GeForce 8400M G vs Arc A350M
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Arc A350M and GeForce 8400M G, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
A350M outperforms 8400M G by a whopping 5212% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Contents
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 428 | 1443 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 41.09 | 1.93 |
| Architecture | Xe-HPG (2022−2024) | Tesla (2006−2010) |
| GPU code name | DG2-128 | G86 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Release date | 30 March 2022 (4 years ago) | 9 May 2007 (19 years ago) |
Detailed specifications
General parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. Real power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially if overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 768 | 8 |
| Core clock speed | 1150 MHz | 400 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 2200 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 7,200 million | 210 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 6 nm | 80 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 25 Watt | 10 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 105.6 | 3.200 |
| Floating-point processing power | no data | 0.0128 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 24 | 4 |
| TMUs | 48 | 8 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | 6 | no data |
| L1 Cache | 1.1 MB | no data |
| L2 Cache | 4 MB | 16 KB |
Form factor & compatibility
Information on compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For desktop graphics cards it's interface and bus (motherboard compatibility), additional power connectors (power supply compatibility).
| Interface | PCIe 4.0 x8 | PCIe 1.0 x16 |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | None |
VRAM capacity and type
Parameters of VRAM installed: its type, size, bus, clock and resulting bandwidth. Integrated GPUs have no dedicated video RAM and use a shared part of system RAM.
| Memory type | GDDR6 | GDDR3 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 256 MB |
| Memory bus width | 64 Bit | 64 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1750 MHz | 400 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 112.0 GB/s | 6.4 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | - |
| Resizable BAR | + | - |
Connectivity and outputs
This section shows the types and number of video connectors on each GPU. The data applies specifically to desktop reference models (for example, NVIDIA’s Founders Edition). OEM partners often modify both the number and types of ports. On notebook GPUs, video‐output options are determined by the laptop’s design rather than the graphics chip itself.
| Display Connectors | Portable Device Dependent | No outputs |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 Ultimate (12_2) | 11.1 (10_0) |
| Shader Model | 6.6 | 4.0 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 3.3 |
| OpenCL | 3.0 | 1.1 |
| Vulkan | 1.4 | N/A |
| CUDA | - | 1.1 |
Gaming performance
Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.
Average FPS across all PC games
Here are the average frames per second in a large set of popular games across different resolutions:
| Full HD | 36 | 0−1 |
| 1440p | 17 | -0−1 |
| 4K | 9 | -0−1 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Atomic Heart | 30−35
+3300%
|
1−2
−3300%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 70−75
+7300%
|
1−2
−7300%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 27 | 0−1 |
Full HD
Medium
| Atomic Heart | 30−35
+3300%
|
1−2
−3300%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 55−60
+5800%
|
1−2
−5800%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 70−75
+7300%
|
1−2
−7300%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 19 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 42 | 0−1 |
| Fortnite | 75−80
+7600%
|
1−2
−7600%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 55−60
+1800%
|
3−4
−1800%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 50 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 45−50
+600%
|
7−8
−600%
|
| Valorant | 110−120
+319%
|
27−30
−319%
|
Full HD
High
| Atomic Heart | 30−35
+3300%
|
1−2
−3300%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 55−60
+5800%
|
1−2
−5800%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 70−75
+7300%
|
1−2
−7300%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 180−190
+1323%
|
12−14
−1323%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 16 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 62
+589%
|
9−10
−589%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 39 | 0−1 |
| Fortnite | 75−80
+7600%
|
1−2
−7600%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 55−60
+1800%
|
3−4
−1800%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 47 | 0−1 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 26 | 0−1 |
| Metro Exodus | 27−30 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 45−50
+600%
|
7−8
−600%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 43
+760%
|
5−6
−760%
|
| Valorant | 110−120
+319%
|
27−30
−319%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 55−60
+5800%
|
1−2
−5800%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 12 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 59
+556%
|
9−10
−556%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 37 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 55−60
+1800%
|
3−4
−1800%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 45−50
+600%
|
7−8
−600%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 19
+280%
|
5−6
−280%
|
| Valorant | 110−120
+319%
|
27−30
−319%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 75−80
+7600%
|
1−2
−7600%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 24−27
+1200%
|
2−3
−1200%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 100−105
+9900%
|
1−2
−9900%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 10 | 0−1 |
| Metro Exodus | 16−18 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 100−105
+3233%
|
3−4
−3233%
|
| Valorant | 120−130
+6200%
|
2−3
−6200%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 35−40 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 12−14 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 25 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 30−35 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 18−20
+1800%
|
1−2
−1800%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 27−30 | 0−1 |
4K
High
| Atomic Heart | 10−12 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 9−10 | 0−1 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 11
−27.3%
|
14−16
+27.3%
|
| Metro Exodus | 10−11 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 15 | 0−1 |
| Valorant | 60−65
+1180%
|
5−6
−1180%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 18−20 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 9−10 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 45−50 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 12 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 21−24 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 12−14
+1200%
|
1−2
−1200%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 12−14
+550%
|
2−3
−550%
|
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Atomic Heart, with 1080p resolution and the Low Preset, the Arc A350M is 3300% faster.
- in Grand Theft Auto V, with 4K resolution and the High Preset, the 8400M G is 27% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Arc A350M performs better in 23 tests (96%)
- 8400M G performs better in 1 test (4%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 13.28 | 0.25 |
| Recency | 30 March 2022 | 9 May 2007 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 256 MB |
| Chip lithography | 6 nm | 80 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 25 Watt | 10 Watt |
Arc A350M has a 5212% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 14 years, a 1500% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 1233% more advanced lithography process.
8400M G, on the other hand, has 150% lower power consumption.
The Arc A350M is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce 8400M G in performance tests.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
