Radeon HD 8400 vs GeForce GT 640 Rev. 2

Aggregate performance score

We've compared GeForce GT 640 Rev. 2 and Radeon HD 8400, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.

GT 640 Rev. 2
2013, $89
1 GB GDDR5, 49 Watt
3.30
+408%

640 Rev. 2 outperforms HD 8400 by a whopping 408% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.

Place in the ranking7911247
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation0.19no data
Power efficiency5.182.00
ArchitectureKepler 2.0 (2013−2015)GCN 2.0 (2013−2017)
GPU code nameGK208Kalindi
Market segmentDesktopDesktop
Release date29 May 2013 (12 years ago)23 November 2013 (12 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$89 no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.

no data

Performance to price scatter graph

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 cores384128
Core clock speed1046 MHz400 MHz
Number of transistors915 million1,178 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)49 Watt25 Watt
Texture fill rate33.473.200
Floating-point processing power0.8033 TFLOPS0.1024 TFLOPS
ROPs84
TMUs328
L1 Cache32 KBno data
L2 Cache128 KBno 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).

InterfacePCIe 2.0 x8IGP
Length145 mmno data
Width1-slotIGP
Supplementary power connectorsNoneno data

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 typeGDDR5System Shared
Maximum RAM amount1 GBSystem Shared
Memory bus width64 BitSystem Shared
Memory clock speed1252 MHzSystem Shared
Memory bandwidth40.06 GB/sno 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 Connectors1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x VGANo outputs
HDMI+-

API and SDK support

List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.

DirectX12 (11_0)12 (12_0)
Shader Model5.16.3
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL1.22.0
Vulkan1.1.1261.2.131
CUDA3.5-

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 HD50−55
+400%
10
−400%

Cost per frame, $

1080p1.78no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low

Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Hogwarts Legacy 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%

Full HD
Medium

Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Far Cry 5 0−1 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Hogwarts Legacy 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Valorant 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%

Full HD
High

Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 19
+0%
19
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Dota 2 9
+0%
9
+0%
Far Cry 5 0−1 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Hogwarts Legacy 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Metro Exodus 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Valorant 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%

Full HD
Ultra

Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Dota 2 8
+0%
8
+0%
Far Cry 5 0−1 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Hogwarts Legacy 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Valorant 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%

1440p
High

Counter-Strike 2 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%

1440p
Ultra

Cyberpunk 2077 0−1 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Hogwarts Legacy 0−1 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%

1440p
Epic

Fortnite 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%

4K
High

Grand Theft Auto V 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Valorant 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%

4K
Ultra

PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%

4K
Epic

Fortnite 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%

This is how GT 640 Rev. 2 and HD 8400 compete in popular games:

  • GT 640 Rev. 2 is 400% faster in 1080p

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 33 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 3.30 0.65
Recency 29 May 2013 23 November 2013
Power consumption (TDP) 49 Watt 25 Watt

GT 640 Rev. 2 has a 407.7% higher aggregate performance score.

HD 8400, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 5 months, and 96% lower power consumption.

The GeForce GT 640 Rev. 2 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon HD 8400 in performance tests.

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite graphics card.


NVIDIA GeForce GT 640 Rev. 2
GeForce GT 640 Rev. 2
AMD Radeon HD 8400
Radeon HD 8400

Other comparisons

We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.

Community ratings

Here you can see the user ratings of the compared graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.


3.7 35 votes

Rate GeForce GT 640 Rev. 2 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
2.8 156 votes

Rate Radeon HD 8400 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about GeForce GT 640 Rev. 2 or Radeon HD 8400, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.