GeForce 8400 GS vs GTX 280M
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in performance ranking | 935 | not rated |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.17 | no data |
| Architecture | G9x (2007−2010) | Tesla (2006−2010) |
| GPU code name | N10E-GTX | G86 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop |
| Release date | 2 March 2009 (15 years ago) | 17 April 2007 (17 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $29.99 |
| Current price | $140 | $125 (4.2x MSRP) |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
Detailed specifications
General performance parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. These parameters indirectly speak of performance, but for precise assessment you have to consider their benchmark and gaming test results. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 128 | 16 |
| CUDA cores | 128 | no data |
| Core clock speed | 585 MHz | 459 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 754 million | 210 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 55 nm | 80 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 75 Watt | 40 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 38 billion/sec | 3.6 billion/sec |
| Floating-point performance | 374.5 gflops | 29.376 gflops |
| Gigaflops | 562 | no data |
Form factor & compatibility
Information on GeForce GTX 280M and GeForce 8400 GS compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For desktop video cards it's interface and bus (motherboard compatibility), additional power connectors (power supply compatibility). For notebook video cards it's notebook size, connection slot and bus, if the video card is inserted into a slot instead of being soldered to the notebook motherboard.
| Laptop size | large | no data |
| Bus support | PCI-E 2.0 | no data |
| Interface | MXM-IV | PCIe 1.0 x16 |
| Length | no data | 170 mm |
| Width | no data | 1-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | None |
| SLI options | + | + |
| MXM Type | MXM 3.0 Type-B | no 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 type | GDDR3 | DDR2 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 256 MB |
| Standard memory config per GPU | no data | 256 MB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 64 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | Up to 950 MHz | 800 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 61 GB/s | 6.4 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | no data |
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 | HDMIDual Link DVISingle Link DVIDisplayPortLVDSVGA | 1x DVI, 1x VGA, 1x S-Video |
| HDMI | + | no data |
| Maximum VGA resolution | 2048x1536 | no data |
| Audio input for HDMI | S/PDIF | no data |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| Power management | 8.0 | no data |
API compatibility
List of supported graphics and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 11.1 (10_0) | 11.1 (10_0) |
| Shader Model | 4.0 | 4.0 |
| OpenGL | 2.1 | 2.1 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | 1.1 |
| Vulkan | N/A | N/A |
| CUDA | + | 1.1 |
Synthetic benchmark performance
Non-gaming benchmark performance comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.
Passmark
This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark, part of Passmark PerformanceTest suite. 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.
Benchmark coverage: 25%
GTX 280M outperforms 8400 GS by 281% in Passmark.
Pros & cons summary
| Recency | 2 March 2009 | 17 April 2007 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 256 MB |
| Chip lithography | 55 nm | 80 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 75 Watt | 40 Watt |
We couldn't decide between GeForce GTX 280M and GeForce 8400 GS. We've got no test results to judge.
Be aware that GeForce GTX 280M is a notebook card while GeForce 8400 GS is a desktop one.
Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Comparisons with similar GPUs
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
