Graphics Media Accelerator (GMA) HD Graphics vs GeForce 8400M G

VS

Primary details

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

Place in the rankingnot ratednot rated
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
ArchitectureTesla (2006−2010)Gen. 5 Arrandale (2010)
GPU code nameG86GMA HD
Market segmentLaptopLaptop
Release date9 May 2007 (17 years ago)10 January 2010 (14 years ago)

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 cores812
Core clock speed400 MHz500 MHz
Number of transistors210 millionno data
Manufacturing process technology80 nm45 nm
Power consumption (TDP)10 Watt35 Watt
Texture fill rate3.200no data
Floating-point processing power0.0128 TFLOPSno data
ROPs4no data
TMUs8no 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).

InterfacePCIe 1.0 x16no data
Supplementary power connectorsNoneno 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 typeGDDR3no data
Maximum RAM amount256 MBno data
Memory bus width64 Bitno data
Memory clock speed400 MHzno data
Memory bandwidth6.4 GB/sno data
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 ConnectorsNo outputsno data

API compatibility

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

DirectX11.1 (10_0)10
Shader Model4.0no data
OpenGL3.3no data
OpenCL1.1no data
VulkanN/A-
CUDA1.1-

Pros & cons summary


Recency 9 May 2007 10 January 2010
Chip lithography 80 nm 45 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 10 Watt 35 Watt

8400M G has 250% lower power consumption.

Graphics Media Accelerator (GMA) HD Graphics, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 2 years, and a 77.8% more advanced lithography process.

We couldn't decide between GeForce 8400M G and Graphics Media Accelerator (GMA) HD Graphics. We've got no test results to judge.


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

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 8400M G
GeForce 8400M G
Intel Graphics Media Accelerator (GMA) HD Graphics
Graphics Media Accelerator (GMA) HD Graphics

Comparisons with similar GPUs

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 21 vote

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.3 137 votes

Rate Graphics Media Accelerator (GMA) HD Graphics on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about this comparison, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.