 XT roughly 17-40 percent faster, it delivered better performance per dollar at launch, about $169 / 1.25 ≈ $135 per RX 6400-equivalent of performance at the midpoint of that range.

Used, the RX 5500 XT usually sells in the $60-$100 range, with 8 GB versions at the upper end, while the RX 6400 often sells around $80-$120 used, its price propped up by demand for low-profile, slot-powered cards.

Which One Fits Your PC

Frequently Asked Questions

Is the RX 6400 better than the RX 5500 XT?

No, for gaming the RX 6400 is slower despite being newer. Aggregated benchmarks place the RX 5500 XT roughly 17-40 percent ahead. The RX 6400 only wins on power draw, size and the absence of a power connector.

Does the RX 6400 need a power connector?

No, the RX 6400 draws 53 W and runs entirely from the PCIe slot. That makes it suitable for office PCs without PCIe power cables. Low-profile and single-slot versions are available.

How much does PCIe 3.0 hurt the RX 6400?

TechSpot measured an average drop of about 9 percent on PCIe 3.0, with much larger losses in games that exceed its 4 GB of VRAM. Some titles became impractical at higher texture settings. Lowering textures reduces the penalty.

Which RX 5500 XT version should I buy?

The 8 GB version is the better choice because many modern games exceed 4 GB at 1080p. It also reduces how much data crosses the PCIe x8 link. The 4 GB version is fine only for esports and older titles.

Can the RX 6400 stream games or record gameplay?

The RX 6400 has no hardware video encoder, so streaming and recording must use the CPU, which costs performance. The RX 5500 XT includes hardware H.264 and HEVC encoding. Streamers should choose the 5500 XT or a newer card.