T400 vs GeForce GTX 980M
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GTX 980M with T400, including specs and performance data.
980M outperforms T400 by a whopping 104% 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 | 344 | 532 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 13.50 | 22.08 |
| Architecture | Maxwell 2.0 (2014−2019) | Turing (2018−2022) |
| GPU code name | GM204 | TU117 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Workstation |
| Release date | 7 October 2014 (11 years ago) | 6 May 2021 (4 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 | 1536 | 384 |
| Core clock speed | 1038 MHz | 420 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1127 MHz | 1425 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 5,200 million | 4,700 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 12 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | unknown | 30 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 51.84 | 34.20 |
| Floating-point processing power | 1.659 TFLOPS | 1.094 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 64 | 16 |
| TMUs | 96 | 24 |
| L1 Cache | 576 KB | 384 KB |
| L2 Cache | 2 MB | 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 | large | no data |
| Bus support | PCI Express 3.0 | no data |
| Interface | MXM-B (3.0) | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Width | no data | 1-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | None |
| SLI options | + | - |
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 | GDDR5 | GDDR6 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 8 GB | 2 GB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 64 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 2500 MHz | 1250 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 160 GB/s | 80 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 | 3x mini-DisplayPort |
| VGA аnalog display support | + | no data |
| DisplayPort Multimode (DP++) support | + | no data |
| HDMI | + | - |
| G-SYNC support | + | - |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| GameStream | + | - |
| GeForce ShadowPlay | + | - |
| GPU Boost | 2.0 | no data |
| GameWorks | + | - |
| H.264, VC1, MPEG2 1080p video decoder | + | - |
| Optimus | + | - |
| BatteryBoost | + | - |
| Ansel | + | no data |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (12_1) | 12 (12_1) |
| Shader Model | 6.4 | 6.6 |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | 3.0 |
| Vulkan | 1.1.126 | 1.2 |
| CUDA | + | 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.
GeekBench 5 OpenCL
Geekbench 5 is a widespread graphics card benchmark combined from 11 different test scenarios. All these scenarios rely on direct usage of GPU's processing power, no 3D rendering is involved. This variation uses OpenCL API by Khronos Group.
GeekBench 5 Vulkan
Geekbench 5 is a widespread graphics card benchmark combined from 11 different test scenarios. All these scenarios rely on direct usage of GPU's processing power, no 3D rendering is involved. This variation uses Vulkan API by AMD & Khronos Group.
GeekBench 5 CUDA
Geekbench 5 is a widespread graphics card benchmark combined from 11 different test scenarios. All these scenarios rely on direct usage of GPU's processing power, no 3D rendering is involved. This variation uses CUDA API by NVIDIA.
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:
| 900p | 173
+116%
| 80−85
−116%
|
| Full HD | 72
+106%
| 35−40
−106%
|
| 1440p | 36
+125%
| 16−18
−125%
|
| 4K | 28
+133%
| 12−14
−133%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 100−110
+104%
|
50−55
−104%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 35−40
+111%
|
18−20
−111%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 82
+105%
|
40−45
−105%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 100−110
+104%
|
50−55
−104%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 35−40
+111%
|
18−20
−111%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 70−75
+106%
|
35−40
−106%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 58
+115%
|
27−30
−115%
|
| Fortnite | 178
+109%
|
85−90
−109%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 74
+111%
|
35−40
−111%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 55−60
+107%
|
27−30
−107%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 85
+113%
|
40−45
−113%
|
| Valorant | 130−140
+112%
|
65−70
−112%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 68
+127%
|
30−33
−127%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 100−110
+104%
|
50−55
−104%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 230
+109%
|
110−120
−109%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 35−40
+111%
|
18−20
−111%
|
| Dota 2 | 100−110
+110%
|
50−55
−110%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 70−75
+106%
|
35−40
−106%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 53
+121%
|
24−27
−121%
|
| Fortnite | 86
+115%
|
40−45
−115%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 68
+127%
|
30−33
−127%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 55−60
+107%
|
27−30
−107%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 60
+122%
|
27−30
−122%
|
| Metro Exodus | 31
+121%
|
14−16
−121%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 79
+126%
|
35−40
−126%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 61
+126%
|
27−30
−126%
|
| Valorant | 130−140
+112%
|
65−70
−112%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 61
+126%
|
27−30
−126%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 35−40
+111%
|
18−20
−111%
|
| Dota 2 | 100−110
+110%
|
50−55
−110%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 70−75
+106%
|
35−40
−106%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 50
+108%
|
24−27
−108%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 47
+124%
|
21−24
−124%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 49
+104%
|
24−27
−104%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 33
+106%
|
16−18
−106%
|
| Valorant | 130−140
+112%
|
65−70
−112%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 63
+110%
|
30−33
−110%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 35−40
+125%
|
16−18
−125%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 130−140
+118%
|
60−65
−118%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 30−35
+121%
|
14−16
−121%
|
| Metro Exodus | 19
+111%
|
9−10
−111%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 160−170
+109%
|
80−85
−109%
|
| Valorant | 170−180
+115%
|
80−85
−115%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 45
+114%
|
21−24
−114%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 16−18
+129%
|
7−8
−129%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 35−40
+111%
|
18−20
−111%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 34
+113%
|
16−18
−113%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 39
+117%
|
18−20
−117%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 27−30
+125%
|
12−14
−125%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 40
+122%
|
18−20
−122%
|
4K
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 14−16
+114%
|
7−8
−114%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 41
+128%
|
18−20
−128%
|
| Metro Exodus | 12
+140%
|
5−6
−140%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 22
+120%
|
10−11
−120%
|
| Valorant | 100−110
+124%
|
45−50
−124%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 23
+130%
|
10−11
−130%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 14−16
+114%
|
7−8
−114%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 7−8
+133%
|
3−4
−133%
|
| Dota 2 | 60−65
+107%
|
30−33
−107%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 18−20
+125%
|
8−9
−125%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 16
+129%
|
7−8
−129%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 26
+117%
|
12−14
−117%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 17
+113%
|
8−9
−113%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 19
+111%
|
9−10
−111%
|
This is how GTX 980M and T400 compete in popular games:
- GTX 980M is 116% faster in 900p
- GTX 980M is 106% faster in 1080p
- GTX 980M is 125% faster in 1440p
- GTX 980M is 133% faster in 4K
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 17.50 | 8.59 |
| Recency | 7 October 2014 | 6 May 2021 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 8 GB | 2 GB |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 12 nm |
GTX 980M has a 103.7% higher aggregate performance score, and a 300% higher maximum VRAM amount.
T400, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 6 years, and a 133.3% more advanced lithography process.
The GeForce GTX 980M is our recommended choice as it beats the T400 in performance tests.
Be aware that GeForce GTX 980M is a notebook graphics card while T400 is a workstation one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
