Arc A770 vs GeForce 8400M GT

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared GeForce 8400M GT with Arc A770, including specs and performance data.

8400M GT
2007
512 MB GDDR3, 14 Watt
0.24
Arc A770
2022, $329
16 GB GDDR6, 225 Watt
32.04
+13250%

A770 outperforms 8400M by a whopping 13250% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.

Place in the ranking1451197
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluationno data47.96
Power efficiency1.3311.02
ArchitectureTesla (2006−2010)Generation 12.7 (2022−2023)
GPU code nameG86DG2-512
Market segmentLaptopDesktop
Release date9 May 2007 (19 years ago)12 October 2022 (3 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)no data$329

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.

no data

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 cores164096
Core clock speed450 MHz2100 MHz
Boost clock speedno data2400 MHz
Number of transistors210 million21,700 million
Manufacturing process technology80 nm6 nm
Power consumption (TDP)14 Watt225 Watt
Texture fill rate3.600614.4
Floating-point processing power0.0288 TFLOPS19.66 TFLOPS
ROPs4128
TMUs8256
Tensor Coresno data512
Ray Tracing Coresno data32
L2 Cache32 KB16 MB

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).

InterfacePCIe 1.0 x16PCIe 4.0 x16
Widthno data2-slot
Supplementary power connectorsno data1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin

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 typeGDDR3GDDR6
Maximum RAM amount512 MB16 GB
Memory bus width128 Bit256 Bit
Memory clock speed600 MHz2000 MHz
Memory bandwidth19.2 GB/s512.0 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 ConnectorsNo outputs1x HDMI 2.1, 3x DisplayPort 2.0
HDMI-+

API and SDK support

List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.

DirectX11.1 (10_0)12 Ultimate (12_2)
Shader Model4.06.6
OpenGL3.34.6
OpenCL1.13.0
VulkanN/A1.3
CUDA1.1-
DLSS-+

Synthetic benchmarks

Non-gaming benchmark results comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.


Combined synthetic benchmark score

This is our combined benchmark score.

8400M GT 0.24
Arc A770 32.04
+13250%

Passmark

This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark. It gives the graphics card a thorough evaluation under various types of load, providing four separate benchmarks for Direct3D versions 9, 10, 11 and 12 (the last being done in 4K resolution if possible), and few more tests engaging DirectCompute capabilities.

8400M GT 98
Samples: 106
Arc A770 13350
+13522%
Samples: 1779

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 HD0−1102
1440p-0−159
4K-0−137

Cost per frame, $

1080pno data3.23
1440pno data5.58
4Kno data8.89

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low

Cyberpunk 2077 0−1 78
Palworld 3−4
−4133%
127
+4133%

Full HD
Medium

Cyberpunk 2077 0−1 70
Forza Horizon 4 3−4
−1000%
33
+1000%
Palworld 3−4
−3433%
106
+3433%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 7−8
−1757%
130−140
+1757%
Valorant 24−27
−704%
200−210
+704%

Full HD
High

Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 12−14
−2031%
270−280
+2031%
Cyberpunk 2077 0−1 61
Dota 2 9−10
−13233%
1200−1250
+13233%
Forza Horizon 4 3−4
−933%
31
+933%
Palworld 3−4
−2633%
82
+2633%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 7−8
−1757%
130−140
+1757%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 5−6
−3820%
196
+3820%
Valorant 24−27
−704%
200−210
+704%

Full HD
Ultra

Cyberpunk 2077 0−1 58
Dota 2 9−10
−13233%
1200−1250
+13233%
Forza Horizon 4 3−4
−667%
23
+667%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 7−8
−1757%
130−140
+1757%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 5−6
−1340%
72
+1340%
Valorant 24−27
−704%
200−210
+704%

Full HD
Epic

Palworld 3−4
−2533%
79
+2533%

1440p
High

Counter-Strike 2 2−3
−4400%
90
+4400%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 3−4
−5733%
170−180
+5733%

1440p
Ultra

Forza Horizon 4 0−1 15
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 1−2
−5900%
60
+5900%

1440p
Epic

Palworld 0−1 60

4K
High

Grand Theft Auto V 14−16
−220%
48
+220%
Valorant 5−6
−3780%
190−200
+3780%

4K
Ultra

PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 1−2
−3800%
35−40
+3800%

4K
Epic

Fortnite 1−2
−3800%
35−40
+3800%

Full HD
Low

Counter-Strike 2 317
+0%
317
+0%
Resident Evil 4 Remake 166
+0%
166
+0%

Full HD
Medium

Battlefield 5 110−120
+0%
110−120
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 270
+0%
270
+0%
Far Cry 5 117
+0%
117
+0%
Fortnite 140−150
+0%
140−150
+0%

Full HD
High

Battlefield 5 110−120
+0%
110−120
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 143
+0%
143
+0%
Far Cry 5 109
+0%
109
+0%
Fortnite 140−150
+0%
140−150
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 105
+0%
105
+0%
Metro Exodus 113
+0%
113
+0%

Full HD
Ultra

Battlefield 5 110−120
+0%
110−120
+0%
Far Cry 5 104
+0%
104
+0%

Full HD
Epic

Fortnite 140−150
+0%
140−150
+0%

1440p
High

Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 220−230
+0%
220−230
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 45
+0%
45
+0%
Metro Exodus 71
+0%
71
+0%
Valorant 230−240
+0%
230−240
+0%

1440p
Ultra

Battlefield 5 85−90
+0%
85−90
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 45
+0%
45
+0%
Far Cry 5 82
+0%
82
+0%

1440p
Epic

Fortnite 80−85
+0%
80−85
+0%

4K
High

Counter-Strike 2 28
+0%
28
+0%
Metro Exodus 47
+0%
47
+0%
Palworld 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 73
+0%
73
+0%

4K
Ultra

Battlefield 5 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 26
+0%
26
+0%
Far Cry 5 49
+0%
49
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 8
+0%
8
+0%

4K
Epic

Palworld 34
+0%
34
+0%

Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:

  • in The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt, with 1440p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the Arc A770 is 5900% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • Arc A770 performs better in 23 tests (41%)
  • there's a draw in 33 tests (59%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 0.24 32.04
Recency 9 May 2007 12 October 2022
Maximum RAM amount 512 MB 16 GB
Chip lithography 80 nm 6 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 14 Watt 225 Watt

8400M GT has 1507% lower power consumption.

Arc A770, on the other hand, has a 13250% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 15 years, a 3100% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 1233% more advanced lithography process.

The Arc A770 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce 8400M GT in performance tests.

Be aware that GeForce 8400M GT is a notebook graphics card while Arc A770 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.

Community ratings

Here you can see the user ratings of the compared graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.


2.5 22 votes

Rate GeForce 8400M GT on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4.7 5529 votes

Rate Arc A770 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about GeForce 8400M GT or Arc A770, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.