T550 Mobile vs GeForce 8400M GS
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce 8400M GS with T550 Mobile, including specs and performance data.
T550 Mobile outperforms 8400M GS by a whopping 4596% 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 | 1420 | 453 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 1.70 | 38.14 |
| Architecture | Tesla (2006−2010) | Turing (2018−2022) |
| GPU code name | G86 | TU117 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Mobile workstation |
| Release date | 9 May 2007 (18 years ago) | May 2022 (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 | 1024 |
| Core clock speed | 400 MHz | 1065 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 1665 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 210 million | 4,700 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 80 nm | 12 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 11 Watt | 23 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 3.200 | 106.6 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.0256 TFLOPS | 3.41 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 4 | 32 |
| TMUs | 8 | 64 |
| L1 Cache | no data | 1 MB |
| L2 Cache | 16 KB | 1024 KB |
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 size | no data | medium sized |
| Interface | MXM-I | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
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 | GDDR6 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 256 MB | 4 GB |
| Memory bus width | 64 Bit | 64 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 400 MHz | 1500 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 6.4 GB/s | 96 GB/s |
| 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 | 6.6 |
| OpenGL | 3.3 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | 3.0 |
| Vulkan | N/A | 1.3 |
| CUDA | 1.1 | 7.5 |
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
−5000%
| 51
+5000%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 14.99 | no data |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−2300%
|
24−27
+2300%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−2300%
|
24−27
+2300%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 3−4
−1533%
|
45−50
+1533%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 7−8
−500%
|
40−45
+500%
|
| Valorant | 24−27
−316%
|
100−110
+316%
|
Full HD
High
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 12−14
−1185%
|
160−170
+1185%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−2300%
|
24−27
+2300%
|
| Dota 2 | 9−10
−922%
|
92
+922%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 3−4
−1533%
|
45−50
+1533%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 7−8
−500%
|
40−45
+500%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 5−6
−700%
|
40
+700%
|
| Valorant | 24−27
−316%
|
100−110
+316%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−2300%
|
24−27
+2300%
|
| Dota 2 | 9−10
−844%
|
85
+844%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 3−4
−1533%
|
45−50
+1533%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 7−8
−500%
|
40−45
+500%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 5−6
−300%
|
20
+300%
|
| Valorant | 24−27
−316%
|
100−110
+316%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 2−3
−1000%
|
21−24
+1000%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 3−4
−2433%
|
75−80
+2433%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Escape from Tarkov | 2−3
−1050%
|
21−24
+1050%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 1−2
−2700%
|
27−30
+2700%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 1−2
−1500%
|
16−18
+1500%
|
4K
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
−64.3%
|
21−24
+64.3%
|
| Valorant | 2−3
−3000%
|
60−65
+3000%
|
4K
Ultra
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 1−2
−1000%
|
10−12
+1000%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 2−3
−450%
|
10−12
+450%
|
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 60−65
+0%
|
60−65
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 50−55
+0%
|
50−55
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 60−65
+0%
|
60−65
+0%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 45−50
+0%
|
45−50
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 41
+0%
|
41
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 65−70
+0%
|
65−70
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 50−55
+0%
|
50−55
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 60−65
+0%
|
60−65
+0%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 45−50
+0%
|
45−50
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 38
+0%
|
38
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 65−70
+0%
|
65−70
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 45
+0%
|
45
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 50−55
+0%
|
50−55
+0%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 45−50
+0%
|
45−50
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 35
+0%
|
35
+0%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 65−70
+0%
|
65−70
+0%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 85−90
+0%
|
85−90
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| Valorant | 120−130
+0%
|
120−130
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 30−35
+0%
|
30−35
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 10−11
+0%
|
10−11
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
4K
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 40−45
+0%
|
40−45
+0%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 10−11
+0%
|
10−11
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 20−22
+0%
|
20−22
+0%
|
This is how 8400M GS and T550 Mobile compete in popular games:
- T550 Mobile is 5000% faster in 1080p
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Valorant, with 4K resolution and the High Preset, the T550 Mobile is 3000% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- T550 Mobile performs better in 27 tests (42%)
- there's a draw in 37 tests (58%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.24 | 11.27 |
| Recency | 9 May 2007 | on May 2022 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 256 MB | 4 GB |
| Chip lithography | 80 nm | 12 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 11 Watt | 23 Watt |
8400M GS has 109.1% lower power consumption.
T550 Mobile, on the other hand, has a 4595.8% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 14 years, a 1500% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 566.7% more advanced lithography process.
The T550 Mobile is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce 8400M GS in performance tests.
Be aware that GeForce 8400M GS is a notebook graphics card while T550 Mobile is a mobile workstation one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
