Radeon HD 8400E vs HD Graphics 510
Aggregate performance score
We've compared HD Graphics 510 and Radeon HD 8400E, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
HD Graphics 510 outperforms HD 8400E by a whopping 124% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 970 | 1180 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 7.39 | 1.98 |
| Architecture | Generation 9.0 (2015−2016) | GCN 2.0 (2013−2017) |
| GPU code name | Skylake GT1 | Kalindi |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Release date | 1 September 2015 (9 years ago) | 23 April 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 cores | 96 | 128 |
| Core clock speed | 300 MHz | 600 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 900 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 189 million | 1,178 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 14 nm+ | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 15 Watt | 25 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 10.80 | 4.800 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.1728 TFLOPS | 0.1536 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 3 | 4 |
| TMUs | 12 | 8 |
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 | Ring Bus | IGP |
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 | LPDDR3/DDR4 | System Shared |
| Maximum RAM amount | 32 GB | System Shared |
| Memory bus width | System Shared | System Shared |
| Memory clock speed | System Shared | System 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 Connectors | Portable Device Dependent | No outputs |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| Quick Sync | + | no data |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (12_1) | 12 (12_0) |
| Shader Model | 6.4 | 6.3 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 3.0 | 2.0 |
| Vulkan | 1.3 | 1.2.131 |
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.
- Passmark
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 - Full HD
Medium Preset - Full HD
High Preset - Full HD
Ultra Preset - Full HD
Epic Preset - 1440p
High Preset - 1440p
Ultra Preset - 1440p
Epic Preset - 4K
High Preset - 4K
Ultra Preset - 4K
Epic Preset
| Atomic Heart | 4−5
+300%
|
1−2
−300%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
+200%
|
1−2
−200%
|
| Atomic Heart | 4−5
+300%
|
1−2
−300%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 3−4
+200%
|
1−2
−200%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
+200%
|
1−2
−200%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Fortnite | 5−6
+150%
|
2−3
−150%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 8−9
+167%
|
3−4
−167%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−11
+150%
|
4−5
−150%
|
| Valorant | 35−40
+125%
|
16−18
−125%
|
| Atomic Heart | 4−5
+300%
|
1−2
−300%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 3−4
+200%
|
1−2
−200%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 30−35
+136%
|
14−16
−136%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
+200%
|
1−2
−200%
|
| Dota 2 | 18−20
+125%
|
8−9
−125%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Fortnite | 5−6
+150%
|
2−3
−150%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 8−9
+167%
|
3−4
−167%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Metro Exodus | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−11
+150%
|
4−5
−150%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6−7
+200%
|
2−3
−200%
|
| Valorant | 35−40
+125%
|
16−18
−125%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 3−4
+200%
|
1−2
−200%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
+200%
|
1−2
−200%
|
| Dota 2 | 18−20
+125%
|
8−9
−125%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 8−9
+167%
|
3−4
−167%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−11
+150%
|
4−5
−150%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6−7
+200%
|
2−3
−200%
|
| Valorant | 35−40
+125%
|
16−18
−125%
|
| Fortnite | 5−6
+150%
|
2−3
−150%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 10−11
+150%
|
4−5
−150%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 14−16
+133%
|
6−7
−133%
|
| Valorant | 8−9
+167%
|
3−4
−167%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 4−5
+300%
|
1−2
−300%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Fortnite | 3−4
+200%
|
1−2
−200%
|
| Atomic Heart | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
+150%
|
6−7
−150%
|
| Valorant | 8−9
+167%
|
3−4
−167%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 3−4
+200%
|
1−2
−200%
|
| Fortnite | 3−4
+200%
|
1−2
−200%
|
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 1.39 | 0.62 |
| Recency | 1 September 2015 | 23 April 2013 |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 15 Watt | 25 Watt |
HD Graphics 510 has a 124.2% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 2 years, a 100% more advanced lithography process, and 66.7% lower power consumption.
The HD Graphics 510 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon HD 8400E 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.
