CPU
GPU
GeForce 8400M GT
Popular choices:
Radeon 2100
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. Components placed above yours deliver better value for money. The GeForce 8400M GT is positioned at rank 682 and the Radeon 2100 is on rank 725, so the GeForce 8400M GT offers better cost-efficiency for playing games.
Avg price is the current average price collected from markets across the web.
Performance Per Dollar GeForce 8400M GT
Performance Per Dollar Radeon 2100
Performance Comparison
About G3D Mark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
⚠️ Generational Difference
The Radeon 2100 uses modern memory architecture. The Radeon 2100 likely supports modern features like Ray Tracing, Tensor Cores, and DLSS/FSR upscaling, which act as force multipliers for performance. The GeForce 8400M GT 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 11.7% higher G3D Mark score. However, the Radeon 2100 offers more VRAM, which may be beneficial for texture-heavy scenarios at higher resolutions.
| Insight | GeForce 8400M GT | Radeon 2100 |
|---|---|---|
| Performance | ✅Leading raw performance (+11.7%) | ❌Lower raw frame rates (-11.7%) |
| Longevity | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2014 / Maxwell (2014−2017)) | GCN 3.0 (2014−2019) (28nm) |
| Ecosystem | Supports FSR Upscaling | Supports FSR Upscaling |
| VRAM | ❌ Less VRAM capacity | ✅ More VRAM (+100%) |
| Efficiency | 💡 Excellent Perf/Watt | ⚡ Higher Power Consumption |
| Case Fit | — | — |
💎 Value Proposition
The GeForce 8400M GT offers a compelling cost-to-performance ratio. Priced at $30 versus $49 for the Radeon 2100, it costs 39% less. While it maintains basic entry-level capabilities, this results in a 82.4% higher cost efficiency score.
| Insight | GeForce 8400M GT | Radeon 2100 |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ✅Better overall value (+82.4%) | ❌Lower cost efficiency |
| Upfront Cost | ✅More affordable ($30) | ⚠️Higher upfront cost ($49) |
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 Radeon 2100
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.
Radeon 2100
The Radeon 2100 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in May 13 2019. It features the GCN 3.0 architecture. The core clock ranges from 730 MHz to 1024 MHz. It has 384 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 50W. Manufactured using 28 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 60 points.
Graphics Performance
In G3D Mark, the GeForce 8400M GT scores 67 versus the Radeon 2100's 60 — the GeForce 8400M GT leads by 11.7%. The GeForce 8400M GT is built on Maxwell while the Radeon 2100 uses GCN 3.0, both on a 28 nm process. Shader units: 384 (GeForce 8400M GT) vs 384 (Radeon 2100). Raw compute: 0.8632 TFLOPS (GeForce 8400M GT) vs 0.7864 TFLOPS (Radeon 2100). Boost clocks: 1124 MHz vs 1024 MHz.
| Feature | GeForce 8400M GT | Radeon 2100 |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 67+12% | 60 |
| Architecture | Maxwell | GCN 3.0 |
| Process Node | 28 nm | 28 nm |
| Shading Units | 384 | 384 |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 0.8632 TFLOPS+10% | 0.7864 TFLOPS |
| Boost Clock | 1124 MHz+10% | 1024 MHz |
| ROPs | 8 | 8 |
| TMUs | 16 | 24+50% |
| L1 Cache | 192 KB+100% | 96 KB |
| L2 Cache | 1 MB+669% | 0.13 MB |
Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)
| Feature | GeForce 8400M GT | Radeon 2100 |
|---|---|---|
| Upscaling Tech | FSR 1.0 (Software) | FSR 1.0 (Software) |
| Frame Generation | Not Supported | Not Supported |
| Ray Reconstruction | No | No |
| Low Latency | Standard | AMD Anti-Lag |
Video Memory (VRAM)
The GeForce 8400M GT comes with 256 MB of VRAM, while the Radeon 2100 has 512 MB. The Radeon 2100 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 0.13 MB (Radeon 2100) — the GeForce 8400M GT has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.
| Feature | GeForce 8400M GT | Radeon 2100 |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 0.25 GB | 0.5 GB+100% |
| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Bus Width | 128-bit+100% | 64-bit |
| L2 Cache | 1 MB+669% | 0.13 MB |
Display & API Support
DirectX support: 10.0 (GeForce 8400M GT) vs 9.0b (Radeon 2100). OpenGL: 3.3 vs 2.0. Maximum simultaneous displays: 1 vs 2.
| Feature | GeForce 8400M GT | Radeon 2100 |
|---|---|---|
| DirectX | 10.0+11% | 9.0b |
| OpenGL | 3.3+65% | 2.0 |
| Max Displays | 1 | 2+100% |
Media & Encoding
Hardware encoder: No (GeForce 8400M GT) vs Avivo (Radeon 2100). Decoder: PureVideo HD VP2 vs Avivo. Supported codecs: MPEG-2,H.264,VC-1 (GeForce 8400M GT) vs MPEG-2 (Radeon 2100).
| Feature | GeForce 8400M GT | Radeon 2100 |
|---|---|---|
| Encoder | No | Avivo |
| Decoder | PureVideo HD VP2 | Avivo |
| Codecs | MPEG-2,H.264,VC-1 | MPEG-2 |
Power & Dimensions
The GeForce 8400M GT draws 33W versus the Radeon 2100's 50W — a 41% difference. The GeForce 8400M GT is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 350W (GeForce 8400M GT) vs 350W (Radeon 2100). Power connectors: Legacy vs PCIe-powered.
| Feature | GeForce 8400M GT | Radeon 2100 |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 33W-34% | 50W |
| Recommended PSU | 350W | 350W |
| Power Connector | Legacy | PCIe-powered |
| Length | 0mm | — |
| Height | 0mm | — |
| Slots | 0 | 0 |
| Temp (Load) | 75°C | — |
| Perf/Watt | 2.0+67% | 1.2 |
Value Analysis
The GeForce 8400M GT launched at $50 MSRP and currently averages $30, while the Radeon 2100 launched at $149 and now averages $49. The GeForce 8400M GT costs 38.8% less ($19 savings) at current market prices. Performance per dollar (G3D Mark / price): 2.2 (GeForce 8400M GT) vs 1.2 (Radeon 2100) — the GeForce 8400M GT offers 83.3% better value. The Radeon 2100 is the newer GPU (2019 vs 2014).
| Feature | GeForce 8400M GT | Radeon 2100 |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $50-66% | $149 |
| Avg Price (30d) | $30-39% | $49 |
| Performance per Dollar | 2.2+83% | 1.2 |
| Codename | GM108 | Polaris 24 |
| Release | March 12 2014 | May 13 2019 |
| Ranking | #854 | #898 |
Top Performing GPUs
The most powerful gpus ranked by G3D Mark benchmark scores.
You May Also Compare
Similar GPU comparisons based on GeForce 8400M GT and Radeon 2100
