GMA 3150 vs Radeon HD 8400

#ad 
Buy
VS

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking11911551
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 nameKalindiPineview
Market segmentDesktopLaptop
Release date23 November 2013 (11 years ago)9 May 2007 (17 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 cores12816
Core clock speed400 MHz400 MHz
Number of transistors1,178 million123 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm45 nm
Power consumption (TDP)25 Watt13 Watt
Texture fill rate3.2000.8
Floating-point processing power0.1024 TFLOPS0.0128 TFLOPS
ROPs41
TMUs82

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).

InterfaceIGPPCI
WidthIGPno data

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++

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 and SDK 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

Synthetic benchmark performance

Non-gaming benchmark results comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.



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.

HD 8400 267
+13250%
GMA 3150 2

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 HD10no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Atomic Heart 2−3 no data
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3 no data

Full HD
Medium Preset

Atomic Heart 2−3 no data
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3 no data
Forza Horizon 4 4−5 no data
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 8−9 no data
Valorant 27−30 no data

Full HD
High Preset

Atomic Heart 2−3 no data
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 19 no data
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3 no data
Dota 2 9 no data
Forza Horizon 4 4−5 no data
Metro Exodus 1−2 no data
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 8−9 no data
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 4−5 no data
Valorant 27−30 no data

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 2−3 no data
Dota 2 8 no data
Forza Horizon 4 4−5 no data
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 8−9 no data
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 4−5 no data
Valorant 27−30 no data

1440p
High Preset

Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 2−3 no data
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 6−7 no data

1440p
Ultra Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 0−1 no data
Forza Horizon 4 2−3 no data
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 1−2 no data

1440p
Epic Preset

Fortnite 1−2 no data

4K
High Preset

Grand Theft Auto V 14−16 no data
Valorant 4−5 no data

4K
Ultra Preset

Far Cry 5 1−2 no data
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 2−3 no data

4K
Epic Preset

Fortnite 2−3 no data

Pros & cons summary


Recency 23 November 2013 9 May 2007
Chip lithography 28 nm 45 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 25 Watt 13 Watt

HD 8400 has an age advantage of 6 years, and a 60.7% more advanced lithography process.

GMA 3150, on the other hand, has 92.3% lower power consumption.

We couldn't decide between Radeon HD 8400 and GMA 3150. We've got no test results to judge.

Be aware that Radeon HD 8400 is a desktop card while GMA 3150 is a notebook one.

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 3150
GMA 3150

Other comparisons

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.


2.8 153 votes

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
2.5 142 votes

Rate GMA 3150 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about Radeon HD 8400 or GMA 3150, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.