AMD Radeon R5 M255 vs AMD Radeon HD 8400 IGP
Comparative analysis of AMD Radeon R5 M255 and AMD Radeon HD 8400 IGP videocards for all known characteristics in the following categories: Essentials, Technical info, Video outputs and ports, Compatibility, dimensions and requirements, API support, Memory, Technologies. Benchmark videocards performance analysis: PassMark - G3D Mark, PassMark - G2D Mark, Geekbench - OpenCL, CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s), GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps), GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps), GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps).
Differences
Reasons to consider the AMD Radeon R5 M255
- Videocard is newer: launch date 10 month(s) later
- 2.3x more core clock speed: 925 MHz vs 400 MHz
- 7.1x more texture fill rate: 22.56 GTexel / s vs 3.2 GTexel / s
- 2.5x more pipelines: 320 vs 128
- 7x better floating-point performance: 721.9 gflops vs 102.4 gflops
- 2x better performance in PassMark - G3D Mark: 538 vs 265
- Around 73% better performance in PassMark - G2D Mark: 135 vs 78
- 3.8x better performance in Geekbench - OpenCL: 4650 vs 1211
- Around 84% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 1715 vs 930
- 2.1x better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 3357 vs 1631
- Around 84% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 1715 vs 930
- 2.1x better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 3357 vs 1631
Specifications (specs) | |
Launch date | 12 October 2014 vs 23 November 2013 |
Core clock speed | 925 MHz vs 400 MHz |
Texture fill rate | 22.56 GTexel / s vs 3.2 GTexel / s |
Pipelines | 320 vs 128 |
Floating-point performance | 721.9 gflops vs 102.4 gflops |
Benchmarks | |
PassMark - G3D Mark | 538 vs 265 |
PassMark - G2D Mark | 135 vs 78 |
Geekbench - OpenCL | 4650 vs 1211 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 1715 vs 930 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3357 vs 1631 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 1715 vs 930 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3357 vs 1631 |
Reasons to consider the AMD Radeon HD 8400 IGP
- Around 27% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s): 18.197 vs 14.288
- 7.9x better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s): 1322.192 vs 166.596
- Around 80% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s): 1.774 vs 0.988
- 2.3x better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s): 47.241 vs 20.164
- 3.4x better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s): 224.569 vs 66.631
Benchmarks | |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 18.197 vs 14.288 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 1322.192 vs 166.596 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 1.774 vs 0.988 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 47.241 vs 20.164 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 224.569 vs 66.631 |
Compare benchmarks
GPU 1: AMD Radeon R5 M255
GPU 2: AMD Radeon HD 8400 IGP
PassMark - G3D Mark |
|
|
||||
PassMark - G2D Mark |
|
|
||||
Geekbench - OpenCL |
|
|
||||
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) |
|
|
||||
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) |
|
|
||||
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) |
|
|
||||
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) |
|
|
||||
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) |
|
|
||||
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) |
|
|
||||
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) |
|
|
||||
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) |
|
|
||||
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) |
|
|
Name | AMD Radeon R5 M255 | AMD Radeon HD 8400 IGP |
---|---|---|
PassMark - G3D Mark | 538 | 265 |
PassMark - G2D Mark | 135 | 78 |
Geekbench - OpenCL | 4650 | 1211 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 14.288 | 18.197 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 166.596 | 1322.192 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 0.988 | 1.774 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 20.164 | 47.241 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 66.631 | 224.569 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 1459 | |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 1715 | 930 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3357 | 1631 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 1459 | |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 1715 | 930 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3357 | 1631 |
Compare specifications (specs)
AMD Radeon R5 M255 | AMD Radeon HD 8400 IGP | |
---|---|---|
Essentials |
||
Architecture | GCN 3.0 | GCN 2.0 |
Code name | Topaz | Kalindi |
Design | AMD Radeon R5 200 Series | |
Launch date | 12 October 2014 | 23 November 2013 |
Place in performance rating | 1368 | 1370 |
Type | Desktop | Desktop |
Technical info |
||
Boost clock speed | 940 MHz | |
Compute units | 5 | |
Core clock speed | 925 MHz | 400 MHz |
Floating-point performance | 721.9 gflops | 102.4 gflops |
Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 28 nm |
Pipelines | 320 | 128 |
Texture fill rate | 22.56 GTexel / s | 3.2 GTexel / s |
Transistor count | 3,100 million | 1,178 million |
Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 25 Watt | |
Video outputs and ports |
||
Display Connectors | No outputs | No outputs |
Compatibility, dimensions and requirements |
||
Bus support | PCIe 3.0 x8 | |
Interface | PCIe 3.0 x8 | IGP |
API support |
||
DirectX | 11 | 12.0 (12_0) |
Mantle | ||
OpenCL | Not Listed | |
OpenGL | 4.4 | 4.5 |
Memory |
||
Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | |
Memory bandwidth | 16 GB/s | |
Memory bus width | 64 bit | |
Memory clock speed | 1000 MHz | |
Memory type | DDR3 | System Shared |
Shared memory | 0 | |
Technologies |
||
AMD Eyefinity | ||
AppAcceleration | ||
DualGraphics | ||
Enduro | ||
HD3D | ||
Powerplay | ||
PowerTune | ||
Switchable graphics | ||
ZeroCore |