GMA 3000 vs Radeon HD 8400

VS

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking1168not rated
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiency1.91no data
ArchitectureGCN 2.0 (2013−2017)Generation 4.0 (2006−2007)
GPU code nameKalindiBroadwater
Market segmentDesktopDesktop
Release date23 November 2013 (10 years ago)1 June 2006 (18 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 cores128no data
Core clock speed400 MHz400 MHz
Number of transistors1,178 millionno data
Manufacturing process technology28 nm90 nm
Power consumption (TDP)25 Watt13 Watt
Texture fill rate3.2001.600
Floating-point processing power0.1024 TFLOPSno data
ROPs44
TMUs84

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).

InterfaceIGPPCIe 1.0 x16
WidthIGPIGP

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 typeSystem SharedSystem Shared
Maximum RAM amountSystem SharedSystem Shared
Memory bus widthSystem SharedSystem Shared
Memory clock speedSystem SharedSystem Shared
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 outputsNo outputs

API compatibility

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

DirectX12 (12_0)9.0c
Shader Model6.33.0
OpenGL4.62.0
OpenCL2.0N/A
Vulkan1.2.131N/A

Pros & cons summary


Recency 23 November 2013 1 June 2006
Chip lithography 28 nm 90 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 25 Watt 13 Watt

HD 8400 has an age advantage of 7 years, and a 221.4% more advanced lithography process.

GMA 3000, on the other hand, has 92.3% lower power consumption.

We couldn't decide between Radeon HD 8400 and GMA 3000. We've got no test results to judge.


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.


AMD Radeon HD 8400
Radeon HD 8400
Intel GMA 3000
GMA 3000

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.


2.8 128 votes

Rate Radeon HD 8400 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
2.6 45 votes

Rate GMA 3000 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.