Riva TNT2 vs GeForce 8400M GT

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared GeForce 8400M GT with Riva TNT2, including specs and performance data.

8400M GT
2007
512 MB GDDR3, 14 Watt
0.17
+1600%

8400M GT outperforms Riva TNT2 by a whopping 1600% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking14101519
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiency0.84no data
ArchitectureTesla (2006−2010)Fahrenheit (1998−2000)
GPU code nameG86NV5
Market segmentLaptopDesktop
Release date9 May 2007 (17 years ago)12 October 1999 (25 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 cores16no data
Core clock speed450 MHz125 MHz
Number of transistors210 million15 million
Manufacturing process technology80 nm250 nm
Power consumption (TDP)14 Wattno data
Texture fill rate3.6000.25
Floating-point processing power0.0288 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).

InterfacePCIe 1.0 x16AGP 4x
Widthno data1-slot
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 typeGDDR3SDR
Maximum RAM amount512 MB16 MB
Memory bus width128 Bit128 Bit
Memory clock speed600 MHz150 MHz
Memory bandwidth19.2 GB/s2.4 GB/s
Shared memory-no data

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 outputs1x VGA

API compatibility

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

DirectX11.1 (10_0)6.0
Shader Model4.0no data
OpenGL3.31.2
OpenCL1.1N/A
VulkanN/AN/A
CUDA1.1-

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. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.

8400M GT 0.17
+1600%
Riva TNT2 0.01

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.

8400M GT 66
+2100%
Riva TNT2 3

Gaming performance

Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 2−3 0−1

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 3−4 0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2−3 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3 0−1
Hitman 3 4−5 0−1
Horizon Zero Dawn 8−9 0−1
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 4−5 0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion 27−30
+2700%
1−2
−2700%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 3−4 0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2−3 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3 0−1
Hitman 3 4−5 0−1
Horizon Zero Dawn 8−9 0−1
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 4−5 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 9−10 0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion 27−30
+2700%
1−2
−2700%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 3−4 0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2−3 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3 0−1
Hitman 3 4−5 0−1
Horizon Zero Dawn 8−9 0−1
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 4−5 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 9−10 0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion 27−30
+2700%
1−2
−2700%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 0−1 0−1
Hitman 3 6−7 0−1
Horizon Zero Dawn 2−3 0−1

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 2−3 0−1

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 1−2 0−1
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 0−1 0−1

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 2−3 0−1

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 0.17 0.01
Recency 9 May 2007 12 October 1999
Maximum RAM amount 512 MB 16 MB
Chip lithography 80 nm 250 nm

8400M GT has a 1600% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 7 years, a 3100% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 212.5% more advanced lithography process.

The GeForce 8400M GT is our recommended choice as it beats the Riva TNT2 in performance tests.

Be aware that GeForce 8400M GT is a notebook card while Riva TNT2 is a desktop one.


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

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.


NVIDIA GeForce 8400M GT
GeForce 8400M GT
NVIDIA Riva TNT2
Riva TNT2

Comparisons with similar GPUs

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.


2.5 22 votes

Rate GeForce 8400M GT on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4.7 14 votes

Rate Riva TNT2 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about this comparison, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.