Radeon 680M vs GeForce 8400M GT
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce 8400M GT and Radeon 680M, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
680M outperforms 8400M GT by a whopping 4882% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 1419 | 506 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 0.85 | 11.90 |
| Architecture | Tesla (2006−2010) | RDNA 2.0 (2020−2024) |
| GPU code name | G86 | Rembrandt+ |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Release date | 9 May 2007 (17 years ago) | 3 January 2023 (2 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 cores | 16 | 768 |
| Core clock speed | 450 MHz | 2000 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 2200 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 210 million | 13,100 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 80 nm | 6 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 14 Watt | 50 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 3.600 | 105.6 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.0288 TFLOPS | 3.379 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 4 | 32 |
| TMUs | 8 | 48 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | no data | 12 |
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 | PCIe 1.0 x16 | PCIe 4.0 x8 |
| 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 | GDDR3 | System Shared |
| Maximum RAM amount | 512 MB | System Shared |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | System Shared |
| Memory clock speed | 600 MHz | System Shared |
| Memory bandwidth | 19.2 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 | Portable Device Dependent |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 11.1 (10_0) | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |
| Shader Model | 4.0 | 6.7 |
| OpenGL | 3.3 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | 2.0 |
| Vulkan | N/A | 1.3 |
| CUDA | 1.1 | - |
Synthetic benchmark performance
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 | 0−1 | 37 |
| 1440p | -0−1 | 17 |
| 4K | -0−1 | 11 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Atomic Heart | 1−2
−4600%
|
47
+4600%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8
−300%
|
28
+300%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−3700%
|
38
+3700%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Atomic Heart | 1−2
−3600%
|
37
+3600%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8
−229%
|
23
+229%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−2700%
|
28
+2700%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 2−3
−1700%
|
35−40
+1700%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 7−8
−314%
|
27−30
+314%
|
| Valorant | 24−27
−228%
|
80−85
+228%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 1−2
−1900%
|
20
+1900%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8
−200%
|
21
+200%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 10−12
−1055%
|
120−130
+1055%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−2000%
|
21
+2000%
|
| Dota 2 | 9−10
−689%
|
71
+689%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 2−3
−1700%
|
35−40
+1700%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 7−8
−314%
|
27−30
+314%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 3−4
−1233%
|
40
+1233%
|
| Valorant | 24−27
−228%
|
80−85
+228%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8
−129%
|
16−18
+129%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−1700%
|
18
+1700%
|
| Dota 2 | 9−10
−578%
|
61
+578%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 2−3
−1700%
|
35−40
+1700%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 7−8
−314%
|
27−30
+314%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 3−4
−700%
|
24
+700%
|
| Valorant | 24−27
−484%
|
146
+484%
|
1440p
High Preset
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 1−2
−4100%
|
40−45
+4100%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Forza Horizon 4 | 0−1 | 18−20 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 1−2
−1600%
|
17
+1600%
|
4K
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 0−1 | 7−8 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
−26.7%
|
18−20
+26.7%
|
| Valorant | 2−3
−2000%
|
40−45
+2000%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2
−700%
|
8−9
+700%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 2−3
−300%
|
8−9
+300%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 2−3
−300%
|
8−9
+300%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 38
+0%
|
38
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 45−50
+0%
|
45−50
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 38
+0%
|
38
+0%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 35
+0%
|
35
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 45−50
+0%
|
45−50
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 20−22
+0%
|
20−22
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 36
+0%
|
36
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 23
+0%
|
23
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 33
+0%
|
33
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 26
+0%
|
26
+0%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 45−50
+0%
|
45−50
+0%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 60−65
+0%
|
60−65
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 17
+0%
|
17
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| Valorant | 90−95
+0%
|
90−95
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 18−20
+0%
|
18−20
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10−12
+0%
|
10−12
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 10
+0%
|
10
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 21
+0%
|
21
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
4K
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 13
+0%
|
13
+0%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4
+0%
|
4
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 18
+0%
|
18
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Atomic Heart, with 1080p resolution and the Low Preset, the Radeon 680M is 4600% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Radeon 680M is ahead in 32 tests (49%)
- there's a draw in 33 tests (51%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.17 | 8.47 |
| Recency | 9 May 2007 | 3 January 2023 |
| Chip lithography | 80 nm | 6 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 14 Watt | 50 Watt |
8400M GT has 257.1% lower power consumption.
Radeon 680M, on the other hand, has a 4882.4% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 15 years, and a 1233.3% more advanced lithography process.
The Radeon 680M is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce 8400M GT 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.
