NVIDIA GeForce GT 540M vs NVIDIA GeForce 8400M G
Comparative analysis of NVIDIA GeForce GT 540M and NVIDIA GeForce 8400M G 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), 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score.
Differences
Reasons to consider the NVIDIA GeForce GT 540M
- Videocard is newer: launch date 3 year(s) 7 month(s) later
- Around 68% higher core clock speed: 672 MHz vs 400 MHz
- 3.4x more texture fill rate: 10.8 billion / sec vs 3.2 GTexel / s
- 12x more pipelines: 96 vs 8
- 20.2x better floating-point performance: 258.05 gflops vs 12.8 gflops
- A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running videocard: 40 nm vs 80 nm
- 4x more maximum memory size: 1 GB vs 256 MB
- Around 13% higher memory clock speed: 900 MHz vs 800 MHz
- 4.6x better performance in PassMark - G3D Mark: 478 vs 105
- 5x better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 2701 vs 542
- 5x better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 2701 vs 542
Specifications (specs) | |
Launch date | 5 January 2011 vs 9 May 2007 |
Core clock speed | 672 MHz vs 400 MHz |
Texture fill rate | 10.8 billion / sec vs 3.2 GTexel / s |
Pipelines | 96 vs 8 |
Floating-point performance | 258.05 gflops vs 12.8 gflops |
Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm vs 80 nm |
Maximum memory size | 1 GB vs 256 MB |
Memory clock speed | 900 MHz vs 800 MHz |
Benchmarks | |
PassMark - G3D Mark | 478 vs 105 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 2701 vs 542 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 2701 vs 542 |
Reasons to consider the NVIDIA GeForce 8400M G
- 3.5x lower typical power consumption: 10 Watt vs 35 Watt
- Around 38% better performance in PassMark - G2D Mark: 124 vs 90
Specifications (specs) | |
Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 10 Watt vs 35 Watt |
Benchmarks | |
PassMark - G2D Mark | 124 vs 90 |
Compare benchmarks
GPU 1: NVIDIA GeForce GT 540M
GPU 2: NVIDIA GeForce 8400M G
PassMark - G3D Mark |
|
|
||||
PassMark - G2D Mark |
|
|
||||
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) |
|
|
||||
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) |
|
|
Name | NVIDIA GeForce GT 540M | NVIDIA GeForce 8400M G |
---|---|---|
PassMark - G3D Mark | 478 | 105 |
PassMark - G2D Mark | 90 | 124 |
Geekbench - OpenCL | 2154 | |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 4.85 | |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 195.796 | |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 0.561 | |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 9.109 | |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 16.727 | |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 960 | |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 2210 | |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 2701 | 542 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 960 | |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 2210 | |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 2701 | 542 |
3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 0 |
Compare specifications (specs)
NVIDIA GeForce GT 540M | NVIDIA GeForce 8400M G | |
---|---|---|
Essentials |
||
Architecture | Fermi | Tesla |
Code name | GF108 | G86 |
Launch date | 5 January 2011 | 9 May 2007 |
Place in performance rating | 1500 | 1503 |
Type | Laptop | Laptop |
Technical info |
||
Core clock speed | 672 MHz | 400 MHz |
CUDA cores | 96 | |
Floating-point performance | 258.05 gflops | 12.8 gflops |
Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 80 nm |
Pipelines | 96 | 8 |
Texture fill rate | 10.8 billion / sec | 3.2 GTexel / s |
Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 35 Watt | 10 Watt |
Transistor count | 585 million | 210 million |
Video outputs and ports |
||
Display Connectors | No outputs | No outputs |
Compatibility, dimensions and requirements |
||
Interface | MXM-A (3.0) | PCIe 1.0 x16 |
Laptop size | large | |
Supplementary power connectors | None | |
API support |
||
DirectX | 12 API | 10.0 |
OpenCL | 1.1 | |
OpenGL | 4.5 | 3.3 |
Memory |
||
Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 256 MB |
Memory bandwidth | 28.8 GB / s | 6.4 GB / s |
Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 64 Bit |
Memory clock speed | 900 MHz | 800 MHz |
Memory type | DDR3 | GDDR3 / GDDR2 |
Shared memory | 0 | 0 |
Technologies |
||
3D Blu-Ray | ||
3D Gaming | ||
3D Vision | ||
3D Vision / 3DTV Play | ||
CUDA | ||
DirectCompute | ||
DirectX 11 | DirectX 11 | |
Optimus | ||
HDR (High Dynamic-Range Lighting) | ||
PCI-E 16x | ||
PowerMizer 7.0 |