ATI Mobility Radeon HD 560v vs HD 8400
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon HD 8400 with Mobility Radeon HD 560v, including specs and performance data.
Mobility HD 560v outperforms HD 8400 by a significant 25% 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 | 1247 | 1202 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 2.00 | 4.16 |
| Architecture | GCN 2.0 (2013−2017) | TeraScale (2005−2013) |
| GPU code name | Kalindi | M96 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Laptop |
| Release date | 23 November 2013 (12 years ago) | 5 May 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 | 320 |
| Core clock speed | 400 MHz | 550 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 1,178 million | 514 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 55 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 25 Watt | 15 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 3.200 | 17.60 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.1024 TFLOPS | 0.352 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 4 | 8 |
| TMUs | 8 | 32 |
| L1 Cache | no data | 64 KB |
| L2 Cache | no data | 128 KB |
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 |
| Interface | IGP | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| 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 | GDDR3 |
| Maximum RAM amount | System Shared | 1 GB |
| Memory bus width | System Shared | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | System Shared | 800 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | no data | 25.6 GB/s |
| Shared memory | + | - |
Connectivity and outputs
This section shows the types and number of video connectors on each GPU. The data applies specifically to desktop reference models (for example, NVIDIA’s Founders Edition). OEM partners often modify both the number and types of ports. On notebook GPUs, video‐output options are determined by the laptop’s design rather than the graphics chip itself.
| Display Connectors | No outputs | No outputs |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (12_0) | 10.1 (10_1) |
| Shader Model | 6.3 | 4.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 3.3 |
| OpenCL | 2.0 | 1.1 |
| Vulkan | 1.2.131 | N/A |
Synthetic benchmarks
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.
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
−20%
| 12−14
+20%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−100%
|
2−3
+100%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−100%
|
2−3
+100%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 0−1 | 1−2 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 5−6
−20%
|
6−7
+20%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| Valorant | 27−30
−7.1%
|
30−33
+7.1%
|
Full HD
High
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 19
−15.8%
|
21−24
+15.8%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−100%
|
2−3
+100%
|
| Dota 2 | 9
−44.4%
|
12−14
+44.4%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 0−1 | 1−2 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 5−6
−20%
|
6−7
+20%
|
| Metro Exodus | 0−1 | 1−2 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
| Valorant | 27−30
−7.1%
|
30−33
+7.1%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−100%
|
2−3
+100%
|
| Dota 2 | 8
−62.5%
|
12−14
+62.5%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 0−1 | 1−2 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 5−6
−20%
|
6−7
+20%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
| Valorant | 27−30
−7.1%
|
30−33
+7.1%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 3−4
−66.7%
|
5−6
+66.7%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 7−8
−28.6%
|
9−10
+28.6%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Forza Horizon 4 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
4K
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| Valorant | 3−4
−33.3%
|
4−5
+33.3%
|
4K
Ultra
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
This is how HD 8400 and ATI Mobility HD 560v compete in popular games:
- ATI Mobility HD 560v is 20% 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 ATI Mobility HD 560v is 100% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- ATI Mobility HD 560v performs better in 16 tests (57%)
- there's a draw in 12 tests (43%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.65 | 0.81 |
| Recency | 23 November 2013 | 5 May 2010 |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 55 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 25 Watt | 15 Watt |
HD 8400 has an age advantage of 3 years, and a 96% more advanced lithography process.
ATI Mobility HD 560v, on the other hand, has a 25% higher aggregate performance score, and 67% lower power consumption.
The Mobility Radeon HD 560v is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon HD 8400 in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon HD 8400 is a desktop graphics card while Mobility Radeon HD 560v 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.
