ATI Radeon HD 5450 vs HD 7400G
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon HD 7400G with Radeon HD 5450, including specs and performance data.
HD 7400G outperforms ATI HD 5450 by an impressive 97% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 1184 | 1301 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 2.78 | 1.26 |
| Architecture | TeraScale 3 (2010−2013) | TeraScale 2 (2009−2015) |
| GPU code name | Scrapper | Cedar |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop |
| Release date | 2 October 2012 (12 years ago) | 4 February 2010 (15 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 | 192 | 80 |
| Core clock speed | 327 MHz | 650 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 424 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 1,303 million | 292 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 32 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 17 Watt | 19 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 5.088 | 5.200 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.1628 TFLOPS | 0.104 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 4 | 4 |
| TMUs | 12 | 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 | medium sized | no data |
| Interface | IGP | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Length | no data | 170 mm |
| Width | no data | 1-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | None |
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 | System Shared | DDR2 |
| Maximum RAM amount | System Shared | 2 GB |
| Memory bus width | System Shared | 64 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | System Shared | 400 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | no data | 6.4 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 Connectors | No outputs | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x VGA |
| HDMI | - | + |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 11.2 (11_0) | 11.2 (11_0) |
| Shader Model | 5.0 | 5.0 |
| OpenGL | 4.4 | 4.4 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | N/A | N/A |
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.
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.
3DMark Fire Strike Graphics
Fire Strike is a DirectX 11 benchmark for gaming PCs. It features two separate tests displaying a fight between a humanoid and a fiery creature made of lava. Using 1920x1080 resolution, Fire Strike shows off some realistic graphics and is quite taxing on hardware.
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
| Atomic Heart | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8
+133%
|
3−4
−133%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Atomic Heart | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8
+133%
|
3−4
−133%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 4−5
+100%
|
2−3
−100%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 8−9
+100%
|
4−5
−100%
|
| Valorant | 27−30
+107%
|
14−16
−107%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8
+133%
|
3−4
−133%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 18−20
+111%
|
9−10
−111%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
| Dota 2 | 12−14
+100%
|
6−7
−100%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 4−5
+100%
|
2−3
−100%
|
| Metro Exodus | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 8−9
+100%
|
4−5
−100%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 4−5
+100%
|
2−3
−100%
|
| Valorant | 27−30
+107%
|
14−16
−107%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8
+133%
|
3−4
−133%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
| Dota 2 | 12−14
+100%
|
6−7
−100%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 4−5
+100%
|
2−3
−100%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 8−9
+100%
|
4−5
−100%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 4−5
+100%
|
2−3
−100%
|
| Valorant | 27−30
+107%
|
14−16
−107%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 4−5
+100%
|
2−3
−100%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 1−2 | 0−1 |
4K
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
+114%
|
7−8
−114%
|
| Valorant | 4−5
+100%
|
2−3
−100%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.69 | 0.35 |
| Recency | 2 October 2012 | 4 February 2010 |
| Chip lithography | 32 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 17 Watt | 19 Watt |
HD 7400G has a 97.1% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 2 years, a 25% more advanced lithography process, and 11.8% lower power consumption.
The Radeon HD 7400G is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon HD 5450 in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon HD 7400G is a notebook card while Radeon HD 5450 is a desktop one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
