NVIDIA
GeForce 8400 GS vs Radeon RX 590 GME
Full comparison of specs, performance and benchmarks
AMD
RX 590 GME
Aggregate performance score
We've compared 8400 GS and RX 590 GME across specs and all relevant benchmarks.
↗8400 GS outperforms RX 590 GME by 2% based on our aggregate benchmark results.+2%
Scores are normalized on the Head to Head scale. Higher is better.GeForce 8400 GS vs Radeon RX 590 GME: key takeaway
The comparison of 8400 GS and RX 590 GME shows a 2% advantage for 8400 GS in gaming performance, while RX 590 GME may still be stronger in efficiency and feature set. Use the sections below to check whether that lead comes from real FPS, specifications, efficiency, price or platform features.
SUMMARY PROFILE
Verified-metrics radar
Axes with missing data are hidden; every value uses a fixed scale.
NVIDIA
AMDPerformance
Efficiency
Price / performance
Memory capacity
4241
10078
100100
1368
COMPARISON RESULT
8400 GS is the best overall choice
8400 GS leads in combined game performance. 8400 GS offers the better price per frame, while the final choice depends on the required features, memory, and games.
8400 GS leads in the combined performance index
8400 GS costs less
CATALOG POSITION
Full ranking →Graphics card ranking
Positions 59–64of 317
COMPARISON VERDICT
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.
GeForce 8400 GS
100/100 · Price $79The choice is based on the price-to-performance index and launch price.
OVERALL SCORE
Overview
Scores are calculated from specifications, performance, and efficiency.
The Summary score section compares 8400 GS and RX 590 GME with normalized H2H data, turning specifications, tests and value signals into practical buying context.
GamesDirectX, OpenCL, and Vulkan performance
42Better
41
Professional applications3D modeling, video editing, and rendering
37Better
36
AI and machine learningMachine-learning and AI capabilities
34
34
Power efficiencyPower consumption across workloads
100Better
78
Head to Head scoreOverall catalog score
64Better
59
FULL COMPARISON
Specifications
The better numeric value is highlighted in green, taking the metric direction into account.
The Specifications section compares 8400 GS and RX 590 GME with normalized H2H data, turning specifications, tests and value signals into practical buying context.
Device classDesktopDesktop
HDMI—HDMI 2.0b
DisplayPort—DisplayPort 1.4a
DirectX10.012.0
Vulkan—1.3
OpenGL3.34.6
TFLOPS0.0296.543Better
Power consumption40 WBetter175 W
Release date20072020
ArchitectureTeslaGCN 4.0
Memory typeDDR2GDDR5
Power connectorNone8 pin
ThicknessSingle-slotDual-slot
Upscaling—FSR
Compute APIOpenCL 1.1, CUDA 1.1OpenCL 2.1
Launch price$79Better$229
Process node80 nm14 nmBetter
Clock speed567 MHz1257 - 1380 MHzBetter
Base clock567 MHz1257 MHzBetter
Boost clock567 MHz1380 MHzBetter
VRAM512 MB DDR2Better8 GB GDDR5
Memory frequency800 MHzBetter8 GHz
Memory bus64 bit256 bitBetter
Memory bandwidth6400 GB/sBetter256 GB/s
InterfacePCIe 1x16PCIe 3x16
Power consumption40 WBetter175 W
Recommended PSU200 WBetter450 W
Length170 mmBetter241 mm
Die size127 mm²Better232 mm²
Transistor count210 million5700 millionBetter
Shader units / cores162304Better
Memory cacheL2 0.02 MBBetterL1 16 KB, L2 2 MB
Max monitors34
Max resolution2560 × 16007680 × 4320
USB Type-CNoNo
GAME TEST BENCH
Gaming FPS
Available results are shown separately; missing data is not treated as zero.
The Gaming FPS section compares 8400 GS and RX 590 GME 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 GSRX 590 GME
Verified H2HCommunity VerifiedEstimatedPredicted
Black Myth: Wukong
1080p High
24 FPSEstimated 64%
23 FPSEstimated 66%
1080p Ultra
21 FPSEstimated 64%
19 FPSEstimated 66%
1440p Ultra
12 FPSEstimated 60%
13 FPSEstimated 64%
4K Ultra
5 FPSEstimated 56%
5 FPSEstimated 57%
Black Myth: Wukong8400 GS24 FPSEstimated 64%RX 590 GME23 FPSEstimated 66%8400 GS21 FPSEstimated 64%RX 590 GME19 FPSEstimated 66%8400 GS12 FPSEstimated 60%RX 590 GME13 FPSEstimated 64%8400 GS5 FPSEstimated 56%RX 590 GME5 FPSEstimated 57%
Call of Duty: Warzone8400 GS24 FPSEstimated 64%RX 590 GME23 FPSEstimated 66%8400 GS21 FPSEstimated 64%RX 590 GME19 FPSEstimated 66%8400 GS12 FPSEstimated 60%RX 590 GME13 FPSEstimated 64%8400 GS5 FPSEstimated 56%RX 590 GME5 FPSEstimated 57%
Counter-Strike 28400 GS204 FPSEstimated 72%RX 590 GME189 FPSEstimated 74%8400 GS143 FPSEstimated 72%RX 590 GME133 FPSEstimated 74%8400 GS88 FPSEstimated 68%RX 590 GME96 FPSEstimated 72%8400 GS34 FPSEstimated 64%RX 590 GME31 FPSEstimated 65%
Cyberpunk 20778400 GS132 FPSEstimated 72%RX 590 GME122 FPSEstimated 74%8400 GS113 FPSEstimated 72%RX 590 GME105 FPSEstimated 74%8400 GS64 FPSEstimated 68%RX 590 GME70 FPSEstimated 72%8400 GS23 FPSEstimated 64%RX 590 GME21 FPSEstimated 65%
Forza Horizon 58400 GS166 FPSEstimated 78%RX 590 GME154 FPSEstimated 80%8400 GS108 FPSEstimated 72%RX 590 GME100 FPSEstimated 74%8400 GS79 FPSEstimated 68%RX 590 GME86 FPSEstimated 72%8400 GS49 FPSEstimated 64%RX 590 GME46 FPSEstimated 65%
God of War Ragnarök8400 GS24 FPSEstimated 64%RX 590 GME23 FPSEstimated 66%8400 GS21 FPSEstimated 64%RX 590 GME19 FPSEstimated 66%8400 GS12 FPSEstimated 60%RX 590 GME13 FPSEstimated 64%8400 GS5 FPSEstimated 56%RX 590 GME5 FPSEstimated 57%
Hogwarts Legacy8400 GS108 FPSEstimated 72%RX 590 GME100 FPSEstimated 74%8400 GS90 FPSEstimated 72%RX 590 GME84 FPSEstimated 74%8400 GS57 FPSEstimated 68%RX 590 GME62 FPSEstimated 72%8400 GS23 FPSEstimated 64%RX 590 GME21 FPSEstimated 65%
Microsoft Flight Simulator 20248400 GS24 FPSEstimated 64%RX 590 GME23 FPSEstimated 66%8400 GS21 FPSEstimated 64%RX 590 GME19 FPSEstimated 66%8400 GS12 FPSEstimated 60%RX 590 GME13 FPSEstimated 64%8400 GS5 FPSEstimated 56%RX 590 GME5 FPSEstimated 57%
Monster Hunter Wilds8400 GS24 FPSEstimated 64%RX 590 GME23 FPSEstimated 66%8400 GS21 FPSEstimated 64%RX 590 GME19 FPSEstimated 66%8400 GS12 FPSEstimated 60%RX 590 GME13 FPSEstimated 64%8400 GS5 FPSEstimated 56%RX 590 GME5 FPSEstimated 57%
Starfield8400 GS24 FPSEstimated 64%RX 590 GME23 FPSEstimated 66%8400 GS21 FPSEstimated 64%RX 590 GME19 FPSEstimated 66%8400 GS12 FPSEstimated 60%RX 590 GME13 FPSEstimated 64%8400 GS5 FPSEstimated 56%RX 590 GME5 FPSEstimated 57%
HEAD TO HEAD · CALCULATED INDEX
H2H workload indices
Comparable internal indices on a fixed 0–100 scale.
The Benchmarks section compares 8400 GS and RX 590 GME with normalized H2H data, turning specifications, tests and value signals into practical buying context.
H2H Raster IndexH2H Index / 10042412%
H2H Compute IndexH2H Index / 100344630%
H2H Rendering IndexH2H Index / 100344936%
H2H Memory Workload IndexH2H Index / 1001368136%
H2H Efficiency IndexH2H Index / 1001007825%
These are versioned H2H calculated indices derived from normalized catalog data. They are not results from a third-party benchmark.
HEAD TO HEAD · CALCULATED INDEX
H2H AI workload indices
Estimated workload profiles based on available performance and memory data.
The Detailed comparison section compares 8400 GS and RX 590 GME with normalized H2H data, turning specifications, tests and value signals into practical buying context.
H2H Image Generation IndexH2H Index / 100295359%
H2H ML Training IndexH2H Index / 100305254%
H2H Inference IndexH2H Index / 100344936%
H2H Local LLM IndexH2H Index / 100265673%
H2H Computer Vision IndexH2H Index / 100334939%
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
The Graphics APIs, SDKs and upscaling section compares 8400 GS and RX 590 GME with normalized H2H data, turning specifications, tests and value signals into practical buying context.
DirectX10.012.0
Vulkan—1.3
OpenGL3.34.6
Upscaling—FSR
Compute APIOpenCL 1.1, CUDA 1.1OpenCL 2.1
Architecture and release
The Architecture and release section compares 8400 GS and RX 590 GME with normalized H2H data, turning specifications, tests and value signals into practical buying context.
ArchitectureTeslaGCN 4.0
Process node80 nm14 nmBetter
Release date20072020
Device classDesktopDesktop
GPU cores, die and clocks
The Core layout and clocks section compares 8400 GS and RX 590 GME with normalized H2H data, turning specifications, tests and value signals into practical buying context.
Transistor count210 million5700 millionBetter
Die size127 mm²Better232 mm²
Shader units / cores162304Better
Base clock567 MHz1257 MHzBetter
Boost clock567 MHz1380 MHzBetter
Board size, power and compatibility
The Form factor and compatibility section compares 8400 GS and RX 590 GME with normalized H2H data, turning specifications, tests and value signals into practical buying context.
InterfacePCIe 1x16PCIe 3x16
Length170 mmBetter241 mm
ThicknessSingle-slotDual-slot
Recommended PSU200 WBetter450 W
Power connectorNone8 pin
Display outputs and limits
The Display outputs section compares 8400 GS and RX 590 GME with normalized H2H data, turning specifications, tests and value signals into practical buying context.
HDMI—HDMI 2.0b
DisplayPort—DisplayPort 1.4a
USB Type-CNoNo
Max monitors34
Max resolution2560 × 16007680 × 4320
Memory and compute throughput
The VRAM capacity and bandwidth section compares 8400 GS and RX 590 GME with normalized H2H data, turning specifications, tests and value signals into practical buying context.
VRAM512 MB DDR2Better8 GB GDDR5
Memory typeDDR2GDDR5
Memory bus64 bit256 bitBetter
TFLOPS0.0296.543Better
HEAD TO HEAD · DISCOVER
6Other comparisons
Arc A310IntelReviews 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: 8400 GS or RX 590 GME?+
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.