
GeForce 8400M GT
Popular choices:

Quadro FX 3000
Popular choices:
Performance Spectrum - GPU
About G3D Mark
G3D Mark is a standard benchmark that measures graphics performance in real-world gaming scenarios. It simplifies comparing cards from different brands, where higher scores directly correlate with better fps and smoother gaming experiences.
Value Upgrade Path
This is the official ChipVERSUS Value Rating, comparing raw performance (G3D Mark) per dollar. The GeForce 8400M GT is positioned at rank #682 in our cost-efficiency ranking, representing a Lower cost-benefit for your build. Components placed above yours deliver better value for money.
Avg price is the current average price collected from markets across the web.
Performance Per Dollar GeForce 8400M GT
Performance Per Dollar
Performance Comparison
About G3D Mark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
⚠️ Generational Difference
The GeForce 8400M GT is significantly newer (2014 vs 2008). The GeForce 8400M GT likely supports modern features like Ray Tracing, Tensor Cores, and DLSS/FSR upscaling, which act as force multipliers for performance. The Quadro FX 3000 lacks this hardware feature set, limiting its longevity in modern titles despite any raw power similarities.
🚀 Performance Leadership
The Quadro FX 3000 is the superior choice for raw performance. It leads with a 3% higher G3D Mark score. This advantage makes it significantly better for higher resolutions (1440p/4K) and graphic-intensive titles compared to the GeForce 8400M GT.
| Insight | GeForce 8400M GT | Quadro FX 3000 |
|---|---|---|
| Performance | ❌Lower raw frame rates (-3%) | ✅Leading raw performance (+3%) |
| Longevity | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2014 / Maxwell (2014−2017)) | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2008 / Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013)) |
| Ecosystem | Supports FSR Upscaling | Supports FSR Upscaling |
| VRAM | ❌ Less VRAM capacity | ✅ More VRAM (+0%) |
| Efficiency | 💡 Excellent Perf/Watt | ⚡ Higher Power Consumption |
| Case Fit | — | 📏 Compact / SFF Friendly |
💎 Value Proposition
The Quadro FX 3000 offers a compelling cost-to-performance ratio. While both GPUs are considered legacy components by modern standards, the Quadro FX 3000 holds the technical lead. Priced at $15 (vs $30), it costs 50% less, resulting in a 106% higher cost efficiency score.
| Insight | GeForce 8400M GT | Quadro FX 3000 |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ❌Lower cost efficiency | ✅Better overall value (+106%) |
| Upfront Cost | ⚠️Higher upfront cost ($30) | ✅More affordable ($15) |
Performance Check
Real-world benchmarks and performance projections based on comprehensive hardware analysis and comparative metrics. Values represent expected performance on High/Ultra settings at 1080p, 1440p, and 4K. Modeled using a Ryzen 7 7800X3D reference profile to minimize specific CPU bottlenecks.
Note: Performance behavior can vary per game. Specific architectures may perform better or worse depending on game engine optimizations and API implementation.
Technical Specifications
Side-by-side comparison of GeForce 8400M GT and Quadro FX 3000

GeForce 8400M GT
The GeForce 8400M GT is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in March 12 2014. It features the Maxwell architecture. The core clock ranges from 1029 MHz to 1124 MHz. It has 384 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 33W. Manufactured using 28 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 67 points.

Quadro FX 3000
The Quadro FX 3000 is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in November 11 2008. It features the Tesla 2.0 architecture. The core clock speed is 610 MHz. It has 240 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 189W. Manufactured using 55 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 69 points. Launch price was $3,499.
Graphics Performance
The GeForce 8400M GT scores 67 and the Quadro FX 3000 reaches 69 in the G3D Mark benchmark — just a 3% difference, making them near-identical in rasterization performance. The GeForce 8400M GT is built on Maxwell while the Quadro FX 3000 uses Tesla 2.0, both on 28 nm vs 55 nm. Shader units: 384 (GeForce 8400M GT) vs 240 (Quadro FX 3000). Raw compute: 0.8632 TFLOPS (GeForce 8400M GT) vs 0.6221 TFLOPS (Quadro FX 3000).
| Feature | GeForce 8400M GT | Quadro FX 3000 |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 67 | 69+3% |
| Architecture | Maxwell | Tesla 2.0 |
| Process Node | 28 nm | 55 nm |
| Shading Units | 384+60% | 240 |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 0.8632 TFLOPS+39% | 0.6221 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 8 | 32+300% |
| TMUs | 16 | 80+400% |
| L2 Cache | 1 MB+300% | 0.25 MB |
Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)
| Feature | GeForce 8400M GT | Quadro FX 3000 |
|---|---|---|
| Upscaling Tech | FSR 1.0 (Software) | FSR 1.0 (Software) |
| Frame Generation | Not Supported | Not Supported |
| Ray Reconstruction | No | No |
| Low Latency | Standard | Standard |
Video Memory (VRAM)
Both cards feature 256 MB of GDDR5. Bus width: 128-bit vs 64-bit. L2 Cache: 1 MB (GeForce 8400M GT) vs 0.25 MB (Quadro FX 3000) — the GeForce 8400M GT has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.
| Feature | GeForce 8400M GT | Quadro FX 3000 |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 0.25 GB | 0.25 GB |
| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Bus Width | 128-bit+100% | 64-bit |
| L2 Cache | 1 MB+300% | 0.25 MB |
Display & API Support
DirectX support: 10.0 (GeForce 8400M GT) vs 9_0a (Quadro FX 3000). Maximum simultaneous displays: 1 vs 2.
| Feature | GeForce 8400M GT | Quadro FX 3000 |
|---|---|---|
| DirectX | 10.0+11% | 9_0a |
| Max Displays | 1 | 2+100% |
Power & Dimensions
The GeForce 8400M GT draws 33W versus the Quadro FX 3000's 189W — a 140.5% difference. The GeForce 8400M GT is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 350W (GeForce 8400M GT) vs 350W (Quadro FX 3000). Power connectors: Legacy vs PCIe-powered. Card length: 0mm vs 1mm, occupying 0 vs 2 slots.
| Feature | GeForce 8400M GT | Quadro FX 3000 |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 33W-83% | 189W |
| Recommended PSU | 350W | 350W |
| Power Connector | Legacy | PCIe-powered |
| Length | 0mm | 1mm |
| Height | 0mm | — |
| Slots | 0-100% | 2 |
| Temp (Load) | 75°C | — |
| Perf/Watt | 2.0+400% | 0.4 |
Value Analysis
The GeForce 8400M GT launched at $50 MSRP and currently averages $30, while the Quadro FX 3000 launched at $0 and now averages $15. The Quadro FX 3000 costs 50% less ($15 savings) at current market prices. Performance per dollar (G3D Mark / price): 2.2 (GeForce 8400M GT) vs 4.6 (Quadro FX 3000) — the Quadro FX 3000 offers 109.1% better value. The GeForce 8400M GT is the newer GPU (2014 vs 2008).
| Feature | GeForce 8400M GT | Quadro FX 3000 |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $50 | $0-100% |
| Avg Price (30d) | $30 | $15-50% |
| Performance per Dollar | 2.2 | 4.6+109% |
| Codename | GM108 | GT200B |
| Release | March 12 2014 | November 11 2008 |
| Ranking | #854 | #815 |
Top Performing GPUs
The most powerful gpus ranked by G3D Mark benchmark scores.
















