GeForce 8400M GS vs Arc A350M

Place in the ranking	363	1362
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Power efficiency	40.04	1.64
Architecture	Generation 12.7 (2022−2023)	Tesla (2006−2010)
GPU code name	DG2-128	G86
Market segment	Laptop	Laptop
Release date	30 March 2022 (2 years ago)	9 May 2007 (17 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. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.

Pipelines / CUDA cores	768	16
Core clock speed	300 MHz	400 MHz
Boost clock speed	1150 MHz	no data
Number of transistors	7,200 million	210 million
Manufacturing process technology	6 nm	80 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	25 Watt	11 Watt
Texture fill rate	55.20	3.200
Floating-point processing power	1.766 TFLOPS	0.0256 TFLOPS
ROPs	24	4
TMUs	48	8
Ray Tracing Cores	6	no data

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

MXM-I

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	DDR2
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	-	-

Connectivity and outputs

Types and number of video connectors present on the reviewed GPUs. As a rule, data in this section is precise only for desktop reference ones (so-called Founders Edition for NVIDIA chips). OEM manufacturers may change the number and type of output ports, while for notebook cards availability of certain video outputs ports depends on the laptop model rather than on the card itself.

Display Connectors

No outputs

API compatibility

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	1.3	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	35	0−1
1440p	16	-0−1
4K	9	-0−1

Cost per frame, $

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2	24−27 +317%	6−7 −317%
Cyberpunk 2077	27 +1250%	2−3 −1250%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5	45−50	0−1
Counter-Strike 2	24−27 +317%	6−7 −317%
Cyberpunk 2077	9 +350%	2−3 −350%
Forza Horizon 4	66 +1220%	5−6 −1220%
Forza Horizon 5	32	0−1
Metro Exodus	40−45	0−1
Red Dead Redemption 2	35−40 +800%	4−5 −800%
Valorant	56 +5500%	1−2 −5500%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5	45−50	0−1
Counter-Strike 2	24−27 +317%	6−7 −317%
Cyberpunk 2077	8 +300%	2−3 −300%
Dota 2	38	0−1
Far Cry 5	27 +286%	7−8 −286%
Fortnite	80−85 +8000%	1−2 −8000%
Forza Horizon 4	53 +960%	5−6 −960%
Forza Horizon 5	35−40	0−1
Grand Theft Auto V	26	0−1
Metro Exodus	40−45	0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	100−110 +1650%	6−7 −1650%
Red Dead Redemption 2	35−40 +800%	4−5 −800%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	40−45 +1000%	4−5 −1000%
Valorant	55−60 +5700%	1−2 −5700%
World of Tanks	190−200 +1483%	12−14 −1483%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	45−50	0−1
Counter-Strike 2	24−27 +317%	6−7 −317%
Cyberpunk 2077	6 +200%	2−3 −200%
Dota 2	59 +5800%	1−2 −5800%
Far Cry 5	50−55 +657%	7−8 −657%
Forza Horizon 4	45 +800%	5−6 −800%
Forza Horizon 5	21	0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	100−110 +1650%	6−7 −1650%
Valorant	55−60 +5700%	1−2 −5700%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2	10	0−1
Grand Theft Auto V	10	0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	100−110 +10800%	1−2 −10800%
Red Dead Redemption 2	12−14	0−1
World of Tanks	100−110 +10100%	1−2 −10100%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	27−30	0−1
Cyberpunk 2077	10−12 +267%	3−4 −267%
Far Cry 5	35−40 +775%	4−5 −775%
Forza Horizon 4	37	0−1
Forza Horizon 5	21−24	0−1
Metro Exodus	30−35	0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	18−20 +375%	4−5 −375%
Valorant	35−40 +800%	4−5 −800%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2	10−11 +0%	10−11 +0%
Dota 2	11 −36.4%	14−16 +36.4%
Grand Theft Auto V	11 −36.4%	14−16 +36.4%
Metro Exodus	10−11	0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	40−45	0−1
Red Dead Redemption 2	9−10	0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	11 −36.4%	14−16 +36.4%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	14−16	0−1
Counter-Strike 2	10−11 +0%	10−11 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	4−5 +100%	2−3 −100%
Dota 2	24−27 +73.3%	14−16 −73.3%
Far Cry 5	18−20	0−1
Fortnite	16−18	0−1
Forza Horizon 4	19	0−1
Forza Horizon 5	10−12	0−1
Valorant	16−18	0−1

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

in PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS, with 1440p resolution and the High Preset, the Arc A350M is 10800% faster.
in Dota 2, with 4K resolution and the High Preset, the 8400M GS is 36% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

Arc A350M is ahead in 26 tests (84%)
8400M GS is ahead in 3 tests (10%)
there's a draw in 2 tests (6%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	13.88	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	11 Watt

Arc A350M has a 5452% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 14 years, a 1500% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 1233.3% more advanced lithography process.

8400M GS, on the other hand, has 127.3% lower power consumption.

The Arc A350M is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce 8400M GS in performance tests.

Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.