GeForce 8400M GS vs GTX 560M SLI
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GTX 560M SLI and GeForce 8400M GS, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
GTX 560M SLI outperforms 8400M GS by a whopping 2225% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 573 | 1342 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 4.48 | 1.75 |
| Architecture | Fermi (2010−2014) | Tesla (2006−2010) |
| GPU code name | N12E-GS | G86 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Release date | 6 January 2011 (13 years ago) | 9 May 2007 (17 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $14.99 |
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 | 384 | 16 |
| Core clock speed | 775 MHz | 400 MHz |
| Number of transistors | no data | 210 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 80 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 100 Watt | 11 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | no data | 3.200 |
| Floating-point processing power | no data | 0.0256 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).
| Laptop size | large | no data |
| Interface | no data | MXM-I |
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 | GDDR5 | DDR2 |
| Maximum RAM amount | no data | 256 MB |
| Memory bus width | 192 Bit | 64 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1250 MHz | 400 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | no data | 6.4 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 | 11 | 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.
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 10−11
+400%
|
2−3
−400%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 16−18
+433%
|
3−4
−433%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 8−9 | 0−1 |
| Battlefield 5 | 18−20 | 0−1 |
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 12−14
+550%
|
2−3
−550%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 10−11
+400%
|
2−3
−400%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 14−16 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry New Dawn | 18−20 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 40−45
+4100%
|
1−2
−4100%
|
| Hitman 3 | 12−14
+225%
|
4−5
−225%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 35−40
+375%
|
8−9
−375%
|
| Metro Exodus | 16−18 | 0−1 |
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 16−18 | 0−1 |
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 21−24
+450%
|
4−5
−450%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 50−55
+82.1%
|
27−30
−82.1%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 16−18
+433%
|
3−4
−433%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 8−9 | 0−1 |
| Battlefield 5 | 18−20 | 0−1 |
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 12−14
+550%
|
2−3
−550%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 10−11
+400%
|
2−3
−400%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 14−16 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry New Dawn | 18−20 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 40−45
+4100%
|
1−2
−4100%
|
| Hitman 3 | 12−14
+225%
|
4−5
−225%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 35−40
+375%
|
8−9
−375%
|
| Metro Exodus | 16−18 | 0−1 |
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 16−18 | 0−1 |
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 21−24
+450%
|
4−5
−450%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 20−22
+122%
|
9−10
−122%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 50−55
+82.1%
|
27−30
−82.1%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 16−18
+433%
|
3−4
−433%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 8−9 | 0−1 |
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 12−14
+550%
|
2−3
−550%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 10−11
+400%
|
2−3
−400%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 14−16 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 40−45
+4100%
|
1−2
−4100%
|
| Hitman 3 | 12−14
+225%
|
4−5
−225%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 35−40
+375%
|
8−9
−375%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 21−24
+450%
|
4−5
−450%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 20−22
+122%
|
9−10
−122%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 50−55
+82.1%
|
27−30
−82.1%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 16−18 | 0−1 |
1440p
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 12−14 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry New Dawn | 10−11 | 0−1 |
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 6−7 | 0−1 |
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 6−7 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 7−8 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 20−22 | 0−1 |
| Hitman 3 | 10−11
+66.7%
|
6−7
−66.7%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 14−16
+600%
|
2−3
−600%
|
| Metro Exodus | 6−7 | 0−1 |
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 3−4 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 5−6 | 0−1 |
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 40−45
+4000%
|
1−2
−4000%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 10−12
+450%
|
2−3
−450%
|
4K
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 5−6 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry New Dawn | 4−5 | 0−1 |
| Hitman 3 | 3−4 | 0−1 |
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 16−18 | 0−1 |
| Metro Exodus | 3−4 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 3−4 | 0−1 |
4K
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 4−5
+300%
|
1−2
−300%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 3−4 | 0−1 |
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 3−4 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 3−4 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 6−7 | 0−1 |
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 2−3 | 0−1 |
4K
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 7−8
+250%
|
2−3
−250%
|
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Horizon Zero Dawn, with 1440p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the GTX 560M SLI is 600% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Without exception, GTX 560M SLI surpassed 8400M GS in all 29 of our tests.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 6.51 | 0.28 |
| Recency | 6 January 2011 | 9 May 2007 |
| Chip lithography | 40 nm | 80 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 100 Watt | 11 Watt |
GTX 560M SLI has a 2225% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 3 years, and a 100% more advanced lithography process.
8400M GS, on the other hand, has 809.1% lower power consumption.
The GeForce GTX 560M SLI is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce 8400M GS in performance tests.
Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Comparisons with similar GPUs
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
