CPU
GPU
Quadro FX 3000
Popular choices:
GeForce 8400M GT
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.
Avg price is the current average price collected from markets across the web.
Performance Per Dollar
Performance Per Dollar GeForce 8400M GT
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 | Quadro FX 3000 | GeForce 8400M GT |
|---|---|---|
| Performance | ✅Leading raw performance (+3%) | ❌Lower raw frame rates (-3%) |
| Longevity | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2008 / Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013)) | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2014 / Maxwell (2014−2017)) |
| Ecosystem | Supports FSR Upscaling | Supports FSR Upscaling |
| VRAM | ❌ Less VRAM capacity | ✅ More VRAM (+0%) |
| Efficiency | ⚡ Higher Power Consumption | 💡 Excellent Perf/Watt |
| 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 | Quadro FX 3000 | GeForce 8400M GT |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ✅Better overall value (+106%) | ❌Lower cost efficiency |
| Upfront Cost | ✅More affordable ($15) | ⚠️Higher upfront cost ($30) |
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 Quadro FX 3000 and GeForce 8400M GT
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.
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.
Graphics Performance
The Quadro FX 3000 scores 69 and the GeForce 8400M GT reaches 67 in the G3D Mark benchmark — just a 3% difference, making them near-identical in rasterization performance. The Quadro FX 3000 is built on Tesla 2.0 while the GeForce 8400M GT uses Maxwell, both on 55 nm vs 28 nm. Shader units: 240 (Quadro FX 3000) vs 384 (GeForce 8400M GT). Raw compute: 0.6221 TFLOPS (Quadro FX 3000) vs 0.8632 TFLOPS (GeForce 8400M GT).
| Feature | Quadro FX 3000 | GeForce 8400M GT |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 69+3% | 67 |
| Architecture | Tesla 2.0 | Maxwell |
| Process Node | 55 nm | 28 nm |
| Shading Units | 240 | 384+60% |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 0.6221 TFLOPS | 0.8632 TFLOPS+39% |
| ROPs | 32+300% | 8 |
| TMUs | 80+400% | 16 |
| L2 Cache | 0.25 MB | 1 MB+300% |
Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)
| Feature | Quadro FX 3000 | GeForce 8400M GT |
|---|---|---|
| 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: 64-bit vs 128-bit. L2 Cache: 0.25 MB (Quadro FX 3000) vs 1 MB (GeForce 8400M GT) — the GeForce 8400M GT has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.
| Feature | Quadro FX 3000 | GeForce 8400M GT |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 0.25 GB | 0.25 GB |
| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Bus Width | 64-bit | 128-bit+100% |
| L2 Cache | 0.25 MB | 1 MB+300% |
Display & API Support
DirectX support: 9_0a (Quadro FX 3000) vs 10.0 (GeForce 8400M GT). Maximum simultaneous displays: 2 vs 1.
| Feature | Quadro FX 3000 | GeForce 8400M GT |
|---|---|---|
| DirectX | 9_0a | 10.0+11% |
| Max Displays | 2+100% | 1 |
Power & Dimensions
The Quadro FX 3000 draws 189W versus the GeForce 8400M GT's 33W — a 140.5% difference. The GeForce 8400M GT is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 350W (Quadro FX 3000) vs 350W (GeForce 8400M GT). Power connectors: PCIe-powered vs Legacy. Card length: 1mm vs 0mm, occupying 2 vs 0 slots.
| Feature | Quadro FX 3000 | GeForce 8400M GT |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 189W | 33W-83% |
| Recommended PSU | 350W | 350W |
| Power Connector | PCIe-powered | Legacy |
| Length | 1mm | 0mm |
| Height | — | 0mm |
| Slots | 2 | 0-100% |
| Temp (Load) | — | 75°C |
| Perf/Watt | 0.4 | 2.0+400% |
Value Analysis
The Quadro FX 3000 launched at $0 MSRP and currently averages $15, while the GeForce 8400M GT launched at $50 and now averages $30. The Quadro FX 3000 costs 50% less ($15 savings) at current market prices. Performance per dollar (G3D Mark / price): 4.6 (Quadro FX 3000) vs 2.2 (GeForce 8400M GT) — the Quadro FX 3000 offers 109.1% better value. The GeForce 8400M GT is the newer GPU (2014 vs 2008).
| Feature | Quadro FX 3000 | GeForce 8400M GT |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $0-100% | $50 |
| Avg Price (30d) | $15-50% | $30 |
| Performance per Dollar | 4.6+109% | 2.2 |
| Codename | GT200B | GM108 |
| Release | November 11 2008 | March 12 2014 |
| Ranking | #815 | #854 |
Top Performing GPUs
The most powerful gpus ranked by G3D Mark benchmark scores.
You May Also Compare
Similar GPU comparisons based on Quadro FX 3000 and GeForce 8400M GT
