Select any two GPUs for comparison
VS

Gaming Performance Comparison

Recommended System Requirements
Game GeForce 8400 GS Rev. 2 Radeon X1050
Cyberpunk 2077 4009% 7640%
Assassins Creed: Valhalla 3658% 6979%
Call of Duty: Black Ops Cold War 3536% 6749%
Grand Theft Auto VI 5682% 10790%
FIFA 21 1973% 3804%
Genshin Impact 4009% 7640%
Far Cry 6 5845% 11099%
Hitman 3 5245% 9968%
Watch Dogs Legion 3864% 7366%
World of Warcraft: Shadowlands 5791% 10996%

In terms of overall gaming performance, the graphical capabilities of the Nvidia GeForce 8400 GS Rev. 2 are significantly better than the AMD Radeon X1050.

The 8400 GS has a 167 MHz higher core clock speed and 4 more Texture Mapping Units than the Radeon X1050. This results in the 8400 GS providing 2.9 GTexel/s better texturing performance. This still holds weight but shader performance is generally more relevant, particularly since the 8400 GS supports up to DirectX 10.0.

The 8400 GS has a 167 MHz higher core clock speed and 4 more Render Output Units than the Radeon X1050. This results in the 8400 GS providing 2.9 GPixel/s better pixeling performance. However, both GPUs support DirectX 9 or above, and pixeling performance is only really relevant when comparing older cards.

The 8400 GS was released less than a year after the Radeon X1050, and so they are likely to have similar driver support for optimizing performance when running the latest games.

Both GPUs exhibit very poor performance, so rather than upgrading from one to the other you should consider looking at more powerful GPUs. Neither of these will be able to run the latest games in any playable way.

The 8400 GS has 384 MB more video memory than the Radeon X1050, so is likely to be slightly better at displaying game textures at higher resolutions. This is supported by the fact that the 8400 GS also has superior memory performance overall.

The 8400 GS has 1.1 GB/sec greater memory bandwidth than the Radeon X1050, which means that the memory performance of the 8400 GS is marginally better than the Radeon X1050.

The GeForce 8400 GS Rev. 2 has 8 Shader Processing Units and the Radeon X1050 has 4. However, the actual shader performance of the 8400 GS is 10 and the actual shader performance of the Radeon X1050 is 1. The 8400 GS having 9 better shader performance and an altogether better performance when taking into account other relevant data means that the 8400 GS delivers a marginally smoother and more efficient experience when processing graphical data than the Radeon X1050.

The 8400 GS transistor size technology is 45 nm (nanometers) smaller than the Radeon X1050. This means that the 8400 GS is expected to run much cooler and achieve higher clock frequencies than the Radeon X1050. While they exhibit similar graphical performance, the 8400 GS should consume less power than the Radeon X1050.

The GeForce 8400 GS Rev. 2 requires 25 Watts to run and the Radeon X1050 requires 24 Watts. We would recommend a PSU with at least 300 Watts for the Radeon X1050, but we do not have a recommended PSU wattage for the 8400 GS. The 8400 GS requires 1 Watts more than the Radeon X1050 to run. The difference is not significant enough for the 8400 GS to have a noticeably larger impact on your yearly electricity bills than the Radeon X1050.

Game FPS Benchmarks On Ultra

GPU Architecture

Core Speed567 MHzvs400 MHz
Boost Clock-vs-
ArchitectureTesla G98RV370
OC Potential Fair vs Fair
Driver Support Poor vs -
Release Date01 Dec 2007vs07 Dec 2006
GPU LinkGD LinkGD Link
Approved
Comparison

Resolution Performance

1366x768 - green tick vs green tick -
1600x900
1.9
green tick vs -
1920x1080
1.2
green tick vs -
2560x1440
0.7
green tick vs -
3840x2160
0.4
green tick vs -

GPU Memory

Memory512 MBvs128 MB
Memory Speed400 MHzvs333 MHz
Memory Bus64 Bitvs64 Bit
Memory TypeDDR2vsDDR2
Memory Bandwidth6.4GB/secvs5.3GB/sec
L2 Cache 0 KB green tick vs -
Delta Color Compression no vs no
Memory Performance 0% green tick vs green tick 0%
Comparison

GPU Display

Shader Processing Units8vs4
Actual Shader Performance0%vs0%
Technology65nmvs110nm
Texture Mapping Units8vs4
Texture Rate4.5 GTexel/svs1.6 GTexel/s
Render Output Units8vs4
Pixel Rate4.5 GPixel/svs1.6 GPixel/s
Comparison

GPU Outputs

Max Digital Resolution (WxH)2560x1600vs2560x1600
VGA Connections1vs1
DVI Connections1vs1
HDMI Connections0vs0
DisplayPort Connections-vs-
Comparison

GPU Power Requirements

Max Power25 Wattsvs24 Watts
Recommended PSU-300 Watts & 18 Amps

GPU Features

DirectX10.0vs9
Shader Model4.1vs2.0
Open GL3.3vs2.0
Open CL-vs-
Notebook GPUnono
SLI/Crossfirenovsno
Dedicatedyesvsyes
Comparison

GPU Supporting Hardware

Recommended ProcessorIntel Celeron 440 2.0GHz-
Recommended RAM3 GB-
Maximum Recommended Gaming Resolution1024x768-

Gaming Performance Value

Performance Value

GPU Mini Review

Mini ReviewGeForce 8400 GS Rev. 2 is the second revision of the entry-level GeForce 8400 GS.
Based on the G98 Core (against the G86 of the first revision), it offers only 8 Shader Processing Units instead of 16 but its central unit is higher-clocked. It also features a 512MB frame buffer against the 256MB of the first revision which will prove useful on most 3D applications.
Its performance is on level with the first revision due to the lesser SPU count but the power consumption is much lower of only 25 Watts.
Radeon X1050 is an entry-level GFX based on the 110nm variant of the R300 architecture.
It's based on the RV370 Core and offers 4 Pixel Shaders, 4 TMUs and 4 ROPs, on a 64-bit of standard DDR2. The central unit runs at 400MHz and the memory clock operates at up to 333MHz. Expect a TDP of up to 24 Watt.
Radeon X1050 is not related to the rest of the X1000 Series GPUs due to being based on the R300 architecture and not on the R500. Its performance is relatively limited - even for DirectX 9 based games. As it's not based on a Shader-Unified architecture, both DirectX 10 & 11 games aren't supported.
Recommended CPU
-
Possible GPU Upgrades
-
GPU Variants
-
-