Graphics Media Accelerator (GMA) 600 vs Radeon HD 8400

VS

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking1171not rated
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiency1.92no data
ArchitectureGCN 2.0 (2013−2017)PowerVR SGX5 (2008−2011)
GPU code nameKalindiGMA 600
Market segmentDesktopLaptop
Release date23 November 2013 (11 years ago)1 May 2010 (14 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 cores1284
Core clock speed400 MHz400 MHz
Number of transistors1,178 millionno data
Manufacturing process technology28 nm45 nm
Power consumption (TDP)25 Wattno data
Texture fill rate3.200no data
Floating-point processing power0.1024 TFLOPSno data
ROPs4no data
TMUs8no data

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).

InterfaceIGPno data
WidthIGPno 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 typeSystem Sharedno data
Maximum RAM amountSystem Sharedno data
Memory bus widthSystem Sharedno data
Memory clock speedSystem Sharedno data
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 ConnectorsNo outputsno data

API compatibility

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

DirectX12 (12_0)9.0c
Shader Model6.3no data
OpenGL4.6no data
OpenCL2.0no data
Vulkan1.2.131-

Pros & cons summary


Recency 23 November 2013 1 May 2010
Chip lithography 28 nm 45 nm

HD 8400 has an age advantage of 3 years, and a 60.7% more advanced lithography process.

We couldn't decide between Radeon HD 8400 and Graphics Media Accelerator (GMA) 600. We've got no test results to judge.

Be aware that Radeon HD 8400 is a desktop card while Graphics Media Accelerator (GMA) 600 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.


AMD Radeon HD 8400
Radeon HD 8400
Intel Graphics Media Accelerator (GMA) 600
Graphics Media Accelerator (GMA) 600

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.


2.8 128 votes

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4 2 votes

Rate Graphics Media Accelerator (GMA) 600 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.