GeForce GTX 260 216 vs Radeon HD 8400

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking1173not rated
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiency1.92no data
ArchitectureGCN 2.0 (2013−2017)Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013)
GPU code nameKalindiGT200
Market segmentDesktopDesktop
Release date23 November 2013 (11 years ago)16 September 2008 (16 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)no data$299

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 cores128216
Core clock speed400 MHz576 MHz
Number of transistors1,178 million1,400 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm65 nm
Power consumption (TDP)25 Watt182 Watt
Texture fill rate3.20041.47
Floating-point processing power0.1024 TFLOPS0.5365 TFLOPS
ROPs428
TMUs872

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 2.0 x16
Lengthno data267 mm
WidthIGP2-slot
Supplementary power connectorsno data2x 6-pin

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 SharedGDDR3
Maximum RAM amountSystem Shared896 MB
Memory bus widthSystem Shared448 Bit
Memory clock speedSystem Shared999 MHz
Memory bandwidthno data111.9 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 outputs2x DVI, 1x S-Video

API compatibility

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

DirectX12 (12_0)11.1 (10_0)
Shader Model6.34.0
OpenGL4.63.3
OpenCL2.01.1
Vulkan1.2.131N/A
CUDA-1.3

Pros & cons summary


Recency 23 November 2013 16 September 2008
Chip lithography 28 nm 65 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 25 Watt 182 Watt

HD 8400 has an age advantage of 5 years, a 132.1% more advanced lithography process, and 628% lower power consumption.

We couldn't decide between Radeon HD 8400 and GeForce GTX 260 Core 216. 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
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 260 Core 216
GeForce GTX 260 Core 216

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
4.3 12 votes

Rate GeForce GTX 260 Core 216 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.