GeForce 8400M GT vs Radeon R5 M320
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon R5 M320 and GeForce 8400M GT, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
R5 M320 outperforms 8400M GT by a whopping 594% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 1068 | 1411 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | no data | 0.83 |
| Architecture | GCN 1.0 (2011−2020) | Tesla (2006−2010) |
| GPU code name | Jet | G86 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Release date | 5 May 2015 (9 years ago) | 9 May 2007 (17 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 | 320 | 16 |
| Compute units | 5 | no data |
| Core clock speed | 780 MHz | 450 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 855 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 690 million | 210 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 80 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | unknown | 14 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 17.10 | 3.600 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.5472 TFLOPS | 0.0288 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 8 | 4 |
| TMUs | 20 | 8 |
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).
| Bus support | PCIe 3.0 | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x8 | PCIe 1.0 x16 |
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 | DDR3 | GDDR3 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 512 MB |
| Memory bus width | 64 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1000 MHz | 600 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 16 GB/s | 19.2 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 Connectors | No outputs | No outputs |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| HD3D | + | - |
| PowerTune | + | - |
| DualGraphics | + | - |
| ZeroCore | + | - |
| Switchable graphics | + | - |
API compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | DirectX® 12 | 11.1 (10_0) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 4.0 |
| OpenGL | 4.4 | 3.3 |
| OpenCL | Not Listed | 1.1 |
| Vulkan | + | N/A |
| Mantle | + | - |
| CUDA | - | 1.1 |
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.
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.
Gaming performance
Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.
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 | 5−6
+66.7%
|
3−4
−66.7%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 4−5
+100%
|
2−3
−100%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
+50%
|
2−3
−50%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry New Dawn | 3−4 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Hitman 3 | 5−6
+25%
|
4−5
−25%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 14−16
+75%
|
8−9
−75%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 7−8
+75%
|
4−5
−75%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 30−35
+14.3%
|
27−30
−14.3%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 5−6
+66.7%
|
3−4
−66.7%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 4−5
+100%
|
2−3
−100%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
+50%
|
2−3
−50%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry New Dawn | 3−4 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Hitman 3 | 5−6
+25%
|
4−5
−25%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 14−16
+75%
|
8−9
−75%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 7−8
+75%
|
4−5
−75%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 10−12
+22.2%
|
9−10
−22.2%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 30−35
+14.3%
|
27−30
−14.3%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 5−6
+66.7%
|
3−4
−66.7%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 4−5
+100%
|
2−3
−100%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
+50%
|
2−3
−50%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Hitman 3 | 5−6
+25%
|
4−5
−25%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 14−16
+75%
|
8−9
−75%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 7−8
+75%
|
4−5
−75%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 10−12
+22.2%
|
9−10
−22.2%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 30−35
+14.3%
|
27−30
−14.3%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 2−3 | 0−1 |
1440p
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry New Dawn | 2−3 | 0−1 |
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Hitman 3 | 7−8
+16.7%
|
6−7
−16.7%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 4−5
+100%
|
2−3
−100%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 5−6 | 0−1 |
1440p
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 4−5
+100%
|
2−3
−100%
|
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 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
4K
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Call of Duty: Modern Warfare, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the R5 M320 is 100% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- R5 M320 is ahead in 27 tests (93%)
- there's a draw in 2 tests (7%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 1.18 | 0.17 |
| Recency | 5 May 2015 | 9 May 2007 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 512 MB |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 80 nm |
R5 M320 has a 594.1% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 7 years, a 700% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 185.7% more advanced lithography process.
The Radeon R5 M320 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce 8400M GT in performance tests.
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.
