Radeon HD 8400 vs GeForce GT 240M

Aggregate performance score

We've compared GeForce GT 240M with Radeon HD 8400, including specs and performance data.

GT 240M
2009
1 GB GDDR3, 23 Watt
0.55

HD 8400 outperforms GT 240M by a significant 25% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking12131173
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiency1.671.92
ArchitectureTesla 2.0 (2007−2013)GCN 2.0 (2013−2017)
GPU code nameGT216Kalindi
Market segmentLaptopDesktop
Release date15 June 2009 (15 years ago)23 November 2013 (11 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 cores48128
Core clock speed550 MHz400 MHz
Number of transistors486 million1,178 million
Manufacturing process technology40 nm28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)23 Watt25 Watt
Texture fill rate8.8003.200
Floating-point processing power0.1162 TFLOPS0.1024 TFLOPS
Gigaflops174no data
ROPs84
TMUs168

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 sizemedium sizedno data
Bus supportPCI-E 2.0no data
InterfacePCIe 2.0 x16IGP
Widthno dataIGP

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 typeGDDR3System Shared
Maximum RAM amount1 GBSystem Shared
Memory bus width128 BitSystem Shared
Memory clock speedUp to 600 (DDR2), Up to 1066 (DDR3), Up to 800 (GDDR3) MHzSystem Shared
Memory bandwidth25.6 GB/sno data
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 ConnectorsSingle Link DVIDisplayPortDual Link DVIHDMIVGANo outputs
Multi monitor support+no data
HDMI+-
Maximum VGA resolution2048x1536no data

Supported technologies

Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.

Power management8.0no data

API compatibility

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

DirectX11.1 (10_1)12 (12_0)
Shader Model4.16.3
OpenGL2.14.6
OpenCL1.12.0
VulkanN/A1.2.131
CUDA+-

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.

GT 240M 0.55
HD 8400 0.69
+25.5%

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.

GT 240M 213
HD 8400 265
+24.4%

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.

GT 240M 2372
+17.8%
HD 8400 2013

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 HD12
+20%
10
−20%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Hitman 3 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 30−33
+0%
30−33
+0%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Hitman 3 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 30−33
+0%
30−33
+0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Hitman 3 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 30−33
+0%
30−33
+0%

1440p
High Preset

Far Cry New Dawn 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 0−1 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Far Cry 5 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Hitman 3 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 1−2
−100%
2−3
+100%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

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

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 0−1 0−1

Full HD
High Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 0−1 0−1

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 0−1 0−1

4K
High Preset

Far Cry New Dawn 0−1 0−1

This is how GT 240M and HD 8400 compete in popular games:

  • GT 240M is 20% faster in 1080p

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

  • in Watch Dogs: Legion, with 1440p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the HD 8400 is 100% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • HD 8400 is ahead in 1 test (3%)
  • there's a draw in 34 tests (97%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 0.55 0.69
Recency 15 June 2009 23 November 2013
Chip lithography 40 nm 28 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 23 Watt 25 Watt

GT 240M has 8.7% lower power consumption.

HD 8400, on the other hand, has a 25.5% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 4 years, and a 42.9% more advanced lithography process.

The Radeon HD 8400 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GT 240M in performance tests.

Be aware that GeForce GT 240M is a notebook card while Radeon HD 8400 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 GT 240M
GeForce GT 240M
AMD Radeon HD 8400
Radeon HD 8400

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.


3.1 75 votes

Rate GeForce GT 240M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
2.8 128 votes

Rate Radeon HD 8400 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.