Radeon HD 8400 vs HD Graphics 3000

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared HD Graphics 3000 with Radeon HD 8400, including specs and performance data.

HD Graphics 3000
2011
0.66

HD 8400 outperforms HD Graphics 3000 by a small 5% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking11971185
Place by popularity93not in top-100
Power efficiencyno data1.90
ArchitectureGeneration 6.0 (2011)GCN 2.0 (2013−2017)
GPU code nameSandy Bridge GT2+Kalindi
Market segmentLaptopDesktop
Release date1 February 2011 (14 years ago)23 November 2013 (11 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 cores96128
Core clock speed650 MHz400 MHz
Boost clock speed1300 MHzno data
Number of transistors1,160 million1,178 million
Manufacturing process technology32 nm28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)unknown25 Watt
Texture fill rate15.603.200
Floating-point processing power0.2496 TFLOPS0.1024 TFLOPS
ROPs24
TMUs128

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).

InterfaceRing BusIGP
Widthno dataIGP

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 typeSystem SharedSystem Shared
Maximum RAM amountSystem SharedSystem Shared
Memory bus widthSystem SharedSystem Shared
Memory clock speedSystem SharedSystem Shared
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 ConnectorsPortable Device DependentNo outputs

API and SDK compatibility

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

DirectX11.1 (10_1)12 (12_0)
Shader Model4.16.3
OpenGL3.14.6
OpenCLN/A2.0
VulkanN/A1.2.131

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.

HD Graphics 3000 0.66
HD 8400 0.69
+4.5%

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.

HD Graphics 3000 254
HD 8400 267
+5.1%

3DMark Vantage Performance

3DMark Vantage is an outdated DirectX 10 benchmark using 1280x1024 screen resolution. It taxes the graphics card with two scenes, one depicting a girl escaping some militarized base located within a sea cave, the other displaying a space fleet attack on a defenseless planet. It was discontinued in April 2017, and Time Spy benchmark is now recommended to be used instead.

HD Graphics 3000 1568
HD 8400 2013
+28.4%

3DMark Cloud Gate GPU

Cloud Gate is an outdated DirectX 11 feature level 10 benchmark that was used for home PCs and basic notebooks. It displays a few scenes of some weird space teleportation device launching spaceships into unknown, using fixed resolution of 1280x720. Just like Ice Storm benchmark, it has been discontinued in January 2020 and replaced by 3DMark Night Raid.

HD Graphics 3000 2503
HD 8400 2883
+15.2%

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 HD9
−11.1%
10
+11.1%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Atomic Heart 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Atomic Heart 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Valorant 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%

Full HD
High Preset

Atomic Heart 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 11
−72.7%
19
+72.7%
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Dota 2 8
−12.5%
9
+12.5%
Forza Horizon 4 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Metro Exodus 0−1 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 4−5
−25%
5−6
+25%
Valorant 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Counter-Strike 2 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Dota 2 7
−14.3%
8
+14.3%
Forza Horizon 4 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 4−5
−25%
5−6
+25%
Valorant 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%

1440p
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2 0−1 0−1
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 3−4
−33.3%
4−5
+33.3%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 0−1 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 1−2
−100%
2−3
+100%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%

1440p
Epic Preset

Fortnite 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%

4K
High Preset

Atomic Heart 0−1 0−1
Grand Theft Auto V 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Valorant 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Far Cry 5 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%

4K
Epic Preset

Fortnite 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%

This is how HD Graphics 3000 and HD 8400 compete in popular games:

  • HD 8400 is 11% faster in 1080p

Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:

  • in Forza Horizon 4, with 1440p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the HD 8400 is 100% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • HD 8400 is ahead in 7 tests (20%)
  • there's a draw in 28 tests (80%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 0.66 0.69
Recency 1 February 2011 23 November 2013
Chip lithography 32 nm 28 nm

HD 8400 has a 4.5% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 2 years, and a 14.3% more advanced lithography process.

Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between HD Graphics 3000 and Radeon HD 8400.

Be aware that HD Graphics 3000 is a notebook card while Radeon HD 8400 is a desktop one.

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.


Intel HD Graphics 3000
HD Graphics 3000
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.


2.8 2530 votes

Rate HD Graphics 3000 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
2.8 152 votes

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can give us your opinion about HD Graphics 3000 or Radeon HD 8400, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.