GeForce 8400 GS Rev. 3 vs GRID K520
Contents
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 555 | not rated |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.15 | no data |
| Power efficiency | 2.90 | no data |
| Architecture | Kepler (2012−2018) | Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013) |
| GPU code name | GK104 | GT218S |
| Market segment | Workstation | Desktop |
| Release date | 23 July 2013 (13 years ago) | 12 July 2010 (16 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $3,599 | no data |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
Performance to price scatter graph
Currently popular graphics cards are shown for comparison.
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 | 1536 ×2 | 16 |
| Core clock speed | 745 MHz | 520 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 3,540 million | 260 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 225 Watt | 25 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 95.36 ×2 | 4.160 |
| Floating-point processing power | 2.289 TFLOPS ×2 | 0.03936 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 32 ×2 | 4 |
| TMUs | 128 ×2 | 8 |
| L1 Cache | 128 KB | no data |
| L2 Cache | 512 KB | 32 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 3.0 x16 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Length | 267 mm | 170 mm |
| Width | 2-slot | 1-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | 1x 8-pin | 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 | GDDR5 | DDR2 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB ×2 | 512 MB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit ×2 | 64 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1250 MHz | 400 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 160.0 GB/s ×2 | 6.4 GB/s |
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 | No outputs | 1x DVI, 1x VGA, 1x S-Video |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (11_0) | 11.1 (10_1) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 4.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 3.3 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 1.1 |
| Vulkan | 1.1.126 | N/A |
| CUDA | 3.0 | 1.2 |
Pros & cons summary
| Recency | 23 July 2013 | 12 July 2010 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 512 MB |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 225 Watt | 25 Watt |
GRID K520 has an age advantage of 3 years, a 700% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 43% more advanced lithography process.
8400 GS Rev. 3, on the other hand, has 800% lower power consumption.
We couldn't decide between GRID K520 and GeForce 8400 GS Rev. 3. We've got no test results to judge.
Be aware that GRID K520 is a workstation graphics card while GeForce 8400 GS Rev. 3 is a desktop one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
