NVIDIA
GeForce 8400 GS vs Intel Arc 130T
Full comparison of specs, performance and benchmarks
Intel
Arc 130T
Aggregate performance score
We've compared 8400 GS and Arc 130T across specs and all relevant benchmarks.
↗Arc 130T outperforms 8400 GS by ~50% on the catalog index; this is not a measured FPS gain.+50%
Scores are normalized on the Head to Head scale. Higher is better. How is this calculated?H2HBench Data Quality
Low confidenceSpecifications: Partially verifiedVerified gaming results: 0Estimated / unverified results: 16Price record updated: Sep 6, 2026
Limited verified data
H2HBench Verdict
Higher catalog score: GeForce 8400 GS (~9%)
The score difference is not a measured FPS improvement.
Reasons to consider 8400 GS
- Recorded feature support: OpenCL 1.1, CUDA 1.1 · Not supported
Reasons to consider Arc 130T
- Higher catalog performance index
- Recorded feature support: OpenCL 3.0 · Intel XeSS
Catalog metrics radar
Axes with missing data are hidden; every value uses a fixed scale.
NVIDIA
IntelPerformance
4263
Graphics card ranking
Positions 60–65of 321
Which should you choose?
Two practical conclusions based on community votes and gaming value.
GeForce 8400 GS
170 likesHead to Head visitors currently choose this model more often.
Overview
Scores are calculated from specifications, performance, and efficiency.
GamesDirectX, OpenCL, and Vulkan performance
42
63Better
Professional applications3D modeling, video editing, and rendering
37
52Better
AI and machine learningMachine-learning and AI capabilities
34
49Better
Power efficiencyPower consumption across workloads
100Better
47
Head to Head scoreOverall catalog score
59Better
54
Specifications
The better numeric value is highlighted in green, taking the metric direction into account.
Device class
DirectX
OpenGL
TFLOPS
Power consumption—
Release date
Architecture
Memory type
Power connector
Thickness
Compute API
Launch price—
Process node
Clock speed
Base clock
Boost clockBetter
VRAM
Memory frequency
Memory bus
Memory bandwidth
Interface
Power consumption
Recommended PSU
Length
Vulkan
HDMI
Die size
Transistor count
Shader units / coresBetter
Memory cache
Max monitors
Max resolution
USB Type-C
Upscaling
DisplayPort
Gaming FPS
Available results are shown separately; missing data is not treated as zero.
The Gaming FPS section compares 8400 GS and Arc 130T across curated H2H Lab game presets. The useful signal is not only average FPS, but also how each device behaves at 1440p and 4K, how memory capacity and bus width affect heavy textures, and whether the game engine favors raster performance, ray tracing, or driver maturity.
8400 GSArc 130T
Verified externalEstimatedSources ↗
Counter-Strike 2
1080p High
204 FPS
—
1080p Ultra
143 FPS
—
1440p Ultra
88 FPS
—
4K Ultra
34 FPS
—
Counter-Strike 28400 GS204 FPSArc 130T—8400 GS143 FPSArc 130T—8400 GS88 FPSArc 130T—8400 GS34 FPSArc 130T—
Cyberpunk 20778400 GS132 FPSArc 130T—8400 GS113 FPSArc 130T—8400 GS64 FPSArc 130T—8400 GS23 FPSArc 130T—
Forza Horizon 58400 GS166 FPSArc 130T—8400 GS108 FPSArc 130T—8400 GS79 FPSArc 130T—8400 GS49 FPSArc 130T—
Hogwarts Legacy8400 GS108 FPSArc 130T—8400 GS90 FPSArc 130T—8400 GS57 FPSArc 130T—8400 GS23 FPSArc 130T—
H2H workload indices
Comparable internal indices on a fixed 0–100 scale.
H2H Raster IndexH2H Index / 100426340%
H2H Compute IndexH2H Index / 100346563%
H2H Rendering IndexH2H Index / 100346360%
H2H Memory Workload IndexH2H Index / 100130200%
H2H Efficiency IndexH2H Index / 1001000200%
These are versioned H2H calculated indices derived from normalized catalog data. They are not results from a third-party benchmark.
H2H AI workload indices
Estimated workload profiles based on available performance and memory data.
H2H Image Generation IndexH2H Index / 100296374%
H2H ML Training IndexH2H Index / 100306371%
H2H Inference IndexH2H Index / 100346360%
H2H Local LLM IndexH2H Index / 100266383%
H2H Computer Vision IndexH2H Index / 100336363%
These are versioned H2H calculated indices derived from normalized catalog data. They are not results from a third-party benchmark.
Graphics APIs, SDKs and upscaling
DirectX10.012.2
VulkanNot supportedNot publicly specified
OpenGL3.34.6
UpscalingNot supportedIntel XeSS
Compute APIOpenCL 1.1, CUDA 1.1OpenCL 3.0
Architecture and release
ArchitectureTeslaXe-LPG
Process node80 nmNot publicly specified
Release date2007Q1'25
Device classDesktopMobile
GPU cores, die and clocks
Transistor count210 millionNot publicly specified
Die size127 mm²Not publicly specified
Shader units / cores16Better7 Xe cores
Base clock567 MHzNot publicly specified
Boost clock567 MHzBetterUp to 2.2 GHz (depends on host processor)
Board size, power and compatibility
InterfacePCIe 1x16Integrated into processor package
Length170 mmNot applicable (integrated GPU)
ThicknessSingle-slotNot applicable (integrated GPU)
Recommended PSU200 WSystem dependent
Power connectorNoneNot applicable (integrated GPU)
Display outputs and limits
HDMIBoard dependentHDMI 2.1 FRL (OEM dependent)
DisplayPortBoard dependentDisplayPort 2.1 UHBR20 (OEM dependent)
USB Type-CNoOEM dependent
Max monitors34 (platform capability)
Max resolution2560 × 16007680 x 4320 @ 60Hz (DisplayPort)
Memory and compute throughput
VRAM512 MB DDR2Shared system memory; OEM configurable
Memory typeDDR2Shared DDR5 / LPDDR5X
Memory bus64 bitDepends on system memory configuration
TFLOPS0.029Not publicly specified
Other comparisons
Reviews and questions
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.
Evidence details
Data coverage
- Verified gaming results
- 0
- Verified synthetic results
- 0
- Games with verified results
- 0
- Verified community results
- 0
- Estimated / unverified results
- 16
- Specifications
- 21 / 68
Calculated scores · How is this calculated?
Scores use the catalog model and may include estimated inputs. Open each score to see its origin and the methodology.
clamp(round(performance × 0.7 + (efficiency ?? 50) × 0.2 + (value is missing ? 0 : (value − 50) × 0.2)), 0, 100)Price evidence · View sources (3)
Verified community results
No verified community benchmarks yet.
Reviewed by
No individual editorial review is recorded for this comparison.
Comparison history
Show recorded changes (2)
- · Record updated: products
- · Record updated: products
Why you can trust this comparison
Origin and confidence are evaluated from the evidence attached to each value. Unverified results are identified, and specification, benchmark and price dates remain separate.
Owner experiences
Real builds, results, and community feedback.
Moderator reviewedHelpful to the communityExpert badges
Frequently asked comparison questions
Short recommendations based on performance, memory, power consumption, and intended use.
01Which is better for gaming: 8400 GS or Arc 130T?+
8400 GS has the higher overall gaming score, while 8400 GS offers the better price-to-performance ratio. The final choice depends on resolution and settings.
02Which is better for streaming?+
8400 GS 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?+
8400 GS is generally the better option for Blender and GPU rendering. Rendering-engine support and available VRAM also matter.
04Which is better for video editing?+
8400 GS offers more overall performance, while 8400 GS offers more memory headroom. Codecs, hardware encoders, and editor optimization can change the result.
05Which is better for neural networks and AI?+
8400 GS is the more practical option for local AI workloads. VRAM capacity, compute libraries, and framework compatibility are especially important.
06Which is better for 1080p?+
8400 GS is the most rational 1080p choice, where high frame rates and cost per frame matter most.
07Which is better for 1440p?+
8400 GS leads in combined 1440p performance. 8400 GS can be preferable for heavy textures and games with high VRAM usage.
08Which is better for 4K?+
8400 GS is preferable for 4K, where total performance, memory bandwidth, and VRAM capacity have the greatest impact.
09Which is better for a quiet PC?+
8400 GS 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?+
8400 GS 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 8400 GS 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.