GeForce 8400M GS vs 320M

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared GeForce 320M and GeForce 8400M GS, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.

GeForce 320M
2010
23 Watt
0.46
+91.7%

320M outperforms 8400M GS by an impressive 92% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking13251443
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiency1.541.67
ArchitectureTesla 2.0 (2007−2013)Tesla (2006−2010)
GPU code nameC89G86
Market segmentLaptopLaptop
Release date1 April 2010 (16 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 cores4816
Core clock speed450 MHz400 MHz
Number of transistors486 million210 million
Manufacturing process technology40 nm80 nm
Power consumption (TDP)23 Watt11 Watt
Texture fill rate7.2003.200
Floating-point processing power0.0912 TFLOPS0.0256 TFLOPS
ROPs84
TMUs168
L2 Cacheno data16 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).

InterfacePCIe 2.0 x16MXM-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 typeSystem SharedDDR2
Maximum RAM amountSystem Shared256 MB
Memory bus widthSystem Shared64 Bit
Memory clock speedSystem Shared400 MHz
Memory bandwidthno data6.4 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 ConnectorsNo outputsNo outputs

API and SDK support

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

DirectX11.1 (10_1)11.1 (10_0)
Shader Model4.14.0
OpenGL3.33.3
OpenCLN/A1.1
VulkanN/AN/A
CUDA-1.1

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.

GeForce 320M 0.46
+91.7%
8400M GS 0.24

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.

GeForce 320M 190
+90%
Samples: 126
8400M GS 100
Samples: 638

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 HD24
+100%
12−14
−100%

Cost per frame, $

1080pno data1.25

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low

Cyberpunk 2077 1−2 0−1

Full HD
Medium

Cyberpunk 2077 1−2 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 4−5
+33.3%
3−4
−33.3%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Valorant 24−27
+4%
24−27
−4%

Full HD
High

Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 16−18
+23.1%
12−14
−23.1%
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2 0−1
Dota 2 10−11
+11.1%
9−10
−11.1%
Forza Horizon 4 4−5
+33.3%
3−4
−33.3%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Valorant 24−27
+4%
24−27
−4%

Full HD
Ultra

Cyberpunk 2077 1−2 0−1
Dota 2 10−11
+11.1%
9−10
−11.1%
Forza Horizon 4 4−5
+33.3%
3−4
−33.3%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Valorant 24−27
+4%
24−27
−4%

1440p
High

Counter-Strike 2 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 1−2 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 5−6
+66.7%
3−4
−66.7%

1440p
Ultra

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

1440p
Epic

Fortnite 0−1 0−1

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
+100%
1−2
−100%

This is how GeForce 320M and 8400M GS compete in popular games:

  • GeForce 320M is 100% faster in 1080p

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

  • in Fortnite, with 4K resolution and the Epic Preset, the GeForce 320M is 100% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • GeForce 320M performs better in 11 tests (50%)
  • there's a draw in 11 tests (50%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 0.46 0.24
Recency 1 April 2010 9 May 2007
Chip lithography 40 nm 80 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 23 Watt 11 Watt

GeForce 320M has a 92% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 2 years, and a 100% more advanced lithography process.

8400M GS, on the other hand, has 109% lower power consumption.

The GeForce 320M 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.

Community ratings

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


3.5 68 votes

Rate GeForce 320M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3 46 votes

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about GeForce 320M or GeForce 8400M GS, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.