Radeon HD 7600G vs HD 8400

Place in the ranking	1173	1133
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Power efficiency	1.92	3.12
Architecture	GCN 2.0 (2013−2017)	TeraScale 3 (2010−2013)
GPU code name	Kalindi	Devastator
Market segment	Desktop	Laptop
Release date	23 November 2013 (11 years ago)	1 September 2012 (12 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	384
Core clock speed	400 MHz	320 MHz
Boost clock speed	no data	424 MHz
Number of transistors	1,178 million	1,303 million
Manufacturing process technology	28 nm	32 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	25 Watt	19 Watt
Texture fill rate	3.200	10.18
Floating-point processing power	0.1024 TFLOPS	0.3256 TFLOPS
ROPs	4	8
TMUs	8	24

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	IGP
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	System Shared
Maximum RAM amount	System Shared	System Shared
Memory bus width	System Shared	System Shared
Memory clock speed	System Shared	System 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 Connectors

No outputs

API compatibility

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

DirectX	12 (12_0)	11.2 (11_0)
Shader Model	6.3	5.0
OpenGL	4.6	4.4
OpenCL	2.0	1.2
Vulkan	1.2.131	N/A

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

HD 7600G 0.85
+23.2%

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

HD 7600G 327
+23.4%

3DMark 11 Performance GPU

3DMark 11 is an obsolete DirectX 11 benchmark by Futuremark. It used four tests based on two scenes, one being few submarines exploring the submerged wreck of a sunken ship, the other is an abandoned temple deep in the jungle. All the tests are heavy with volumetric lighting and tessellation, and despite being done in 1280x720 resolution, are relatively taxing. Discontinued in January 2020, 3DMark 11 is now superseded by Time Spy.

HD 8400 614

HD 7600G 628
+2.3%

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
+22.8%

HD 7600G 1639

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 HD

−20%

12−14
+20%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

3−4

+0%

3−4

+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	4−5 −25%	5−6 +25%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	3−4 +0%	3−4 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	3−4 +0%	3−4 +0%
Far Cry New Dawn	1−2 −100%	2−3 +100%
Hitman 3	5−6 +0%	5−6 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	10−12 −9.1%	12−14 +9.1%
Red Dead Redemption 2	0−1	1−2
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	6−7 −16.7%	7−8 +16.7%
Watch Dogs: Legion	30−33 −3.3%	30−35 +3.3%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	4−5 −25%	5−6 +25%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	3−4 +0%	3−4 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	3−4 +0%	3−4 +0%
Far Cry New Dawn	1−2 −100%	2−3 +100%
Hitman 3	5−6 +0%	5−6 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	10−12 −9.1%	12−14 +9.1%
Red Dead Redemption 2	0−1	1−2
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	6−7 −16.7%	7−8 +16.7%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	10−11 +0%	10−11 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	30−33 −3.3%	30−35 +3.3%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	4−5 −25%	5−6 +25%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	3−4 +0%	3−4 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	3−4 +0%	3−4 +0%
Hitman 3	5−6 +0%	5−6 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	10−12 −9.1%	12−14 +9.1%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	6−7 −16.7%	7−8 +16.7%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	10−11 +0%	10−11 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	30−33 −3.3%	30−35 +3.3%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

0−1

1−2

1440p
High Preset

Far Cry New Dawn

1−2

+0%

1−2

+0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	0−1	0−1
Cyberpunk 2077	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Far Cry 5	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Hitman 3	6−7 −16.7%	7−8 +16.7%
Horizon Zero Dawn	3−4 −33.3%	4−5 +33.3%
Watch Dogs: Legion	2−3 −50%	3−4 +50%