GeForce 8400 vs GT 620M

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared GeForce GT 620M with GeForce 8400, including specs and performance data.

GT 620M
2012
1 GB DDR3, 15 Watt
1.13
+438%

GT 620M outperforms 8400 by a whopping 438% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking10761381
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiency5.250.59
ArchitectureFermi (2010−2014)Tesla (2006−2010)
GPU code nameGF108G98
Market segmentLaptopDesktop
Release date23 August 2012 (12 years ago)4 December 2007 (16 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)no data$69.78

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 cores968
Core clock speedUp to 625 MHz540 MHz
Boost clock speed715 MHzno data
Number of transistors585 million210 million
Manufacturing process technology40 nm65 nm
Power consumption (TDP)15 Watt25 Watt
Texture fill rate10.564.320
Floating-point processing power0.2534 TFLOPS0.0208 TFLOPS
ROPs44
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 Express 2.0no data
InterfacePCIe 2.0 x16PCIe 2.0 x16
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 typeDDR3DDR2
Maximum RAM amount1 GB256 MB
Memory bus widthUp to 128bit64 Bit
Memory clock speed900 MHz500 MHz
Memory bandwidthUp to 28.8 GB/s8 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 DVI, 1x VGA, 1x S-Video
HDMI+-
HDCP+-
Maximum VGA resolutionUp to 2048x1536no data

Supported technologies

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

3D Blu-Ray+-
Optimus+-

API compatibility

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

DirectX12 API11.1 (10_0)
Shader Model5.14.0
OpenGL4.53.3
OpenCL1.11.1
VulkanN/AN/A
CUDA+1.1

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.

GT 620M 1.13
+438%
GeForce 8400 0.21

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 620M 435
+437%
GeForce 8400 81

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 HD40
+471%
7−8
−471%

Cost per frame, $

1080pno data9.97

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 3−4 0−1

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 5−6 0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 4−5 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4 0−1
Far Cry 5 1−2 0−1
Far Cry New Dawn 2−3 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 1−2 0−1
Hitman 3 5−6 0−1
Horizon Zero Dawn 12−14
+550%
2−3
−550%
Red Dead Redemption 2 1−2 0−1
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 7−8
+600%
1−2
−600%
Watch Dogs: Legion 30−35
+540%
5−6
−540%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 5−6 0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 4−5 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4 0−1
Far Cry 5 1−2 0−1
Far Cry New Dawn 2−3 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 1−2 0−1
Hitman 3 5−6 0−1
Horizon Zero Dawn 12−14
+550%
2−3
−550%
Red Dead Redemption 2 1−2 0−1
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 7−8
+600%
1−2
−600%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 10−12
+450%
2−3
−450%
Watch Dogs: Legion 30−35
+540%
5−6
−540%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 5−6 0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 4−5 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4 0−1
Far Cry 5 1−2 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 1−2 0−1
Hitman 3 5−6 0−1
Horizon Zero Dawn 12−14
+550%
2−3
−550%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 7−8
+600%
1−2
−600%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 10−12
+450%
2−3
−450%
Watch Dogs: Legion 30−35
+540%
5−6
−540%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 1−2 0−1

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 1−2 0−1
Far Cry New Dawn 2−3 0−1

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 1−2 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2 0−1
Far Cry 5 1−2 0−1
Hitman 3 7−8
+600%
1−2
−600%
Horizon Zero Dawn 4−5 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 0−1 0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion 5−6 0−1

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 4−5 0−1

4K
High Preset

Far Cry New Dawn 0−1 0−1

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 1−2 0−1
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 0−1 0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 0−1 0−1
Far Cry 5 0−1 0−1

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 2−3 0−1

This is how GT 620M and GeForce 8400 compete in popular games:

  • GT 620M is 471% faster in 1080p

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 1.13 0.21
Recency 23 August 2012 4 December 2007
Maximum RAM amount 1 GB 256 MB
Chip lithography 40 nm 65 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 15 Watt 25 Watt

GT 620M has a 438.1% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 4 years, a 300% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 62.5% more advanced lithography process, and 66.7% lower power consumption.

The GeForce GT 620M is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce 8400 in performance tests.

Be aware that GeForce GT 620M is a notebook card while GeForce 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 620M
GeForce GT 620M
NVIDIA GeForce 8400
GeForce 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.


3.3 425 votes

Rate GeForce GT 620M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
2.5 26 votes

Rate GeForce 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.