GeForce GT 325M vs Radeon HD 8400
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon HD 8400 with GeForce GT 325M, including specs and performance data.
HD 8400 outperforms GT 325M by an impressive 58% 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 | 1191 | 1268 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 1.90 | 1.31 |
| Architecture | GCN 2.0 (2013−2017) | Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013) |
| GPU code name | Kalindi | GT216 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Laptop |
| Release date | 23 November 2013 (11 years ago) | 10 January 2010 (15 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 | 128 | 48 |
| Core clock speed | 400 MHz | 450 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 1,178 million | 486 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 25 Watt | 23 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 3.200 | 7.200 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.1024 TFLOPS | 0.09504 TFLOPS |
| Gigaflops | no data | 142 |
| ROPs | 4 | 8 |
| TMUs | 8 | 16 |
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 | no data | medium sized |
| Bus support | no data | PCI-E 2.0 |
| Interface | IGP | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Width | IGP | no data |
| 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 | System Shared | DDR3 |
| Maximum RAM amount | System Shared | 1 GB |
| Memory bus width | System Shared | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | System Shared | Up to 1066 (DDR3), Up to 800 (GDDR3) MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | no data | 22.4 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 Connectors | No outputs | Dual Link DVIDisplayPortHDMIVGASingle Link DVI |
| Multi monitor support | no data | + |
| HDMI | - | + |
| Maximum VGA resolution | no data | 2048x1536 |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| Power management | no data | 8.0 |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (12_0) | 11.1 (10_1) |
| Shader Model | 6.3 | 4.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 2.1 |
| OpenCL | 2.0 | 1.1 |
| Vulkan | 1.2.131 | N/A |
| CUDA | - | + |
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
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.
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.
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 HD | 10
+66.7%
| 6−7
−66.7%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 4−5
+33.3%
|
3−4
−33.3%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 8−9
+14.3%
|
7−8
−14.3%
|
| Valorant | 27−30
+7.4%
|
27−30
−7.4%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 19
+26.7%
|
14−16
−26.7%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
| Dota 2 | 9
−11.1%
|
10−11
+11.1%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 4−5
+33.3%
|
3−4
−33.3%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 8−9
+14.3%
|
7−8
−14.3%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6−7
+20%
|
5−6
−20%
|
| Valorant | 27−30
+7.4%
|
27−30
−7.4%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
| Dota 2 | 8
−25%
|
10−11
+25%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 4−5
+33.3%
|
3−4
−33.3%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 8−9
+14.3%
|
7−8
−14.3%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6−7
+20%
|
5−6
−20%
|
| Valorant | 27−30
+7.4%
|
27−30
−7.4%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 3−4
+200%
|
1−2
−200%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 6−7
+50%
|
4−5
−50%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 4−5
+33.3%
|
3−4
−33.3%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 1−2 | 0−1 |
4K
High Preset
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| Valorant | 4−5
+100%
|
2−3
−100%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Far Cry 5 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
This is how HD 8400 and GT 325M compete in popular games:
- HD 8400 is 67% faster in 1080p
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Counter-Strike: Global Offensive, with 1440p resolution and the High Preset, the HD 8400 is 200% faster.
- in Dota 2, with 1080p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the GT 325M is 25% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- HD 8400 is ahead in 21 test (66%)
- GT 325M is ahead in 2 tests (6%)
- there's a draw in 9 tests (28%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.60 | 0.38 |
| Recency | 23 November 2013 | 10 January 2010 |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 25 Watt | 23 Watt |
HD 8400 has a 57.9% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 3 years, and a 42.9% more advanced lithography process.
GT 325M, on the other hand, has 8.7% lower power consumption.
The Radeon HD 8400 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GT 325M in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon HD 8400 is a desktop card while GeForce GT 325M is a notebook one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
