GeForce 8400M GT vs Radeon X1650 SE

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.

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

Based on actual market prices and performance benchmarks.

Performance Comparison

About G3D Mark

🏆 Chipversus Verdict

⚠️ Generational Difference

The Radeon X1650 SE is significantly newer (2023 vs 2014). The Radeon X1650 SE 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 Radeon X1650 SE is the superior choice for raw performance. It leads with a 6% higher G3D Mark score and 100% more VRAM (512 MB vs 256 MB). 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	Radeon X1650 SE
Performance	❌Lower raw frame rates (-6%)	✅Leading raw performance (+6%)
Longevity	🛑Obsolete Architecture (2014 / Maxwell (2014−2017))	RDNA 2.0 (2020−2025) (7nm)
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 X1650 SE, it costs 39% less. While it maintains basic entry-level capabilities, this results in a 54.1% higher cost efficiency score.

Insight	GeForce 8400M GT	Radeon X1650 SE
Cost Efficiency	✅Better overall value (+54.1%)	❌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.

GeForce 8400M GT Benchmark Check

Radeon X1650 SE Benchmark Check

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of GeForce 8400M GT and Radeon X1650 SE

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 X1650 SE

The Radeon X1650 SE is manufactured by AMD. It was released in October 17 2023. It features the RDNA 2.0 architecture. The boost clock speed is 2581 MHz. It has 2560 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 250W. Manufactured using 7 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 71 points. Launch price was $549.

⚡

Graphics Performance

In G3D Mark, the GeForce 8400M GT scores 67 versus the Radeon X1650 SE's 71 — the Radeon X1650 SE leads by 6%. The GeForce 8400M GT is built on Maxwell while the Radeon X1650 SE uses RDNA 2.0, both on 28 nm vs 7 nm. Shader units: 384 (GeForce 8400M GT) vs 2,560 (Radeon X1650 SE). Boost clocks: 1124 MHz vs 2581 MHz.

Feature	GeForce 8400M GT	Radeon X1650 SE
G3D Mark Score	67	71+6%
Architecture	Maxwell	RDNA 2.0
Process Node	28 nm	7 nm
Shading Units	384	2560+567%
Boost Clock	1124 MHz	2581 MHz+130%
ROPs	8	64+700%
TMUs	16	160+900%

✨

Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)

Feature	GeForce 8400M GT	Radeon X1650 SE
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 X1650 SE has 512 MB. The Radeon X1650 SE offers 100% more capacity, crucial for higher resolutions and texture-heavy games. Bus width: 128-bit vs 64-bit.

Feature	GeForce 8400M GT	Radeon X1650 SE
VRAM Capacity	0.25 GB	0.5 GB+100%
Memory Type	GDDR5	GDDR5
Bus Width	128-bit+100%	64-bit

🖥️

Display & API Support

DirectX support: 10.0 (GeForce 8400M GT) vs 9.0c (Radeon X1650 SE). OpenGL: 3.3 vs 2.1. Maximum simultaneous displays: 1 vs 2.

Feature	GeForce 8400M GT	Radeon X1650 SE
DirectX	10.0+11%	9.0c
OpenGL	3.3+57%	2.1
Max Displays	1	2+100%

🎬

Media & Encoding

Hardware encoder: No (GeForce 8400M GT) vs Avivo (Radeon X1650 SE). Decoder: PureVideo HD VP2 vs Avivo. Supported codecs: MPEG-2,H.264,VC-1 (GeForce 8400M GT) vs MPEG-2,WMV9 (Radeon X1650 SE).

Feature	GeForce 8400M GT	Radeon X1650 SE
Encoder	No	Avivo
Decoder	PureVideo HD VP2	Avivo
Codecs	MPEG-2,H.264,VC-1	MPEG-2,WMV9

🔌

Power & Dimensions

The GeForce 8400M GT draws 33W versus the Radeon X1650 SE's 250W — a 153.4% difference. The GeForce 8400M GT is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 350W (GeForce 8400M GT) vs 350W (Radeon X1650 SE). Power connectors: Legacy vs PCIe-powered. Typical load temperature: 75°C vs 75°C.

Feature	GeForce 8400M GT	Radeon X1650 SE
TDP	33W-87%	250W
Recommended PSU	350W	350W
Power Connector	Legacy	PCIe-powered
Length	0mm	—
Height	0mm	—
Slots	0-100%	1
Temp (Load)	75°C	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 Radeon X1650 SE launched at $0 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 1.4 (Radeon X1650 SE) — the GeForce 8400M GT offers 57.1% better value. The Radeon X1650 SE is the newer GPU (2023 vs 2014).