GeForce 8400M GT vs Quadro FX 550

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. Components placed above yours deliver better value for money. The GeForce 8400M GT is positioned at rank 682 and the Quadro FX 550 is on rank 385, so the Quadro FX 550 offers better cost-efficiency for playing games.

MSRP is the manufacturer's suggested retail price.•
Avg price is the current average price collected from markets across the web.

Performance Per Dollar GeForce 8400M GT

#672

Radeon RX 550X (móvel)

MSRP: $35|Avg: $35

8102%

#674

GeForce GTX 1070 with Max-Q Design

MSRP: N/A|Avg: $150

7345%

#675

GeForce GTX 1060 with Max-Q Design

MSRP: N/A|Avg: $100

7325%

#679

GeForce GTX 1050 (Mobile)

MSRP: N/A|Avg: $50

6661%

#680

Radeon RX 6300

MSRP: $60|Avg: $40

6616%

#682

GeForce 8400M GT

MSRP: $50|Avg: $30

100%

#683

GeForce 9200M GS

MSRP: $100|Avg: $40

96%

#684

Mobility Radeon HD 3410

MSRP: $49|Avg: $10

96%

#685

MOBILITY RADEON X700 XL

MSRP: $49|Avg: $10

91%

#686

GeForce 9300M GS

MSRP: $100|Avg: $10

88%

#687

Mobility Radeon HD 2400

MSRP: $79|Avg: $1

85%

#688

GeForce 6150 LE

MSRP: $30|Avg: $10

82%

#689

Mobility Radeon HD 3870 X2

MSRP: $449|Avg: $50

79%

#690

GeForce 9450

MSRP: $100|Avg: $25

78%

#691

GeForce 9800 GX2

MSRP: $599|Avg: $75

76%

#692

GeForce 7900 GS

MSRP: $259|Avg: $50

75%

#693

MOBILITY RADEON X600

MSRP: $50|Avg: $10

75%

#694

Mobility Radeon HD 4250

MSRP: $100|Avg: $15

73%

#695

Mobility Radeon X2300 HD

MSRP: $50|Avg: $10

73%

#696

Mobility Radeon X2300

MSRP: $49|Avg: $15

73%

#697

Mobility Radeon HD 2600 XT

MSRP: $199|Avg: $12

72%

Based on actual market prices and performance benchmarks.

Performance Per Dollar Quadro FX 550

#370

Tesla K20m

MSRP: $3199|Avg: $55

34356%

#385

Quadro FX 550

MSRP: $150|Avg: $10

100%

#386

Quadro FX 350

MSRP: $199|Avg: $15

100%

#387

Tesla M2070

MSRP: $3099|Avg: $50

98%

#388

GRID V100D-8Q

MSRP: $10000|Avg: $10000

98%

#389

GRID M10-0Q

MSRP: $2000|Avg: $150

93%

#390

Quadro FX 560

MSRP: $299|Avg: $15

88%

#391

GRID V100-2Q

MSRP: $10000|Avg: $2000

88%

#392

Quadro FX 5800

MSRP: $3499|Avg: $40

81%

#393

FireStream 9170

MSRP: $1999|Avg: $20

74%

#394

RTX Pro 6000 Blackwell DC-12Q

MSRP: $8565|Avg: $8565

74%

#395

Quadro FX 1700

MSRP: $699|Avg: $500

72%

#396

GRID P40-6Q

MSRP: $3000|Avg: $150

70%

#397

Quadro FX 540

MSRP: $299|Avg: $15

63%

#398

Quadro FX 1500

MSRP: $699|Avg: $30

56%

#399

Quadro 7000

MSRP: $14499|Avg: $300

56%

#400

Tesla M2070-Q

MSRP: $5489|Avg: $50

56%

Based on actual market prices and performance benchmarks.

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 550 lacks this hardware feature set, limiting its longevity in modern titles despite any raw power similarities.

🚀 Performance Leadership

The GeForce 8400M GT is the superior choice for raw performance. It leads with a 4.7% higher G3D Mark score and 100% more VRAM (256 MB vs 128 MB). This advantage makes it significantly better for higher resolutions (1440p/4K) and graphic-intensive titles compared to the Quadro FX 550.

Insight	GeForce 8400M GT	Quadro FX 550
Performance	✅Leading raw performance (+4.7%)	❌Lower raw frame rates (-4.7%)
Longevity	🛑Obsolete Architecture (2014 / Maxwell (2014−2017))	🛑Obsolete Architecture (2008 / Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013))
Ecosystem	Supports FSR Upscaling	Supports FSR Upscaling
VRAM	✅ More VRAM (+100%)	❌ Less VRAM capacity
Efficiency	💡 Excellent Perf/Watt	⚡ Higher Power Consumption
Case Fit	—	—

💎 Value Proposition

The Quadro FX 550 offers a compelling cost-to-performance ratio. While both GPUs are considered legacy components by modern standards, the Quadro FX 550 holds the technical lead. Priced at $10 (vs $30), it costs 67% less, resulting in a 186.6% higher cost efficiency score.

Insight	GeForce 8400M GT	Quadro FX 550
Cost Efficiency	❌Lower cost efficiency	✅Better overall value (+186.6%)
Upfront Cost	⚠️Higher upfront cost ($30)	✅More affordable ($10)

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.

GeForce 8400M GT Benchmark Check

Quadro FX 550 Benchmark Check

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of GeForce 8400M GT and Quadro FX 550

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 550

The Quadro FX 550 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: 64 points. Launch price was $3,499.

⚡

Graphics Performance

The GeForce 8400M GT scores 67 and the Quadro FX 550 reaches 64 in the G3D Mark benchmark — just a 4.7% difference, making them near-identical in rasterization performance. The GeForce 8400M GT is built on Maxwell while the Quadro FX 550 uses Tesla 2.0, both on 28 nm vs 55 nm. Shader units: 384 (GeForce 8400M GT) vs 240 (Quadro FX 550). Raw compute: 0.8632 TFLOPS (GeForce 8400M GT) vs 0.6221 TFLOPS (Quadro FX 550).

Feature	GeForce 8400M GT	Quadro FX 550
G3D Mark Score	67+5%	64
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 550
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)

The GeForce 8400M GT comes with 256 MB of VRAM, while the Quadro FX 550 has 128 MB. The GeForce 8400M GT offers 100% more capacity, crucial for higher resolutions and texture-heavy games. Bus width: 128-bit vs 64-bit. L2 Cache: 1 MB (GeForce 8400M GT) vs 0.25 MB (Quadro FX 550) — the GeForce 8400M GT has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.

Feature	GeForce 8400M GT	Quadro FX 550
VRAM Capacity	0.25 GB+100%	0.125 GB
Memory Type	GDDR5	GDDR5
Bus Width	128-bit+100%	64-bit
L2 Cache	1 MB+300%	0.25 MB

🔌

Power & Dimensions

The GeForce 8400M GT draws 33W versus the Quadro FX 550's 189W — a 140.5% difference. The GeForce 8400M GT is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 350W (GeForce 8400M GT) vs 350W (Quadro FX 550). Power connectors: Legacy vs PCIe-powered.

Feature	GeForce 8400M GT	Quadro FX 550
TDP	33W-83%	189W
Recommended PSU	350W	350W
Power Connector	Legacy	PCIe-powered
Length	0mm	—
Height	0mm	—
Slots	0	—
Temp (Load)	75°C	—
Perf/Watt	2.0+567%	0.3

💰

Value Analysis

The GeForce 8400M GT launched at $50 MSRP and currently averages $30, while the Quadro FX 550 launched at $150 and now averages $10. The Quadro FX 550 costs 66.7% less ($20 savings) at current market prices. Performance per dollar (G3D Mark / price): 2.2 (GeForce 8400M GT) vs 6.4 (Quadro FX 550) — the Quadro FX 550 offers 190.9% better value. The GeForce 8400M GT is the newer GPU (2014 vs 2008).