Radeon Vega 7 vs GeForce 8400M GS
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce 8400M GS and Radeon Vega 7, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
Vega 7 outperforms 8400M GS by a whopping 2823% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 1368 | 544 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | 10 |
| Power efficiency | 1.60 | 11.40 |
| Architecture | Tesla (2006−2010) | GCN 5.1 (2018−2022) |
| GPU code name | G86 | Cezanne |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Release date | 9 May 2007 (17 years ago) | 13 April 2021 (3 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 | 448 |
| Core clock speed | 400 MHz | 300 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 1900 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 210 million | 9,800 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 80 nm | 7 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 11 Watt | 45 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 3.200 | 53.20 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.0256 TFLOPS | 1.702 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 4 | 8 |
| TMUs | 8 | 28 |
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
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 Connectors | No outputs | No outputs |
API and SDK compatibility
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 | 2.1 |
| Vulkan | N/A | 1.2 |
| CUDA | 1.1 | - |
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 HD | 0−1 | 23 |
| 1440p | 0−1 | 25 |
| 4K | 0−1 | 18 |
Cost per frame, $
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Atomic Heart | 1−2
−1600%
|
16−18
+1600%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8
−100%
|
14−16
+100%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−1700%
|
18
+1700%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Atomic Heart | 1−2
−1600%
|
16−18
+1600%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8
−100%
|
14−16
+100%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−1300%
|
14
+1300%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 3−4
−1133%
|
37
+1133%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 7−8
−257%
|
24−27
+257%
|
| Valorant | 24−27
−188%
|
75−80
+188%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 1−2
−1600%
|
16−18
+1600%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8
−100%
|
14−16
+100%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 12−14
−383%
|
58
+383%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−900%
|
10
+900%
|
| Dota 2 | 9−10
−2789%
|
260−270
+2789%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 3−4
−1067%
|
35
+1067%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 7−8
−229%
|
23
+229%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 4−5
−375%
|
19
+375%
|
| Valorant | 24−27
−181%
|
73
+181%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8
−100%
|
14−16
+100%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−800%
|
9
+800%
|
| Dota 2 | 9−10
−2789%
|
260−270
+2789%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 3−4
−800%
|
27
+800%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 7−8
−257%
|
24−27
+257%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 4−5
−225%
|
13
+225%
|
| Valorant | 24−27
+4%
|
25
−4%
|
1440p
High Preset
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 1−2
−3800%
|
35−40
+3800%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 6−7 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 1−2
−1600%
|
16−18
+1600%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 1−2
−1000%
|
10−12
+1000%
|
4K
High Preset
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
−20%
|
18−20
+20%
|
| Valorant | 2−3
−1150%
|
25
+1150%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2
−600%
|
7−8
+600%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 2−3
−250%
|
7−8
+250%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 2−3
−250%
|
7−8
+250%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 28
+0%
|
28
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 20
+0%
|
20
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 63
+0%
|
63
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 18
+0%
|
18
+0%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 23
+0%
|
23
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 18
+0%
|
18
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 27
+0%
|
27
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 17
+0%
|
17
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 13
+0%
|
13
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 21
+0%
|
21
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 18
+0%
|
18
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 12
+0%
|
12
+0%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 14
+0%
|
14
+0%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 50−55
+0%
|
50−55
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| Valorant | 48
+0%
|
48
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
4K
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 10−12
+0%
|
10−12
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Valorant, with 1080p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the 8400M GS is 4% faster.
- in PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS, with 1440p resolution and the High Preset, the Vega 7 is 3800% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- 8400M GS is ahead in 1 test (2%)
- Vega 7 is ahead in 30 tests (48%)
- there's a draw in 32 tests (51%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.22 | 6.43 |
| Recency | 9 May 2007 | 13 April 2021 |
| Chip lithography | 80 nm | 7 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 11 Watt | 45 Watt |
8400M GS has 309.1% lower power consumption.
Vega 7, on the other hand, has a 2822.7% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 13 years, and a 1042.9% more advanced lithography process.
The Radeon Vega 7 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.
