GeForce 8400M GS vs GTX 660M Mac Edition
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GTX 660M Mac Edition and GeForce 8400M GS, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
660M Mac Edition outperforms 8400M GS by a whopping 425% 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 | 1047 | 1424 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 2.28 | 1.97 |
| Architecture | Kepler (2012−2018) | Tesla (2006−2010) |
| GPU code name | GK107 | G86 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Release date | 1 April 2013 (13 years ago) | 9 May 2007 (19 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $14.99 |
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 | 384 | 16 |
| Core clock speed | 950 MHz | 400 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 950 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 1.27 billion | 210 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 80 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 50 Watt | 11 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 30.40 | 3.200 |
| Floating-point processing power | no data | 0.0256 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 16 | 4 |
| TMUs | 32 | 8 |
| L1 Cache | 32 KB | no data |
| L2 Cache | 256 KB | 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 | MXM-B (3.0) | MXM-I |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | no data |
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 | 512 MB | 256 MB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 64 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1250 MHz | 400 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 80 GB/s | 6.4 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | - |
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 (11_0) | 11.1 (10_0) |
| Shader Model | 6.5 (5.1) | 4.0 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 3.3 |
| OpenCL | 3.0 | 1.1 |
| Vulkan | 1.2.175 | N/A |
| CUDA | 3.0 | 1.1 |
Gaming performance
Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Atomic Heart | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
Full HD
Medium
| Atomic Heart | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| Valorant | 27−30
+0%
|
27−30
+0%
|
Full HD
High
| Atomic Heart | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| Valorant | 27−30
+0%
|
27−30
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| Valorant | 27−30
+0%
|
27−30
+0%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Forza Horizon 4 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
4K
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| Valorant | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
4K
Ultra
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
All in all, in popular games:
- there's a draw in 24 tests (100%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 1.47 | 0.28 |
| Recency | 1 April 2013 | 9 May 2007 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 512 MB | 256 MB |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 80 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 50 Watt | 11 Watt |
GTX 660M Mac Edition has a 425% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 5 years, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 186% more advanced lithography process.
8400M GS, on the other hand, has 355% lower power consumption.
The GeForce GTX 660M Mac Edition is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce 8400M GS 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.
