Radeon RX Vega 3 vs GeForce 8400M GS
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce 8400M GS and Radeon RX Vega 3, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
RX Vega 3 outperforms 8400M GS by a whopping 1000% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Contents
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 1429 | 850 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | 93 |
| Power efficiency | 1.75 | 14.12 |
| Architecture | Tesla (2006−2010) | GCN 5.0 (2017−2020) |
| GPU code name | G86 | Picasso |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Release date | 9 May 2007 (18 years ago) | 6 January 2019 (7 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 cores | 16 | 192 |
| Core clock speed | 400 MHz | 300 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 1001 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 210 million | 4,940 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 80 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 11 Watt | 15 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 3.200 | 12.01 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.0256 TFLOPS | 0.3844 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 4 | 4 |
| TMUs | 8 | 12 |
| L2 Cache | 16 KB | 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 | MXM-I | IGP |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | None |
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 | DDR2 | System Shared |
| Maximum RAM amount | 256 MB | System Shared |
| Memory bus width | 64 Bit | System Shared |
| Memory clock speed | 400 MHz | System Shared |
| Memory bandwidth | 6.4 GB/s | no data |
| 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 Connectors | No outputs | No outputs |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 11.1 (10_0) | 12 (12_1) |
| Shader Model | 4.0 | 6.4 |
| OpenGL | 3.3 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | 2.0 |
| Vulkan | N/A | 1.2.131 |
| 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.
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.
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 | 1−2
−1100%
| 12
+1100%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 14.99 | no data |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−500%
|
6−7
+500%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−500%
|
6−7
+500%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 3−4
−367%
|
14−16
+367%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 7−8
−85.7%
|
12−14
+85.7%
|
| Valorant | 24−27
−80%
|
45−50
+80%
|
Full HD
High
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 12−14
−76.9%
|
23
+76.9%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−500%
|
6−7
+500%
|
| Dota 2 | 9−10
−133%
|
21
+133%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 3−4
−367%
|
14−16
+367%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 7−8
−85.7%
|
12−14
+85.7%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 5−6
−20%
|
6
+20%
|
| Valorant | 24−27
−80%
|
45−50
+80%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−500%
|
6−7
+500%
|
| Dota 2 | 9−10
−111%
|
19
+111%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 3−4
−367%
|
14−16
+367%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 7−8
−85.7%
|
12−14
+85.7%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 5−6
+25%
|
4
−25%
|
| Valorant | 24−27
−80%
|
45−50
+80%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 3−4
−100%
|
6−7
+100%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 3−4
−733%
|
24−27
+733%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Forza Horizon 4 | 1−2
−600%
|
7−8
+600%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 1−2
−300%
|
4−5
+300%
|
4K
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
−7.1%
|
14−16
+7.1%
|
| Valorant | 1−2
−1200%
|
12−14
+1200%
|
4K
Ultra
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 1−2
−200%
|
3−4
+200%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 2−3
−50%
|
3−4
+50%
|
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 29
+0%
|
29
+0%
|
| Resident Evil 4 Remake | 7
+0%
|
7
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 7
+0%
|
7
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 22
+0%
|
22
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 5
+0%
|
5
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 14
+0%
|
14
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 9
+0%
|
9
+0%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 5
+0%
|
5
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 9
+0%
|
9
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 2
+0%
|
2
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Valorant | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
4K
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
This is how 8400M GS and RX Vega 3 compete in popular games:
- RX Vega 3 is 1100% faster in 1080p
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt, with 1080p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the 8400M GS is 25% faster.
- in Valorant, with 4K resolution and the High Preset, the RX Vega 3 is 1200% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- 8400M GS performs better in 1 test (2%)
- RX Vega 3 performs better in 25 tests (49%)
- there's a draw in 25 tests (49%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.25 | 2.75 |
| Recency | 9 May 2007 | 6 January 2019 |
| Chip lithography | 80 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 11 Watt | 15 Watt |
8400M GS has 36% lower power consumption.
RX Vega 3, on the other hand, has a 1000% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 11 years, and a 471% more advanced lithography process.
The Radeon RX Vega 3 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.
