NVS 310 vs Radeon HD 8400
NVS 310
Popular choices:
Radeon HD 8400
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 NVS 310 is positioned at rank 305 and the Radeon HD 8400 is on rank 142, so the Radeon HD 8400 offers better cost-efficiency for playing games.
Avg price is the current average price collected from markets across the web.
Performance Per Dollar NVS 310
Performance Per Dollar Radeon HD 8400
Performance Comparison
About G3D Mark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
🚀 Performance Leadership
The NVS 310 is the superior choice for raw performance. It leads with a 1.5% higher G3D Mark score. This advantage makes it significantly better for higher resolutions (1440p/4K) and graphic-intensive titles compared to the Radeon HD 8400.
| Insight | NVS 310 | Radeon HD 8400 |
|---|---|---|
| Performance | ✅Leading raw performance (+1.5%) | ❌Lower raw frame rates (-1.5%) |
| Longevity | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2015 / Maxwell (2014−2017)) | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2012 / GCN 1.0 (2012−2020)) |
| 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 Radeon HD 8400 offers a compelling cost-to-performance ratio. While both GPUs are considered legacy components by modern standards, the Radeon HD 8400 holds the technical lead. Priced at $5 (vs $10), it costs 50% less, resulting in a 97.1% higher cost efficiency score.
| Insight | NVS 310 | Radeon HD 8400 |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ❌Lower cost efficiency | ✅Better overall value (+97.1%) |
| Upfront Cost | ⚠️Higher upfront cost ($10) | ✅More affordable ($5) |
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 NVS 310 and Radeon HD 8400
NVS 310
The NVS 310 is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in November 4 2015. It features the Maxwell architecture. The core clock ranges from 902 MHz to 1033 MHz. It has 512 ×2 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 68W. Manufactured using 28 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 275 points.
Radeon HD 8400
The Radeon HD 8400 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in March 5 2012. It features the GCN 1.0 architecture. The core clock speed is 1000 MHz. It has 1280 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 200W. Manufactured using 28 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 271 points. Launch price was $349.
Graphics Performance
The NVS 310 scores 275 and the Radeon HD 8400 reaches 271 in the G3D Mark benchmark — just a 1.5% difference, making them near-identical in rasterization performance. The NVS 310 is built on Maxwell while the Radeon HD 8400 uses GCN 1.0, both on a 28 nm process. Shader units: 512 (NVS 310) vs 1,280 (Radeon HD 8400). Raw compute: 1.058 TFLOPS ×2 (NVS 310) vs 2.56 TFLOPS (Radeon HD 8400).
| Feature | NVS 310 | Radeon HD 8400 |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 275+1% | 271 |
| Architecture | Maxwell | GCN 1.0 |
| Process Node | 28 nm | 28 nm |
| Shading Units | 512 ×2 | 1280+150% |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 1.058 TFLOPS ×2 | 2.56 TFLOPS+142% |
| ROPs | 16 ×2 | 32+100% |
| TMUs | 32 ×2 | 80+150% |
| L1 Cache | 256 KB | 320 KB+25% |
| L2 Cache | 1 MB+100% | 0.5 MB |
Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)
| Feature | NVS 310 | Radeon HD 8400 |
|---|---|---|
| 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)
Both cards feature 512 MB of GDDR5. Bus width: 64-bit vs 128-bit. L2 Cache: 1 MB (NVS 310) vs 0.5 MB (Radeon HD 8400) — the NVS 310 has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.
| Feature | NVS 310 | Radeon HD 8400 |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 0.5 GB | 0.5 GB |
| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Bus Width | 64-bit | 128-bit+100% |
| L2 Cache | 1 MB+100% | 0.5 MB |
Display & API Support
DirectX support: 12 (11_0) (NVS 310) vs 11.1 (Radeon HD 8400). OpenGL: 4.6 vs 4.6. Maximum simultaneous displays: 2 vs 2.
| Feature | NVS 310 | Radeon HD 8400 |
|---|---|---|
| DirectX | 12 (11_0)+8% | 11.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| Max Displays | 2 | 2 |
Media & Encoding
Hardware encoder: Fermi NVENC (NVS 310) vs VCE 2.0 (Radeon HD 8400). Decoder: VP4 vs UVD 4.2. Supported codecs: H.264,MPEG-2,VC-1 (NVS 310) vs H.264,MPEG-2,VC-1,MPEG-4 (Radeon HD 8400).
| Feature | NVS 310 | Radeon HD 8400 |
|---|---|---|
| Encoder | Fermi NVENC | VCE 2.0 |
| Decoder | VP4 | UVD 4.2 |
| Codecs | H.264,MPEG-2,VC-1 | H.264,MPEG-2,VC-1,MPEG-4 |
Power & Dimensions
The NVS 310 draws 68W versus the Radeon HD 8400's 200W — a 98.5% difference. The NVS 310 is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 350W (NVS 310) vs 350W (Radeon HD 8400). Power connectors: PCIe-powered vs 1x 6-pin. Typical load temperature: 75°C vs 75.
| Feature | NVS 310 | Radeon HD 8400 |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 68W-66% | 200W |
| Recommended PSU | 350W | 350W |
| Power Connector | PCIe-powered | 1x 6-pin |
| Length | 145mm | — |
| Height | 69mm | — |
| Slots | 1 | 0-100% |
| Temp (Load) | 75°C | 75 |
| Perf/Watt | 4.0+186% | 1.4 |
Value Analysis
The NVS 310 launched at $159 MSRP and currently averages $10, while the Radeon HD 8400 launched at $30 and now averages $5. The Radeon HD 8400 costs 50% less ($5 savings) at current market prices. Performance per dollar (G3D Mark / price): 27.5 (NVS 310) vs 54.2 (Radeon HD 8400) — the Radeon HD 8400 offers 97.1% better value. The NVS 310 is the newer GPU (2015 vs 2012).
| Feature | NVS 310 | Radeon HD 8400 |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $159 | $30-81% |
| Avg Price (30d) | $10 | $5-50% |
| Performance per Dollar | 27.5 | 54.2+97% |
| Codename | GM107 | Pitcairn |
| Release | November 4 2015 | March 5 2012 |
| Ranking | #826 | #460 |
Top Performing GPUs
The most powerful gpus ranked by G3D Mark benchmark scores.
You May Also Compare
Similar GPU comparisons based on NVS 310 and Radeon HD 8400
