TITAN RTX vs Radeon HD 8410G
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon HD 8410G with TITAN RTX, including specs and performance data.
TITAN RTX outperforms HD 8410G by a whopping 4233% 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 | 1117 | 83 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 2.12 |
| Power efficiency | 2.20 | 11.94 |
| Architecture | TeraScale 3 (2010−2013) | Turing (2018−2022) |
| GPU code name | Scrapper | TU102 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop |
| Release date | 23 May 2013 (11 years ago) | 18 December 2018 (6 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $2,499 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.
Performance to price scatter graph
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 | 192 | 4608 |
| Core clock speed | 600 MHz | 1350 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 720 MHz | 1770 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 1,303 million | 18,600 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 32 nm | 12 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 35 Watt | 280 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 8.640 | 509.8 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.2765 TFLOPS | 16.31 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 4 | 96 |
| TMUs | 12 | 288 |
| Tensor Cores | no data | 576 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | no data | 72 |
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 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Length | no data | 267 mm |
| Width | no data | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | 2x 8-pin |
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 | GDDR6 |
| Maximum RAM amount | System Shared | 24 GB |
| Memory bus width | System Shared | 384 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | System Shared | 1750 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | no data | 672.0 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 | 1x HDMI, 3x DisplayPort, 1x USB Type-C |
| HDMI | - | + |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 11.2 (11_0) | 12 Ultimate (12_1) |
| Shader Model | 5.0 | 6.5 |
| OpenGL | 4.4 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 2.0 |
| Vulkan | N/A | 1.2.131 |
| CUDA | - | 7.5 |
| DLSS | - | + |
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.
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 | 3−4
−5267%
| 161
+5267%
|
| 1440p | 2−3
−5000%
| 102
+5000%
|
| 4K | 1−2
−7200%
| 73
+7200%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | no data | 15.52 |
| 1440p | no data | 24.50 |
| 4K | no data | 34.23 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Baldur's Gate 3 | 5−6
−3420%
|
176
+3420%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−3850%
|
79
+3850%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Baldur's Gate 3 | 5−6
−2800%
|
145
+2800%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 0−1 | 163 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−3850%
|
79
+3850%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2
−16400%
|
165
+16400%
|
| Fortnite | 2−3
−8350%
|
169
+8350%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 6−7
−3017%
|
187
+3017%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 0−1 | 168 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
−2144%
|
202
+2144%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
−988%
|
348
+988%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Baldur's Gate 3 | 5−6
−2340%
|
122
+2340%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 0−1 | 164 |
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 24−27
−969%
|
270−280
+969%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−3850%
|
79
+3850%
|
| Dota 2 | 14−16
−933%
|
155
+933%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2
−15500%
|
156
+15500%
|
| Fortnite | 2−3
−8700%
|
176
+8700%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 6−7
−3000%
|
186
+3000%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 0−1 | 153 |
| Metro Exodus | 2−3
−6600%
|
134
+6600%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
−1711%
|
163
+1711%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6−7
−4350%
|
267
+4350%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
−950%
|
336
+950%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Baldur's Gate 3 | 5−6
−2340%
|
122
+2340%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 0−1 | 160 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−3800%
|
78
+3800%
|
| Dota 2 | 14−16
−887%
|
148
+887%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2
−14500%
|
146
+14500%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 6−7
−2817%
|
175
+2817%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
−1411%
|
136
+1411%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6−7
−2217%
|
139
+2217%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
−638%
|
236
+638%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 2−3
−6600%
|
134
+6600%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 0−1 | 157 |
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 6−7
−5183%
|
300−350
+5183%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 6−7
−2817%
|
170−180
+2817%
|
| Valorant | 2−3
−15250%
|
307
+15250%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−6500%
|
66
+6500%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 2−3
−7750%
|
157
+7750%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 1−2
−9200%
|
90−95
+9200%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 2−3
−6100%
|
120−130
+6100%
|
4K
High Preset
| Grand Theft Auto V | 16−18
−738%
|
134
+738%
|
| Valorant | 5−6
−5900%
|
300
+5900%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 33 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 2−3
−4700%
|
96
+4700%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 2−3
−3600%
|
74
+3600%
|
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 353
+0%
|
353
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 342
+0%
|
342
+0%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 270
+0%
|
270
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 152
+0%
|
152
+0%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Grand Theft Auto V | 114
+0%
|
114
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 85
+0%
|
85
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Baldur's Gate 3 | 84
+0%
|
84
+0%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 110−120
+0%
|
110−120
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 134
+0%
|
134
+0%
|
4K
High Preset
| Baldur's Gate 3 | 40−45
+0%
|
40−45
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 45
+0%
|
45
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 55
+0%
|
55
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 103
+0%
|
103
+0%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Baldur's Gate 3 | 45
+0%
|
45
+0%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 97
+0%
|
97
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 55−60
+0%
|
55−60
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 146
+0%
|
146
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 80
+0%
|
80
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 114
+0%
|
114
+0%
|
This is how HD 8410G and TITAN RTX compete in popular games:
- TITAN RTX is 5267% faster in 1080p
- TITAN RTX is 5000% faster in 1440p
- TITAN RTX is 7200% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Far Cry 5, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the TITAN RTX is 16400% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- TITAN RTX is ahead in 40 tests (68%)
- there's a draw in 19 tests (32%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 1.09 | 47.23 |
| Recency | 23 May 2013 | 18 December 2018 |
| Chip lithography | 32 nm | 12 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 35 Watt | 280 Watt |
HD 8410G has 700% lower power consumption.
TITAN RTX, on the other hand, has a 4233% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 5 years, and a 166.7% more advanced lithography process.
The TITAN RTX is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon HD 8410G in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon HD 8410G is a notebook card while TITAN RTX is a desktop one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
