RTX A400 vs Radeon HD 8610G IGP

VS

Primary details

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

Place in the rankingnot rated389
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiencyno data17.85
ArchitectureTeraScale 3 (2010−2013)Ampere (2020−2024)
GPU code nameDevastatorGA107
Market segmentLaptopWorkstation
Release date23 May 2013 (11 years ago)16 April 2024 (less than a year 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 cores384768
Core clock speed533 MHz727 MHz
Boost clock speed626 MHz1762 MHz
Number of transistors1,303 million8,700 million
Manufacturing process technology32 nm8 nm
Power consumption (TDP)35 Watt50 Watt
Texture fill rate15.0242.29
Floating-point processing power0.4808 TFLOPS2.706 TFLOPS
ROPs816
TMUs2424
Tensor Coresno data24
Ray Tracing Coresno data6

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 4.0 x8
Lengthno data163 mm
Widthno data1-slot
Supplementary power connectorsno dataNone

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 SharedGDDR6
Maximum RAM amountSystem Shared4 GB
Memory bus widthSystem Shared64 Bit
Memory clock speedSystem Shared1500 MHz
Memory bandwidthno data96 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 outputs4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a

API compatibility

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

DirectX11.2 (11_0)12 Ultimate (12_2)
Shader Model5.06.7
OpenGL4.44.6
OpenCL1.23.0
VulkanN/A1.3
CUDA-8.6

Pros & cons summary


Recency 23 May 2013 16 April 2024
Chip lithography 32 nm 8 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 35 Watt 50 Watt

HD 8610G IGP has 42.9% lower power consumption.

RTX A400, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 10 years, and a 300% more advanced lithography process.

We couldn't decide between Radeon HD 8610G IGP and RTX A400. We've got no test results to judge.

Be aware that Radeon HD 8610G IGP is a notebook card while RTX A400 is a workstation 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 8610G IGP
Radeon HD 8610G IGP
NVIDIA RTX A400
RTX A400

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.


No user ratings yet.

Rate Radeon HD 8610G IGP on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
2.9 15 votes

Rate RTX A400 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.