HD Graphics (Sandy Bridge) vs Radeon HD 8400
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon HD 8400 with HD Graphics (Sandy Bridge), including specs and performance data.
HD 8400 outperforms HD Graphics (Sandy Bridge) by a whopping 100% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 1184 | 1308 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 1.90 | no data |
| Architecture | GCN 2.0 (2013−2017) | Gen. 6 Sandy Bridge (2011) |
| GPU code name | Kalindi | Sandy Bridge |
| Market segment | Desktop | Laptop |
| Release date | 23 November 2013 (11 years ago) | 1 May 2011 (13 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 | 6 |
| Core clock speed | 400 MHz | 350 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 1100 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 1,178 million | no data |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 32 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 25 Watt | no data |
| Texture fill rate | 3.200 | no data |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.1024 TFLOPS | no data |
| ROPs | 4 | no data |
| TMUs | 8 | no 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).
| Interface | IGP | no data |
| Width | IGP | no 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 type | System Shared | no data |
| Maximum RAM amount | System Shared | no data |
| Memory bus width | System Shared | 64/128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | System Shared | no 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 Connectors | No outputs | no data |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (12_0) | 10.1 |
| Shader Model | 6.3 | no data |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | no data |
| OpenCL | 2.0 | no data |
| Vulkan | 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.
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.
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.
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
+42.9%
| 7
−42.9%
|
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
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
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
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 4−5
+33.3%
|
3−4
−33.3%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 8−9
+14.3%
|
7−8
−14.3%
|
| Valorant | 27−30
+11.5%
|
24−27
−11.5%
|
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 | 19
+90%
|
10
−90%
|
| 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%
|
| Metro Exodus | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 8−9
+14.3%
|
7−8
−14.3%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| Valorant | 27−30
+11.5%
|
24−27
−11.5%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| 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%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 8−9
+14.3%
|
7−8
−14.3%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| Valorant | 27−30
+11.5%
|
24−27
−11.5%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 4−5
+100%
|
2−3
−100%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 1−2 | 0−1 |
4K
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| Valorant | 4−5
+100%
|
2−3
−100%
|
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 8400 and HD Graphics (Sandy Bridge) compete in popular games:
- HD 8400 is 43% faster in 1080p
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Cyberpunk 2077, with 1080p resolution and the Low Preset, the HD 8400 is 100% faster.
- in Dota 2, with 1080p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the HD Graphics (Sandy Bridge) is 25% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- HD 8400 is ahead in 17 tests (52%)
- HD Graphics (Sandy Bridge) is ahead in 2 tests (6%)
- there's a draw in 14 tests (42%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.68 | 0.34 |
| Recency | 23 November 2013 | 1 May 2011 |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 32 nm |
HD 8400 has a 100% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 2 years, and a 14.3% more advanced lithography process.
The Radeon HD 8400 is our recommended choice as it beats the HD Graphics (Sandy Bridge) in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon HD 8400 is a desktop card while HD Graphics (Sandy Bridge) 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.
