GeForce RTX 3050 6GB Mobile vs 8400M GS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared GeForce 8400M GS and GeForce RTX 3050 6GB Mobile, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.

8400M GS
2007
256 MB DDR2, 11 Watt
0.26

RTX 3050 6GB Mobile outperforms 8400M GS by a whopping 8704% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking1395258
Place by popularitynot in top-10079
Power efficiency1.8029.08
ArchitectureTesla (2006−2010)Ampere (2020−2025)
GPU code nameG86GN20-P0-R 6 GB
Market segmentLaptopLaptop
Release date9 May 2007 (18 years ago)6 January 2023 (2 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$14.99 no data

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 cores162560
Core clock speed400 MHz1237 MHz
Boost clock speedno data1492 MHz
Number of transistors210 millionno data
Manufacturing process technology80 nm8 nm
Power consumption (TDP)11 Watt60 Watt (35 - 80 Watt TGP)
Texture fill rate3.200no data
Floating-point processing power0.0256 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).

Laptop sizeno datalarge
InterfaceMXM-Ino 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 typeDDR2GDDR6
Maximum RAM amount256 MB6 GB
Memory bus width64 Bit96 Bit
Memory clock speed400 MHz12000 MHz
Memory bandwidth6.4 GB/sno data
Shared memory--
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 ConnectorsNo outputsno data

API and SDK compatibility

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

DirectX11.1 (10_0)12_2
Shader Model4.0no data
OpenGL3.3no data
OpenCL1.1no data
VulkanN/A-
CUDA1.1-

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 HD0−170
1440p-0−134

Cost per frame, $

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
−8000%
81
+8000%
God of War 4−5
−1150%
50−55
+1150%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
−6300%
64
+6300%
Forza Horizon 4 3−4
−3000%
90−95
+3000%
God of War 4−5
−1150%
50−55
+1150%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 7−8
−1200%
90−95
+1200%
Valorant 24−27
−552%
160−170
+552%

Full HD
High Preset

Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 12−14
−1854%
250−260
+1854%
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
−4500%
46
+4500%
Dota 2 9−10
−1244%
120−130
+1244%
Forza Horizon 4 3−4
−3000%
90−95
+3000%
God of War 4−5
−1150%
50−55
+1150%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 7−8
−1200%
90−95
+1200%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 5−6
−1720%
91
+1720%
Valorant 24−27
−552%
160−170
+552%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
−3800%
39
+3800%
Dota 2 9−10
−1244%
120−130
+1244%
Forza Horizon 4 3−4
−3000%
90−95
+3000%
God of War 4−5
−1150%
50−55
+1150%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 7−8
−1200%
90−95
+1200%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 5−6
−900%
50
+900%
Valorant 24−27
−552%
160−170
+552%

1440p
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2 2−3
−2400%
50−55
+2400%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 3−4
−5733%
170−180
+5733%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Forza Horizon 4 1−2
−5900%
60−65
+5900%

1440p
Epic Preset

Fortnite 0−1 55−60

4K
High Preset

Grand Theft Auto V 14−16
−187%
40−45
+187%
Valorant 2−3
−6700%
130−140
+6700%

4K
Ultra Preset

PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 1−2
−2400%
24−27
+2400%

4K
Epic Preset

Fortnite 2−3
−1150%
24−27
+1150%

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2 130−140
+0%
130−140
+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5 90−95
+0%
90−95
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 130−140
+0%
130−140
+0%
Far Cry 5 85
+0%
85
+0%
Fortnite 110−120
+0%
110−120
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 70−75
+0%
70−75
+0%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5 90−95
+0%
90−95
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 130−140
+0%
130−140
+0%
Far Cry 5 78
+0%
78
+0%
Fortnite 110−120
+0%
110−120
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 70−75
+0%
70−75
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 92
+0%
92
+0%
Metro Exodus 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 90−95
+0%
90−95
+0%
Far Cry 5 74
+0%
74
+0%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Fortnite 110−120
+0%
110−120
+0%

1440p
High Preset

Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 160−170
+0%
160−170
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 40
+0%
40
+0%
Metro Exodus 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Valorant 200−210
+0%
200−210
+0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 65−70
+0%
65−70
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Far Cry 5 52
+0%
52
+0%
God of War 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 37
+0%
37
+0%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Metro Exodus 20−22
+0%
20−22
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Dota 2 75−80
+0%
75−80
+0%
Far Cry 5 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
God of War 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%

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

  • in Cyberpunk 2077, with 1080p resolution and the Low Preset, the RTX 3050 6GB Mobile is 8000% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • RTX 3050 6GB Mobile is ahead in 29 tests (45%)
  • there's a draw in 35 tests (55%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 0.26 22.89
Recency 9 May 2007 6 January 2023
Maximum RAM amount 256 MB 6 GB
Chip lithography 80 nm 8 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 11 Watt 60 Watt

8400M GS has 445.5% lower power consumption.

RTX 3050 6GB Mobile, on the other hand, has a 8703.8% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 15 years, a 2300% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 900% more advanced lithography process.

The GeForce RTX 3050 6GB Mobile is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce 8400M GS in performance tests.

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 GS
GeForce 8400M GS
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 6GB Mobile
GeForce RTX 3050 6GB Mobile

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 41 votes

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4 916 votes

Rate GeForce RTX 3050 6GB Mobile on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about GeForce 8400M GS or GeForce RTX 3050 6GB Mobile, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.