GeForce GT 325M vs Radeon HD 8400

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon HD 8400 with GeForce GT 325M, including specs and performance data.

HD 8400
2013
25 Watt
0.69
+56.8%

HD 8400 outperforms GT 325M by an impressive 57% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking11731243
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiency1.921.33
ArchitectureGCN 2.0 (2013−2017)Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013)
GPU code nameKalindiGT216
Market segmentDesktopLaptop
Release date23 November 2013 (11 years ago)10 January 2010 (14 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 cores12848
Core clock speed400 MHz450 MHz
Number of transistors1,178 million486 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)25 Watt23 Watt
Texture fill rate3.2007.200
Floating-point processing power0.1024 TFLOPS0.09504 TFLOPS
Gigaflopsno data142
ROPs48
TMUs816

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 sizeno datamedium sized
Bus supportno dataPCI-E 2.0
InterfaceIGPPCIe 2.0 x16
WidthIGPno data
SLI options-+

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 SharedDDR3
Maximum RAM amountSystem Shared1 GB
Memory bus widthSystem Shared128 Bit
Memory clock speedSystem SharedUp to 1066 (DDR3), Up to 800 (GDDR3) MHz
Memory bandwidthno data22.4 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 ConnectorsNo outputsDual Link DVIDisplayPortHDMIVGASingle Link DVI
Multi monitor supportno data+
HDMI-+
Maximum VGA resolutionno data2048x1536

Supported technologies

Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.

Power managementno data8.0

API compatibility

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

DirectX12 (12_0)11.1 (10_1)
Shader Model6.34.1
OpenGL4.62.1
OpenCL2.01.1
Vulkan1.2.131N/A
CUDA-+

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. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.

HD 8400 0.69
+56.8%
GT 325M 0.44

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 265
+56.8%
GT 325M 169

3DMark Vantage Performance

3DMark Vantage is an outdated DirectX 10 benchmark using 1280x1024 screen resolution. It taxes the graphics card with two scenes, one depicting a girl escaping some militarized base located within a sea cave, the other displaying a space fleet attack on a defenseless planet. It was discontinued in April 2017, and Time Spy benchmark is now recommended to be used instead.

HD 8400 2013
GT 325M 2161
+7.4%

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 HD10
+66.7%
6−7
−66.7%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
+50%
2−3
−50%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 4−5
+33.3%
3−4
−33.3%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3−4
+50%
2−3
−50%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
+50%
2−3
−50%
Far Cry New Dawn 1−2 0−1
Hitman 3 5−6
+25%
4−5
−25%
Horizon Zero Dawn 10−12
+37.5%
8−9
−37.5%
Red Dead Redemption 2 0−1 0−1
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 6−7
+50%
4−5
−50%
Watch Dogs: Legion 30−33
+7.1%
27−30
−7.1%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 4−5
+33.3%
3−4
−33.3%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3−4
+50%
2−3
−50%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
+50%
2−3
−50%
Far Cry New Dawn 1−2 0−1
Hitman 3 5−6
+25%
4−5
−25%
Horizon Zero Dawn 10−12
+37.5%
8−9
−37.5%
Red Dead Redemption 2 0−1 0−1
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 6−7
+50%
4−5
−50%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 10−11
+11.1%
9−10
−11.1%
Watch Dogs: Legion 30−33
+7.1%
27−30
−7.1%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 4−5
+33.3%
3−4
−33.3%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3−4
+50%
2−3
−50%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
+50%
2−3
−50%
Hitman 3 5−6
+25%
4−5
−25%
Horizon Zero Dawn 10−12
+37.5%
8−9
−37.5%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 6−7
+50%
4−5
−50%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 10−11
+11.1%
9−10
−11.1%
Watch Dogs: Legion 30−33
+7.1%
27−30
−7.1%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 0−1 0−1

1440p
High Preset

Far Cry New Dawn 1−2 0−1

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 0−1 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2 0−1
Far Cry 5 1−2 0−1
Hitman 3 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 3−4
+50%
2−3
−50%
Watch Dogs: Legion 2−3
+100%
1−2
−100%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 3−4
+50%
2−3
−50%

4K
High Preset

Far Cry New Dawn 0−1 0−1

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 0−1 0−1

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%

This is how HD 8400 and GT 325M compete in popular games:

  • HD 8400 is 67% faster in 1080p

Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:

  • in Cyberpunk 2077, with 1080p resolution and the Low Preset, the HD 8400 is 50% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • HD 8400 is ahead in 26 tests (90%)
  • there's a draw in 3 tests (10%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 0.69 0.44
Recency 23 November 2013 10 January 2010
Chip lithography 28 nm 40 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 25 Watt 23 Watt

HD 8400 has a 56.8% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 3 years, and a 42.9% more advanced lithography process.

GT 325M, on the other hand, has 8.7% lower power consumption.

The Radeon HD 8400 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GT 325M in performance tests.

Be aware that Radeon HD 8400 is a desktop card while GeForce GT 325M is a notebook one.


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
NVIDIA GeForce GT 325M
GeForce GT 325M

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
2.5 12 votes

Rate GeForce GT 325M 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.