GeForce 8400M GS vs Radeon RX Vega 5
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon RX Vega 5 and GeForce 8400M GS, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
RX Vega 5 outperforms 8400M GS by a whopping 1557% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 649 | 1340 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 21.58 | 1.78 |
| Architecture | Vega (2017−2020) | Tesla (2006−2010) |
| GPU code name | Vega | G86 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Release date | 7 January 2020 (4 years ago) | 9 May 2007 (17 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $14.99 |
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 |
| Core clock speed | no data | 400 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1400 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | no data | 210 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 7 nm | 80 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 15 Watt | 11 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | no data | 3.200 |
| Floating-point processing power | no data | 0.0256 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | no data | 4 |
| TMUs | no data | 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).
| Interface | no data | MXM-I |
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 | no data | DDR2 |
| Maximum RAM amount | no data | 256 MB |
| Memory bus width | no data | 64 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | no data | 400 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | no data | 6.4 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 Connectors | no data | No outputs |
API compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12_1 | 11.1 (10_0) |
| Shader Model | no data | 4.0 |
| OpenGL | no data | 3.3 |
| OpenCL | no data | 1.1 |
| Vulkan | - | N/A |
| CUDA | - | 1.1 |
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 | 18
+1700%
| 1−2
−1700%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | no data | 14.99 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 9
+350%
|
2−3
−350%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 15
+400%
|
3−4
−400%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 12 | 0−1 |
| Battlefield 5 | 12−14 | 0−1 |
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 13
+550%
|
2−3
−550%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 8−9
+300%
|
2−3
−300%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 10−11 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry New Dawn | 12−14 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 27−30
+2800%
|
1−2
−2800%
|
| Hitman 3 | 8
+100%
|
4−5
−100%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 30−35
+288%
|
8−9
−288%
|
| Metro Exodus | 20
+1900%
|
1−2
−1900%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 18
+1700%
|
1−2
−1700%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 16−18
+325%
|
4−5
−325%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 45−50
+60.7%
|
27−30
−60.7%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 12−14
+333%
|
3−4
−333%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 4−5 | 0−1 |
| Battlefield 5 | 12−14 | 0−1 |
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 12
+500%
|
2−3
−500%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 8−9
+300%
|
2−3
−300%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 10−11 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry New Dawn | 12−14 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 27−30
+2800%
|
1−2
−2800%
|
| Hitman 3 | 10−11
+150%
|
4−5
−150%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 30−35
+288%
|
8−9
−288%
|
| Metro Exodus | 15 | 0−1 |
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 14 | 0−1 |
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 17
+325%
|
4−5
−325%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 16−18
+88.9%
|
9−10
−88.9%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 45−50
+60.7%
|
27−30
−60.7%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 12−14
+333%
|
3−4
−333%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 4−5 | 0−1 |
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 10−11
+400%
|
2−3
−400%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 8−9
+300%
|
2−3
−300%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 10−11 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 27−30
+2800%
|
1−2
−2800%
|
| Hitman 3 | 10−11
+150%
|
4−5
−150%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 30−35
+288%
|
8−9
−288%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 14
+250%
|
4−5
−250%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 9
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 45−50
+60.7%
|
27−30
−60.7%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 12 | 0−1 |
1440p
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 9−10 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry New Dawn | 7−8 | 0−1 |
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 4−5 | 0−1 |
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 4−5 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 5−6 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 9−10 | 0−1 |
| Hitman 3 | 9−10
+50%
|
6−7
−50%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 10−12
+450%
|
2−3
−450%
|
| Metro Exodus | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 4−5 | 0−1 |
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 27−30
+2800%
|
1−2
−2800%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 9−10
+350%
|
2−3
−350%
|
4K
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 3−4 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry New Dawn | 3−4 | 0−1 |
| Hitman 3 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 4−5 | 0−1 |
| Metro Exodus | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 0−1 | 0−1 |
4K
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 3−4
+200%
|
1−2
−200%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 4−5 | 0−1 |
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 1−2 | 0−1 |
4K
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 5−6
+150%
|
2−3
−150%
|
This is how RX Vega 5 and 8400M GS compete in popular games:
- RX Vega 5 is 1700% faster in 1080p
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 RX Vega 5 is 550% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- RX Vega 5 is ahead in 28 tests (97%)
- there's a draw in 1 test (3%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 4.64 | 0.28 |
| Recency | 7 January 2020 | 9 May 2007 |
| Chip lithography | 7 nm | 80 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 15 Watt | 11 Watt |
RX Vega 5 has a 1557.1% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 12 years, and a 1042.9% more advanced lithography process.
8400M GS, on the other hand, has 36.4% lower power consumption.
The Radeon RX Vega 5 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce 8400M GS 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.
