FireStream 9250 vs GeForce 840A
FireStream 9250
Popular choices:
GeForce 840A
Popular choices:
Performance Spectrum - GPU
About G3D Mark
G3D Mark is a standard benchmark that measures graphics performance in real-world gaming scenarios. It simplifies comparing cards from different brands, where higher scores directly correlate with better fps and smoother gaming experiences.
Value Upgrade Path
This is the official ChipVERSUS Value Rating, comparing raw performance (G3D Mark) per dollar. Components placed above yours deliver better value for money. The FireStream 9250 is positioned at rank 340 and the GeForce 840A is on rank 349, so the FireStream 9250 offers better cost-efficiency for playing games.
Avg price is the current average price collected from markets across the web.
Performance Per Dollar FireStream 9250
Performance Per Dollar GeForce 840A
Performance Comparison
About G3D Mark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
⚠️ Generational Difference
The GeForce 840A is significantly newer (2014 vs 2008). The GeForce 840A likely supports modern features like Ray Tracing, Tensor Cores, and DLSS/FSR upscaling, which act as force multipliers for performance. The FireStream 9250 lacks this hardware feature set, limiting its longevity in modern titles despite any raw power similarities.
🚀 Performance Leadership
The FireStream 9250 is the superior choice for raw performance. It leads with a 4.5% higher G3D Mark score and 100% more VRAM (1 GB vs 512 MB). This advantage makes it significantly better for higher resolutions (1440p/4K) and graphic-intensive titles compared to the GeForce 840A.
| Insight | FireStream 9250 | GeForce 840A |
|---|---|---|
| Performance | ✅Leading raw performance (+4.5%) | ❌Lower raw frame rates (-4.5%) |
| Longevity | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2008 / TeraScale (2005−2013)) | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2014 / Maxwell (2014−2017)) |
| Ecosystem | Supports FSR Upscaling | Supports FSR Upscaling |
| VRAM | ✅ More VRAM (+100%) | ❌ Less VRAM capacity |
| Efficiency | ⚡ Higher Power Consumption | 💡 Excellent Perf/Watt |
| Case Fit | 📏 Compact / SFF Friendly | — |
💎 Value Proposition
The GeForce 840A offers a compelling cost-to-performance ratio. While both GPUs are considered legacy components by modern standards, the GeForce 840A holds the technical lead. Priced at $25 (vs $49), it costs 49% less, resulting in a 87.6% higher cost efficiency score.
| Insight | FireStream 9250 | GeForce 840A |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ❌Lower cost efficiency | ✅Better overall value (+87.6%) |
| Upfront Cost | ⚠️Higher upfront cost ($49) | ✅More affordable ($25) |
Performance Check
Real-world benchmarks and performance projections based on comprehensive hardware analysis and comparative metrics. Values represent expected performance on High/Ultra settings at 1080p, 1440p, and 4K. Modeled using a Ryzen 7 7800X3D reference profile to minimize specific CPU bottlenecks.
Note: Performance behavior can vary per game. Specific architectures may perform better or worse depending on game engine optimizations and API implementation.
Technical Specifications
Side-by-side comparison of FireStream 9250 and GeForce 840A
FireStream 9250
The FireStream 9250 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in June 16 2008. It features the TeraScale architecture. The core clock speed is 625 MHz. It has 800 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 150W. Manufactured using 55 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 1,165 points.
GeForce 840A
The GeForce 840A is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in March 17 2014. It features the Maxwell architecture. The core clock ranges from 1029 MHz to 1124 MHz. It has 384 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 33W. Manufactured using 28 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 1,115 points.
Graphics Performance
The FireStream 9250 scores 1,165 and the GeForce 840A reaches 1,115 in the G3D Mark benchmark — just a 4.5% difference, making them near-identical in rasterization performance. The FireStream 9250 is built on TeraScale while the GeForce 840A uses Maxwell, both on 55 nm vs 28 nm. Shader units: 800 (FireStream 9250) vs 384 (GeForce 840A). Raw compute: 1 TFLOPS (FireStream 9250) vs 0.8632 TFLOPS (GeForce 840A).
| Feature | FireStream 9250 | GeForce 840A |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 1,165+4% | 1,115 |
| Architecture | TeraScale | Maxwell |
| Process Node | 55 nm | 28 nm |
| Shading Units | 800+108% | 384 |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 1 TFLOPS+16% | 0.8632 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 16+100% | 8 |
| TMUs | 40+150% | 16 |
| L1 Cache | 160 KB | 192 KB+20% |
| L2 Cache | 0.25 MB | 1 MB+300% |
Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)
| Feature | FireStream 9250 | GeForce 840A |
|---|---|---|
| Upscaling Tech | FSR 1.0 (Software) | FSR 1.0 (Software) |
| Frame Generation | Not Supported | Not Supported |
| Ray Reconstruction | No | No |
| Low Latency | Standard | Standard |
Video Memory (VRAM)
The FireStream 9250 comes with 1 GB of VRAM, while the GeForce 840A has 512 MB. The FireStream 9250 offers 100% more capacity, crucial for higher resolutions and texture-heavy games. Bus width: 64-bit vs 128-bit. L2 Cache: 0.25 MB (FireStream 9250) vs 1 MB (GeForce 840A) — the GeForce 840A has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.
| Feature | FireStream 9250 | GeForce 840A |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 1 GB+100% | 0.5 GB |
| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Bus Width | 64-bit | 128-bit+100% |
| L2 Cache | 0.25 MB | 1 MB+300% |
Display & API Support
DirectX support: 10.1 (FireStream 9250) vs 12 (11_0) (GeForce 840A). Vulkan: N/A vs 1.1. OpenGL: 3.3 vs 4.5. Maximum simultaneous displays: 1 vs 3.
| Feature | FireStream 9250 | GeForce 840A |
|---|---|---|
| DirectX | 10.1 | 12 (11_0)+19% |
| Vulkan | N/A | 1.1 |
| OpenGL | 3.3 | 4.5+36% |
| Max Displays | 1 | 3+200% |
Media & Encoding
Hardware encoder: None (FireStream 9250) vs NVENC (Maxwell) (GeForce 840A). Decoder: UVD 2.0 vs NVDEC (Maxwell). Supported codecs: H.264,VC-1 (FireStream 9250) vs H.264,VC-1,MPEG-2 (GeForce 840A).
| Feature | FireStream 9250 | GeForce 840A |
|---|---|---|
| Encoder | None | NVENC (Maxwell) |
| Decoder | UVD 2.0 | NVDEC (Maxwell) |
| Codecs | H.264,VC-1 | H.264,VC-1,MPEG-2 |
Power & Dimensions
The FireStream 9250 draws 150W versus the GeForce 840A's 33W — a 127.9% difference. The GeForce 840A is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 350W (FireStream 9250) vs 350W (GeForce 840A). Power connectors: PCIe-powered vs Legacy. Typical load temperature: Unknown vs 75°C.
| Feature | FireStream 9250 | GeForce 840A |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 150W | 33W-78% |
| Recommended PSU | 350W | 350W |
| Power Connector | PCIe-powered | Legacy |
| Length | 234mm | — |
| Height | 111mm | — |
| Slots | 1 | — |
| Temp (Load) | Unknown-100% | 75°C |
| Perf/Watt | 7.8 | 33.8+333% |
Value Analysis
The FireStream 9250 launched at $999 MSRP and currently averages $49, while the GeForce 840A launched at $100 and now averages $25. The GeForce 840A costs 49% less ($24 savings) at current market prices. Performance per dollar (G3D Mark / price): 23.8 (FireStream 9250) vs 44.6 (GeForce 840A) — the GeForce 840A offers 87.4% better value. The GeForce 840A is the newer GPU (2014 vs 2008).
| Feature | FireStream 9250 | GeForce 840A |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $999 | $100-90% |
| Avg Price (30d) | $49 | $25-49% |
| Performance per Dollar | 23.8 | 44.6+87% |
| Codename | RV770 | GM108 |
| Release | June 16 2008 | March 17 2014 |
| Ranking | #840 | #850 |
Top Performing GPUs
The most powerful gpus ranked by G3D Mark benchmark scores.
You May Also Compare
Similar GPU comparisons based on FireStream 9250 and GeForce 840A
