ATI Radeon IGP 320M vs GeForce 8400M GT
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce 8400M GT and Radeon IGP 320M, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
8400M GT outperforms ATI IGP 320M by a whopping 1600% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 1421 | 1531 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 0.83 | no data |
| Architecture | Tesla (2006−2010) | Rage 7 (2001−2006) |
| GPU code name | G86 | RS100 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Release date | 9 May 2007 (17 years ago) | 5 October 2002 (22 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 | 2 |
| Core clock speed | 450 MHz | 160 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 160 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 210 million | 30 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 80 nm | 180 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 14 Watt | no data |
| Texture fill rate | 3.600 | 0.16 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.0288 TFLOPS | no data |
| ROPs | 4 | 1 |
| TMUs | 8 | 1 |
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 | AGP 4x |
| 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 | No outputs |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 11.1 (10_0) | 7.0 |
| Shader Model | 4.0 | no data |
| OpenGL | 3.3 | 1.4 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | N/A |
| Vulkan | N/A | N/A |
| 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.
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Atomic Heart | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Atomic Heart | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 7−8
+16.7%
|
6−7
−16.7%
|
| Valorant | 24−27
+4.2%
|
24−27
−4.2%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 10−12
+37.5%
|
8−9
−37.5%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 9−10
+28.6%
|
7−8
−28.6%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 7−8
+16.7%
|
6−7
−16.7%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 4−5
+33.3%
|
3−4
−33.3%
|
| Valorant | 24−27
+4.2%
|
24−27
−4.2%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 9−10
+28.6%
|
7−8
−28.6%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 7−8
+16.7%
|
6−7
−16.7%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 4−5
+33.3%
|
3−4
−33.3%
|
| Valorant | 24−27
+4.2%
|
24−27
−4.2%
|
1440p
High Preset
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 1−2 | 0−1 |
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Forza Horizon 4 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
4K
High Preset
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| Valorant | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Forza Horizon 4, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the 8400M GT is 100% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- 8400M GT is ahead in 16 tests (52%)
- there's a draw in 15 tests (48%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.17 | 0.01 |
| Recency | 9 May 2007 | 5 October 2002 |
| Chip lithography | 80 nm | 180 nm |
8400M GT has a 1600% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 4 years, and a 125% more advanced lithography process.
The GeForce 8400M GT is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon IGP 320M 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.
