CPU
GPU
Radeon 2100
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. The Radeon 2100 is positioned at rank 725 and the GeForce 8400M GT is on rank 682, 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 Radeon 2100
Performance Per Dollar GeForce 8400M GT
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 | Radeon 2100 | GeForce 8400M GT |
|---|---|---|
| Performance | ❌Lower raw frame rates (-11.7%) | ✅Leading raw performance (+11.7%) |
| Longevity | GCN 3.0 (2014−2019) (28nm) | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2014 / Maxwell (2014−2017)) |
| Ecosystem | Supports FSR Upscaling | Supports FSR Upscaling |
| VRAM | ✅ More VRAM (+100%) | ❌ Less VRAM capacity |
| Efficiency | ⚡ Higher Power Consumption | 💡 Excellent Perf/Watt |
| 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 | Radeon 2100 | GeForce 8400M GT |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ❌Lower cost efficiency | ✅Better overall value (+82.4%) |
| Upfront Cost | ⚠️Higher upfront cost ($49) | ✅More affordable ($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 Radeon 2100 and GeForce 8400M GT
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.
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
In G3D Mark, the Radeon 2100 scores 60 versus the GeForce 8400M GT's 67 — the GeForce 8400M GT leads by 11.7%. The Radeon 2100 is built on GCN 3.0 while the GeForce 8400M GT uses Maxwell, both on a 28 nm process. Shader units: 384 (Radeon 2100) vs 384 (GeForce 8400M GT). Raw compute: 0.7864 TFLOPS (Radeon 2100) vs 0.8632 TFLOPS (GeForce 8400M GT). Boost clocks: 1024 MHz vs 1124 MHz.
| Feature | Radeon 2100 | GeForce 8400M GT |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 60 | 67+12% |
| Architecture | GCN 3.0 | Maxwell |
| Process Node | 28 nm | 28 nm |
| Shading Units | 384 | 384 |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 0.7864 TFLOPS | 0.8632 TFLOPS+10% |
| Boost Clock | 1024 MHz | 1124 MHz+10% |
| ROPs | 8 | 8 |
| TMUs | 24+50% | 16 |
| L1 Cache | 96 KB | 192 KB+100% |
| L2 Cache | 0.13 MB | 1 MB+669% |
Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)
| Feature | Radeon 2100 | 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 | AMD Anti-Lag | Standard |
Video Memory (VRAM)
The Radeon 2100 comes with 512 MB of VRAM, while the GeForce 8400M GT has 256 MB. The Radeon 2100 offers 100% more capacity, crucial for higher resolutions and texture-heavy games. Bus width: 64-bit vs 128-bit. L2 Cache: 0.13 MB (Radeon 2100) vs 1 MB (GeForce 8400M GT) — the GeForce 8400M GT has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.
| Feature | Radeon 2100 | GeForce 8400M GT |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 0.5 GB+100% | 0.25 GB |
| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Bus Width | 64-bit | 128-bit+100% |
| L2 Cache | 0.13 MB | 1 MB+669% |
Display & API Support
DirectX support: 9.0b (Radeon 2100) vs 10.0 (GeForce 8400M GT). OpenGL: 2.0 vs 3.3. Maximum simultaneous displays: 2 vs 1.
| Feature | Radeon 2100 | GeForce 8400M GT |
|---|---|---|
| DirectX | 9.0b | 10.0+11% |
| OpenGL | 2.0 | 3.3+65% |
| Max Displays | 2+100% | 1 |
Media & Encoding
Hardware encoder: Avivo (Radeon 2100) vs No (GeForce 8400M GT). Decoder: Avivo vs PureVideo HD VP2. Supported codecs: MPEG-2 (Radeon 2100) vs MPEG-2,H.264,VC-1 (GeForce 8400M GT).
| Feature | Radeon 2100 | GeForce 8400M GT |
|---|---|---|
| Encoder | Avivo | No |
| Decoder | Avivo | PureVideo HD VP2 |
| Codecs | MPEG-2 | MPEG-2,H.264,VC-1 |
Power & Dimensions
The Radeon 2100 draws 50W versus the GeForce 8400M GT's 33W — a 41% difference. The GeForce 8400M GT is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 350W (Radeon 2100) vs 350W (GeForce 8400M GT). Power connectors: PCIe-powered vs Legacy.
| Feature | Radeon 2100 | GeForce 8400M GT |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 50W | 33W-34% |
| Recommended PSU | 350W | 350W |
| Power Connector | PCIe-powered | Legacy |
| Length | — | 0mm |
| Height | — | 0mm |
| Slots | 0 | 0 |
| Temp (Load) | — | 75°C |
| Perf/Watt | 1.2 | 2.0+67% |
Value Analysis
The Radeon 2100 launched at $149 MSRP and currently averages $49, while the GeForce 8400M GT launched at $50 and now averages $30. The GeForce 8400M GT costs 38.8% less ($19 savings) at current market prices. Performance per dollar (G3D Mark / price): 1.2 (Radeon 2100) vs 2.2 (GeForce 8400M GT) — the GeForce 8400M GT offers 83.3% better value. The Radeon 2100 is the newer GPU (2019 vs 2014).
| Feature | Radeon 2100 | GeForce 8400M GT |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $149 | $50-66% |
| Avg Price (30d) | $49 | $30-39% |
| Performance per Dollar | 1.2 | 2.2+83% |
| Codename | Polaris 24 | GM108 |
| Release | May 13 2019 | March 12 2014 |
| Ranking | #898 | #854 |
Top Performing GPUs
The most powerful gpus ranked by G3D Mark benchmark scores.
You May Also Compare
Similar GPU comparisons based on Radeon 2100 and GeForce 8400M GT
