ATI Radeon IGP 340M vs HD 8400

#ad 
Buy
VS

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking11911553
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiency1.90no data
ArchitectureGCN 2.0 (2013−2017)Rage 6 (2000−2007)
GPU code nameKalindiRS200
Market segmentDesktopLaptop
Release date23 November 2013 (11 years ago)5 October 2002 (22 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 cores1282
Core clock speed400 MHz183 MHz
Boost clock speedno data180 MHz
Number of transistors1,178 million30 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm180 nm
Power consumption (TDP)25 Wattno data
Texture fill rate3.2000.37
Floating-point processing power0.1024 TFLOPSno data
ROPs42
TMUs82

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).

InterfaceIGPAGP 4x
WidthIGPno data
Supplementary power connectorsno dataNone

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 SharedSystem Shared
Maximum RAM amountSystem SharedSystem Shared
Memory bus widthSystem SharedSystem Shared
Memory clock speedSystem SharedSystem Shared
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 outputs

API and SDK compatibility

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

DirectX12 (12_0)7.0
Shader Model6.3no data
OpenGL4.61.4
OpenCL2.0N/A
Vulkan1.2.131N/A

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.

HD 8400 269
+13350%
ATI IGP 340M 2

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 HD10no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 2−3 0−1
Hogwarts Legacy 4−5
+33.3%
3−4
−33.3%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 2−3 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 4−5
+300%
1−2
−300%
Hogwarts Legacy 4−5
+33.3%
3−4
−33.3%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 8−9
+33.3%
6−7
−33.3%
Valorant 27−30
+20.8%
24−27
−20.8%

Full HD
High Preset

Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 19
+138%
8−9
−138%
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3 0−1
Dota 2 9
+28.6%
7−8
−28.6%
Forza Horizon 4 4−5
+300%
1−2
−300%
Hogwarts Legacy 4−5
+33.3%
3−4
−33.3%
Metro Exodus 1−2 no data
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 8−9
+33.3%
6−7
−33.3%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 6−7
+50%
4−5
−50%
Valorant 27−30
+20.8%
24−27
−20.8%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 2−3 0−1
Dota 2 8
+14.3%
7−8
−14.3%
Forza Horizon 4 4−5
+300%
1−2
−300%
Hogwarts Legacy 4−5
+33.3%
3−4
−33.3%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 8−9
+33.3%
6−7
−33.3%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 6−7
+50%
4−5
−50%
Valorant 27−30
+20.8%
24−27
−20.8%

1440p
High Preset

Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 3−4 no data
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 6−7 no data

1440p
Ultra Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 0−1 no data
Far Cry 5 4−5
+33.3%
3−4
−33.3%
Forza Horizon 4 2−3 no data
Hogwarts Legacy 1−2 no data
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 2−3
+100%
1−2
−100%

1440p
Epic Preset

Fortnite 1−2 no data

4K
High Preset

Grand Theft Auto V 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Valorant 4−5
+300%
1−2
−300%

4K
Ultra Preset

Far Cry 5 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 2−3
+100%
1−2
−100%

4K
Epic Preset

Fortnite 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%

Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:

  • in Forza Horizon 4, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the HD 8400 is 300% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • HD 8400 is ahead in 22 tests (88%)
  • there's a draw in 3 tests (12%)

Pros & cons summary


Recency 23 November 2013 5 October 2002
Chip lithography 28 nm 180 nm

HD 8400 has an age advantage of 11 years, and a 542.9% more advanced lithography process.

We couldn't decide between Radeon HD 8400 and Radeon IGP 340M. We've got no test results to judge.

Be aware that Radeon HD 8400 is a desktop card while Radeon IGP 340M is a notebook one.

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
ATI Radeon IGP 340M
Radeon IGP 340M

Other comparisons

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.


2.8 153 votes

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

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

Rate Radeon IGP 340M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about Radeon HD 8400 or Radeon IGP 340M, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.