GeForce 8400M GT vs Radeon RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 4000/5000)

Place in the ranking	491	1416
Place by popularity	28	not in top-100
Power efficiency	41.36	0.87
Architecture	Vega (2017−2020)	Tesla (2006−2010)
GPU code name	Vega	G86
Market segment	Laptop	Laptop
Release date	7 January 2020 (5 years ago)	9 May 2007 (17 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	512	16
Core clock speed	no data	450 MHz
Boost clock speed	2100 MHz	no data
Number of transistors	no data	210 million
Manufacturing process technology	7 nm	80 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	15 Watt	14 Watt
Texture fill rate	no data	3.600
Floating-point processing power	no data	0.0288 TFLOPS
ROPs	no data	4
TMUs	no data	8

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

no data

PCIe 1.0 x16

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	no data	GDDR3
Maximum RAM amount	no data	512 MB
Memory bus width	no data	128 Bit
Memory clock speed	no data	600 MHz
Memory bandwidth	no data	19.2 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 data

No outputs

API compatibility

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

DirectX	12_1	11.1 (10_0)
Shader Model	no data	4.0
OpenGL	no data	3.3
OpenCL	no data	1.1
Vulkan	-	N/A
CUDA	-	1.1

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	23	-0−1
1440p	17	-0−1
4K	9	-0−1

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2	13 +44.4%	9−10 −44.4%
Cyberpunk 2077	19 +850%	2−3 −850%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5	27−30	0−1
Counter-Strike 2	9 +0%	9−10 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	15 +650%	2−3 −650%
Forza Horizon 4	32 +540%	5−6 −540%
Forza Horizon 5	21	0−1
Metro Exodus	27	0−1
Red Dead Redemption 2	33 +725%	4−5 −725%
Valorant	44	0−1

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5	27−30	0−1
Counter-Strike 2	9 +0%	9−10 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	11 +450%	2−3 −450%
Dota 2	29	0−1
Far Cry 5	30 +400%	6−7 −400%
Fortnite	50−55 +5200%	1−2 −5200%
Forza Horizon 4	27 +440%	5−6 −440%
Forza Horizon 5	13	0−1
Grand Theft Auto V	19	0−1
Metro Exodus	19	0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	57 +1040%	5−6 −1040%
Red Dead Redemption 2	12 +200%	4−5 −200%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	27−30 +575%	4−5 −575%
Valorant	14	0−1
World of Tanks	48 +380%	10−11 −380%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	27−30	0−1
Counter-Strike 2	18−20 +100%	9−10 −100%
Cyberpunk 2077	9 +350%	2−3 −350%
Dota 2	48	0−1
Far Cry 5	35−40 +533%	6−7 −533%
Forza Horizon 4	23 +360%	5−6 −360%
Forza Horizon 5	14	0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	70−75 +1320%	5−6 −1320%
Valorant	37	0−1

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2	9	0−1
Grand Theft Auto V	9	0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	22 +2100%	1−2 −2100%
Red Dead Redemption 2	7−8	0−1
World of Tanks	21	0−1

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	16−18	0−1
Counter-Strike 2	7−8	0−1
Cyberpunk 2077	2 −50%	3−4 +50%
Far Cry 5	18−20 +375%	4−5 −375%
Forza Horizon 4	16	0−1
Forza Horizon 5	12−14	0−1
Metro Exodus	17	0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	12−14 +200%	4−5 −200%
Valorant	39 +875%	4−5 −875%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2	12−14 +85.7%	7−8 −85.7%
Dota 2	10 −50%	14−16 +50%
Grand Theft Auto V	10 −50%	14−16 +50%
Metro Exodus	6	0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	13	0−1
Red Dead Redemption 2	6−7	0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	10 −50%	14−16 +50%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	8−9	0−1
Counter-Strike 2	12−14 +85.7%	7−8 −85.7%
Cyberpunk 2077	3−4 +50%	2−3 −50%
Dota 2	18 +20%	14−16 −20%
Far Cry 5	10−12	0−1
Fortnite	9−10	0−1
Forza Horizon 4	9	0−1
Forza Horizon 5	6−7	0−1
Valorant	9−10	0−1

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

in PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS, with 1440p resolution and the High Preset, the RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 4000/5000) is 2100% faster.
in Cyberpunk 2077, with 1440p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the 8400M GT is 50% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 4000/5000) is ahead in 25 tests (81%)
8400M GT is ahead in 4 tests (13%)
there's a draw in 2 tests (6%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	8.67	0.17
Recency	7 January 2020	9 May 2007
Chip lithography	7 nm	80 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	15 Watt	14 Watt

RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 4000/5000) has a 5000% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 12 years, and a 1042.9% more advanced lithography process.

8400M GT, on the other hand, has 7.1% lower power consumption.

The Radeon RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 4000/5000) is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce 8400M GT in performance tests.

Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.