GeForce 3 Go vs Radeon HD 8400
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 1171 | not rated |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 1.91 | no data |
| Architecture | GCN 2.0 (2013−2017) | no data |
| GPU code name | Kalindi | no data |
| Market segment | Desktop | Laptop |
| Release date | 23 November 2013 (10 years ago) | 1 February 2002 (22 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 | 128 | no data |
| Core clock speed | 400 MHz | no data |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 250 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 1,178 million | 27 Million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 150 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 25 Watt | 2 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 3.200 | no data |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.1024 TFLOPS | no data |
| ROPs | 4 | no data |
| TMUs | 8 | no data |
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 | no data | medium sized |
| Interface | IGP | no data |
| Width | IGP | no 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 type | System Shared | DDR |
| Maximum RAM amount | System Shared | 64 MB |
| Memory bus width | System Shared | 32 / 64 / 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | System Shared | no data |
| 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 outputs | no data |
API compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (12_0) | DDR |
| Shader Model | 6.3 | no data |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | no data |
| OpenCL | 2.0 | no data |
| Vulkan | 1.2.131 | - |
Pros & cons summary
| Recency | 23 November 2013 | 1 February 2002 |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 150 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 25 Watt | 2 Watt |
HD 8400 has an age advantage of 11 years, and a 435.7% more advanced lithography process.
GeForce 3 Go, on the other hand, has 1150% lower power consumption.
We couldn't decide between Radeon HD 8400 and GeForce 3 Go. We've got no test results to judge.
Be aware that Radeon HD 8400 is a desktop card while GeForce 3 Go is a notebook one.
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.
