GeForce 8400M GT vs ATI Radeon HD 4250

Primary details

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

Place in the rankingnot ratednot rated
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
ArchitectureTeraScale (2005−2013)Tesla (2006−2010)
GPU code nameRV620G86
Market segmentDesktopLaptop
Release date25 February 2009 (15 years ago)9 May 2007 (17 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 cores4016
Core clock speed594 MHz450 MHz
Number of transistors181 million210 million
Manufacturing process technology55 nm80 nm
Power consumption (TDP)25 Watt14 Watt
Texture fill rate2.3763.600
Floating-point processing power0.04752 TFLOPS0.0288 TFLOPS
ROPs44
TMUs48

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 x16PCIe 1.0 x16
Width1-slotno data
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 typeDDR2GDDR3
Maximum RAM amount512 MB512 MB
Memory bus width64 Bit128 Bit
Memory clock speed396 MHz600 MHz
Memory bandwidth6.336 GB/s19.2 GB/s
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 Connectors1x DVI, 1x VGA, 1x S-VideoNo outputs

API compatibility

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

DirectX10.1 (10_1)11.1 (10_0)
Shader Model4.14.0
OpenGL3.33.3
OpenCLN/A1.1
VulkanN/AN/A
CUDA-1.1

Synthetic benchmark performance

Non-gaming benchmark results comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.



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.

ATI HD 4250 122
+84.8%
8400M GT 66

Pros & cons summary


Recency 25 February 2009 9 May 2007
Chip lithography 55 nm 80 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 25 Watt 14 Watt

ATI HD 4250 has an age advantage of 1 year, and a 45.5% more advanced lithography process.

8400M GT, on the other hand, has 78.6% lower power consumption.

We couldn't decide between Radeon HD 4250 and GeForce 8400M GT. We've got no test results to judge.

Be aware that Radeon HD 4250 is a desktop card while GeForce 8400M GT is a notebook one.


Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.

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.


ATI Radeon HD 4250
Radeon HD 4250
NVIDIA GeForce 8400M GT
GeForce 8400M GT

Comparisons with similar GPUs

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.


3.1 82 votes

Rate Radeon HD 4250 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
2.5 22 votes

Rate GeForce 8400M GT on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about this comparison, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.