RTX A2000 vs GeForce 8400 SE

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared GeForce 8400 SE with RTX A2000, including specs and performance data.

8400 SE
2008
128 MB DDR2, 50 Watt
0.16

RTX A2000 outperforms 8400 SE by a whopping 20025% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking1475186
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluationno data33.09
Power efficiency0.2535.33
ArchitectureTesla (2006−2010)Ampere (2020−2025)
GPU code nameG86SGA106
Market segmentDesktopWorkstation
Release date1 August 2008 (17 years ago)10 August 2021 (4 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)no data$449

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

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

no data

Performance to price scatter graph

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 cores163328
Core clock speed459 MHz562 MHz
Boost clock speedno data1200 MHz
Number of transistors210 million12,000 million
Manufacturing process technology80 nm8 nm
Power consumption (TDP)50 Watt70 Watt
Texture fill rate3.672124.8
Floating-point processing power0.02938 TFLOPS7.987 TFLOPS
ROPs448
TMUs8104
Tensor Coresno data104
Ray Tracing Coresno data26
L1 Cacheno data3.3 MB
L2 Cache16 KB3 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
Length168 mm167 mm
Width1-slot2-slot
Supplementary power connectorsNoneNone

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 typeDDR2GDDR6
Maximum RAM amount128 MB6 GB
Memory bus width64 Bit192 Bit
Memory clock speed400 MHz1500 MHz
Memory bandwidth6.4 GB/s288.0 GB/s
Shared memoryno data-
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 Connectors1x DVI, 1x VGA, 1x S-Video4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a

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 Model4.06.8
OpenGL3.34.6
OpenCL1.13.0
VulkanN/A1.3
CUDA1.18.6
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.

8400 SE 0.16
RTX A2000 32.20
+20025%

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.

8400 SE 68
Samples: 6
RTX A2000 13468
+19706%
Samples: 948

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-0−190
1440p-0−143
4K-0−127

Cost per frame, $

1080pno data4.99
1440pno data10.44
4Kno data16.63

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low

Counter-Strike 2 180−190
+0%
180−190
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 70−75
+0%
70−75
+0%

Full HD
Medium

Battlefield 5 110−120
+0%
110−120
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 180−190
+0%
180−190
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 70−75
+0%
70−75
+0%
Escape from Tarkov 110−120
+0%
110−120
+0%
Far Cry 5 108
+0%
108
+0%
Fortnite 140−150
+0%
140−150
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 120−130
+0%
120−130
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 121
+0%
121
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 130−140
+0%
130−140
+0%
Valorant 200−210
+0%
200−210
+0%

Full HD
High

Battlefield 5 110−120
+0%
110−120
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 180−190
+0%
180−190
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 270−280
+0%
270−280
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 70−75
+0%
70−75
+0%
Escape from Tarkov 110−120
+0%
110−120
+0%
Far Cry 5 98
+0%
98
+0%
Fortnite 140−150
+0%
140−150
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 120−130
+0%
120−130
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 106
+0%
106
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 129
+0%
129
+0%
Metro Exodus 60
+0%
60
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 130−140
+0%
130−140
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 117
+0%
117
+0%
Valorant 200−210
+0%
200−210
+0%

Full HD
Ultra

Battlefield 5 110−120
+0%
110−120
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 70−75
+0%
70−75
+0%
Escape from Tarkov 110−120
+0%
110−120
+0%
Far Cry 5 91
+0%
91
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 120−130
+0%
120−130
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 130−140
+0%
130−140
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 64
+0%
64
+0%
Valorant 200−210
+0%
200−210
+0%

Full HD
Epic

Fortnite 140−150
+0%
140−150
+0%

1440p
High

Counter-Strike 2 75−80
+0%
75−80
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 220−230
+0%
220−230
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 58
+0%
58
+0%
Metro Exodus 34
+0%
34
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 170−180
+0%
170−180
+0%
Valorant 230−240
+0%
230−240
+0%

1440p
Ultra

Battlefield 5 85−90
+0%
85−90
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Escape from Tarkov 75−80
+0%
75−80
+0%
Far Cry 5 61
+0%
61
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 85−90
+0%
85−90
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 47
+0%
47
+0%

1440p
Epic

Fortnite 80−85
+0%
80−85
+0%

4K
High

Counter-Strike 2 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 56
+0%
56
+0%
Metro Exodus 20
+0%
20
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 40
+0%
40
+0%
Valorant 190−200
+0%
190−200
+0%

4K
Ultra

Battlefield 5 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Escape from Tarkov 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Far Cry 5 30
+0%
30
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%

4K
Epic

Fortnite 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 61 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 0.16 32.20
Recency 1 August 2008 10 August 2021
Maximum RAM amount 128 MB 6 GB
Chip lithography 80 nm 8 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 50 Watt 70 Watt

8400 SE has 40% lower power consumption.

RTX A2000, on the other hand, has a 20025% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 13 years, a 4700% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 900% more advanced lithography process.

The RTX A2000 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce 8400 SE in performance tests.

Be aware that GeForce 8400 SE is a desktop graphics card while RTX A2000 is a workstation one.

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite graphics card.


NVIDIA GeForce 8400 SE
GeForce 8400 SE
NVIDIA RTX A2000
RTX A2000

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.


2.3 8 votes

Rate GeForce 8400 SE on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.9 620 votes

Rate RTX A2000 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about GeForce 8400 SE or RTX A2000, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.