GeForce 205VSGeForce 8400 GS
Performance, specifications and real-world gaming comparison
♜ WINNERGeForce 205+1%Better overall performance
NVIDIA
205
VSWINNER2050%H2H overall index
NVIDIA
8400 GS
Performance4040
Efficiency100100
Data confidence6060
Fixed-scale H2H model. Missing metrics are omitted instead of estimated from the overall score.
SUMMARY PROFILE
Verified-metrics radar
Axes with missing data are hidden; every value uses a fixed scale.
NVIDIANVIDIAPerformance
Efficiency
Memory capacity
4040
100100
1313
COMMUNITY · VERIFIED DATA
Open streamer setups→Hardware used by streamers
Real public setups linked to each device.
NVIDIA2050No verified public setup yet
NVIDIA8400 GS0No verified public setup yet
COMPARISON RESULT
The devices received the same overall score
205 leads in combined gaming performance. 205 offers the better price per frame, while the final choice depends on the required features, memory, and games.
Performance is nearly identical
Prices are identical
CATALOG POSITION
Full ranking →Graphics card ranking
Positions 80–85of 328
COMPARISON VERDICT
Which should you choose?
Two practical conclusions based on community votes and gaming value.
GeForce 205
0 likesHead to Head visitors currently choose this model more often.
GeForce 205
0/100 · Price $0The choice is based on the price-to-performance index and launch price.
OVERALL SCORE
Overview
Scores are calculated from specifications, performance, and efficiency.
GamesDirectX, OpenCL, and Vulkan performance
40
40
Professional applications3D modeling, video editing, and rendering
100
100
AI and machine learningMachine-learning and AI capabilities
33
33
Power efficiencyPower consumption across workloads
100
100
Head to Head scoreOverall catalog score
53
53
FULL COMPARISON
Specifications
The better numeric value is highlighted in green, taking the metric direction into account.
Clock speed589 MHzBetter567 MHz
Base clock589 MHzBetter567 MHz
Boost clock589 MHzBetter567 MHz
VRAM512 MB DDR2512 MB DDR2
Memory typeDDR2DDR2
VRAM capacity512 MB512 MB
Memory frequency800 MHz800 MHz
Memory bus64 bit64 bit
Memory bandwidth6400 GB/s6400 GB/s
InterfacePCIe 2x16BetterPCIe 1x16
Power connector--
Power consumption31 WBetter40 W
TDP31 WBetter40 W
Process node40 nmBetter80 nm
Release date2009Better2007
Architecture——
Recommended PSU——
Length——
Thickness——
HDMI——
DisplayPort——
USB Type-C——
Maximum displays——
Maximum resolution——
DirectX——
Vulkan——
OpenGL——
Upscaling——
Compute API——
TFLOPS——
Launch price——
Transistor count——
Die size——
Shader units / cores——
Memory cache——
Gaming FPS
Loading test-rig results…
HEAD TO HEAD · CALCULATED INDEX
H2H workload indices
Comparable internal indices on a fixed 0–100 scale.
H2H Raster IndexH2H Index / 10040400%
H2H Compute IndexH2H Index / 10033330%
H2H Rendering IndexH2H Index / 10032320%
H2H Memory Workload IndexH2H Index / 10013130%
H2H Efficiency IndexH2H Index / 1001001000%
These are versioned H2H calculated indices derived from normalized catalog data. They are not results from 3DMark, Geekbench, Cinebench, PassMark, Blender, or another third-party benchmark.
HEAD TO HEAD · CALCULATED INDEX
H2H AI workload indices
Estimated workload profiles based on available performance and memory data.
H2H Image Generation IndexH2H Index / 10028280%
H2H ML Training IndexH2H Index / 10029290%
H2H Inference IndexH2H Index / 10032320%
H2H Local LLM IndexH2H Index / 10025250%
H2H Computer Vision IndexH2H Index / 10032320%
These are versioned H2H calculated indices derived from normalized catalog data. They are not results from 3DMark, Geekbench, Cinebench, PassMark, Blender, or another third-party benchmark.
Basic information
Architecture——
Process node40 nmBetter80 nm
Release date2009Better2007
Launch price——
Detailed specifications
Transistor count——
Die size——
Shader units / cores——
Base clock589 MHzBetter567 MHz
Boost clock589 MHzBetter567 MHz
Form factor and compatibility
InterfacePCIe 2x16BetterPCIe 1x16
Length——
Thickness——
Recommended PSU——
Power connector--
VRAM capacity and type
VRAM512 MB DDR2512 MB DDR2
Memory typeDDR2DDR2
Memory bus64 bit64 bit
Memory bandwidth6400 GB/s6400 GB/s
Memory cache——
Connectivity and outputs
HDMI——
DisplayPort——
USB Type-C——
Maximum displays——
Maximum resolution——
API and SDK compatibility
DirectX——
Vulkan——
OpenGL——
Upscaling——
Compute API——
HEAD TO HEAD · DISCOVER
6Other comparisons
740M 8300GAMDReviews and questions
AI EXPLAIN · HEAD TO HEAD
Explain this comparison
Beyond percentages: causes, relevant specifications, and practical impact behind every chart.
What AI will explain
Overall score, radar, FPS, synthetic tests, specifications, efficiency, and value.
REAL CONFIGURATIONS
Owner experiences
Real builds, results, and community feedback.
♢Moderator reviewed☆Helpful to the community🏅Expert badges
Frequently asked comparison questions
Short recommendations based on performance, memory, power consumption, and intended use.
01Which is better for gaming: 205 or 8400 GS?+
205 has the higher overall gaming score, while 205 offers the better price-to-performance ratio. The final choice depends on resolution and settings.
02Which is better for streaming?+
205 is the stronger streaming choice thanks to performance, hardware encoding, and application support. Check AV1, H.264, and HEVC support before buying.
03Which is better for Blender?+
205 is generally the better option for Blender and GPU rendering. Rendering-engine support and available VRAM also matter.
04Which is better for video editing?+
205 offers more overall performance, while 205 offers more memory headroom. Codecs, hardware encoders, and editor optimization can change the result.
05Which is better for neural networks and AI?+
205 is the more practical option for local AI workloads. VRAM capacity, compute libraries, and framework compatibility are especially important.
06Which is better for 1080p?+
205 is the most rational 1080p choice, where high frame rates and cost per frame matter most.
07Which is better for 1440p?+
205 leads in combined 1440p performance. 205 can be preferable for heavy textures and games with high VRAM usage.
08Which is better for 4K?+
205 is preferable for 4K, where total performance, memory bandwidth, and VRAM capacity have the greatest impact.
09Which is better for a quiet PC?+
205 is easier to use in a quiet build because of its lower estimated power and thermal load. Actual noise depends on the specific cooler.
10Which is better without replacing the power supply?+
205 is the safer candidate because its stated power consumption is lower. Verify PSU wattage, age, and power connectors.
11Is it worth upgrading from the previous generation?+
Consider upgrading to 205 if your current device no longer delivers the required FPS, memory capacity, or feature support. A gain below 15–20% is usually worth waiting for a price cut.