CPU
GPU
GeForce 310
Popular choices:
GeForce 9400
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 GeForce 310 is positioned at rank 577 and the GeForce 9400 is on rank 616, so the GeForce 310 offers better cost-efficiency for playing games.
Avg price is the current average price collected from markets across the web.
Performance Per Dollar GeForce 310
Performance Per Dollar GeForce 9400
Performance Comparison
About G3D Mark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
🚀 Performance Leadership
The GeForce 9400 is the superior choice for raw performance. It leads with a 2.8% higher G3D Mark score. This advantage makes it significantly better for higher resolutions (1440p/4K) and graphic-intensive titles compared to the GeForce 310.
| Insight | GeForce 310 | GeForce 9400 |
|---|---|---|
| Performance | ❌Lower raw frame rates (-2.8%) | ✅Leading raw performance (+2.8%) |
| Longevity | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2015 / Maxwell (2014−2017)) | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2015 / Maxwell (2014−2017)) |
| Ecosystem | Supports FSR Upscaling | Supports FSR Upscaling |
| VRAM | ❌ Less VRAM capacity | ✅ More VRAM (+0%) |
| Efficiency | Normal Efficiency | Normal Efficiency |
| Case Fit | 📏 Compact / SFF Friendly | 📏 Compact / SFF Friendly |
💎 Value Proposition
The GeForce 310 offers a compelling cost-to-performance ratio. While both GPUs are considered legacy components by modern standards, the GeForce 310 holds the technical lead. Priced at $5 (vs $15), it costs 67% less, resulting in a 191.8% higher cost efficiency score.
| Insight | GeForce 310 | GeForce 9400 |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ✅Better overall value (+191.8%) | ❌Lower cost efficiency |
| Upfront Cost | ✅More affordable ($5) | ⚠️Higher upfront cost ($15) |
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 GeForce 310 and GeForce 9400
GeForce 310
The GeForce 310 is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in March 13 2015. It features the Maxwell architecture. The core clock ranges from 928 MHz to 941 MHz. It has 384 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 33W. Manufactured using 28 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 143 points.
GeForce 9400
The GeForce 9400 is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in March 13 2015. It features the Maxwell architecture. The core clock ranges from 1072 MHz to 1176 MHz. It has 384 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 33W. Manufactured using 28 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 147 points.
Graphics Performance
The GeForce 310 scores 143 and the GeForce 9400 reaches 147 in the G3D Mark benchmark — just a 2.8% difference, making them near-identical in rasterization performance. The GeForce 310 is built on Maxwell while the GeForce 9400 uses Maxwell, both on a 28 nm process. Shader units: 384 (GeForce 310) vs 384 (GeForce 9400). Raw compute: 0.7227 TFLOPS (GeForce 310) vs 0.9032 TFLOPS (GeForce 9400). Boost clocks: 941 MHz vs 1176 MHz.
| Feature | GeForce 310 | GeForce 9400 |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 143 | 147+3% |
| Architecture | Maxwell | Maxwell |
| Process Node | 28 nm | 28 nm |
| Shading Units | 384 | 384 |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 0.7227 TFLOPS | 0.9032 TFLOPS+25% |
| Boost Clock | 941 MHz | 1176 MHz+25% |
| ROPs | 8 | 8 |
| TMUs | 24 | 24 |
| L1 Cache | 192 KB | 192 KB |
| L2 Cache | 1 MB | 1 MB |
Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)
| Feature | GeForce 310 | GeForce 9400 |
|---|---|---|
| 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)
Both cards feature 512 MB of GDDR5. Bus width: 128-bit vs 128-bit.
| Feature | GeForce 310 | GeForce 9400 |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 0.5 GB | 0.5 GB |
| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Memory Bandwidth | Unknown | Unknown |
| Bus Width | 128-bit | 128-bit |
| L2 Cache | 1 MB | 1 MB |
Display & API Support
DirectX support: 10.1 (GeForce 310) vs 10 (GeForce 9400). OpenGL: 3.3 vs 3.3. Maximum simultaneous displays: 2 vs 2.
| Feature | GeForce 310 | GeForce 9400 |
|---|---|---|
| DirectX | 10.1 | 10 |
| OpenGL | 3.3 | 3.3 |
| Max Displays | 2 | 2 |
Media & Encoding
Hardware encoder: None (GeForce 310) vs None (GeForce 9400). Decoder: PureVideo VP4 vs PureVideo HD (VP2). Supported codecs: H.264,VC-1,MPEG-2,MPEG-4 Part 2 (GeForce 310) vs H.264,MPEG-2,VC-1 (GeForce 9400).
| Feature | GeForce 310 | GeForce 9400 |
|---|---|---|
| Encoder | None | None |
| Decoder | PureVideo VP4 | PureVideo HD (VP2) |
| Codecs | H.264,VC-1,MPEG-2,MPEG-4 Part 2 | H.264,MPEG-2,VC-1 |
Power & Dimensions
The GeForce 310 draws 33W versus the GeForce 9400's 33W — a 0% difference. The GeForce 9400 is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 350W (GeForce 310) vs 350W (GeForce 9400). Power connectors: Legacy vs Legacy. Card length: 168mm vs 168mm, occupying 1 vs 1 slots. Typical load temperature: 80°C vs 85.
| Feature | GeForce 310 | GeForce 9400 |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 33W | 33W |
| Recommended PSU | 350W | 350W |
| Power Connector | Legacy | Legacy |
| Length | 168mm | 168mm |
| Height | 69mm | 111mm |
| Slots | 1 | 1 |
| Temp (Load) | 80°C-6% | 85 |
| Perf/Watt | 4.3 | 4.5+5% |
Value Analysis
The GeForce 310 launched at $45 MSRP and currently averages $5, while the GeForce 9400 launched at $59 and now averages $15. The GeForce 310 costs 66.7% less ($10 savings) at current market prices. Performance per dollar (G3D Mark / price): 28.6 (GeForce 310) vs 9.8 (GeForce 9400) — the GeForce 310 offers 191.8% better value.
| Feature | GeForce 310 | GeForce 9400 |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $45-24% | $59 |
| Avg Price (30d) | $5-67% | $15 |
| Performance per Dollar | 28.6+192% | 9.8 |
| Codename | GM108 | GM108 |
| Release | March 13 2015 | March 13 2015 |
| Ranking | #810 | #847 |
Top Performing GPUs
The most powerful gpus ranked by G3D Mark benchmark scores.
You May Also Compare
Similar GPU comparisons based on GeForce 310 and GeForce 9400
