GeForce 840A vs FireStream 9250
GeForce 840A
Popular choices:
FireStream 9250
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 840A is positioned at rank 349 and the FireStream 9250 is on rank 340, 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 GeForce 840A
Performance Per Dollar FireStream 9250
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 | GeForce 840A | FireStream 9250 |
|---|---|---|
| Performance | ❌Lower raw frame rates (-4.5%) | ✅Leading raw performance (+4.5%) |
| Longevity | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2014 / Maxwell (2014−2017)) | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2008 / TeraScale (2005−2013)) |
| Ecosystem | Supports FSR Upscaling | Supports FSR Upscaling |
| VRAM | ❌ Less VRAM capacity | ✅ More VRAM (+100%) |
| Efficiency | 💡 Excellent Perf/Watt | ⚡ Higher Power Consumption |
| 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 | GeForce 840A | FireStream 9250 |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ✅Better overall value (+87.6%) | ❌Lower cost efficiency |
| Upfront Cost | ✅More affordable ($25) | ⚠️Higher upfront cost ($49) |
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 840A and FireStream 9250
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.
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.
Graphics Performance
The GeForce 840A scores 1,115 and the FireStream 9250 reaches 1,165 in the G3D Mark benchmark — just a 4.5% difference, making them near-identical in rasterization performance. The GeForce 840A is built on Maxwell while the FireStream 9250 uses TeraScale, both on 28 nm vs 55 nm. Shader units: 384 (GeForce 840A) vs 800 (FireStream 9250). Raw compute: 0.8632 TFLOPS (GeForce 840A) vs 1 TFLOPS (FireStream 9250).
| Feature | GeForce 840A | FireStream 9250 |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 1,115 | 1,165+4% |
| Architecture | Maxwell | TeraScale |
| Process Node | 28 nm | 55 nm |
| Shading Units | 384 | 800+108% |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 0.8632 TFLOPS | 1 TFLOPS+16% |
| ROPs | 8 | 16+100% |
| TMUs | 16 | 40+150% |
| L1 Cache | 192 KB+20% | 160 KB |
| L2 Cache | 1 MB+300% | 0.25 MB |
Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)
| Feature | GeForce 840A | FireStream 9250 |
|---|---|---|
| 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 GeForce 840A comes with 512 MB of VRAM, while the FireStream 9250 has 1 GB. The FireStream 9250 offers 100% more capacity, crucial for higher resolutions and texture-heavy games. Bus width: 128-bit vs 64-bit. L2 Cache: 1 MB (GeForce 840A) vs 0.25 MB (FireStream 9250) — the GeForce 840A has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.
| Feature | GeForce 840A | FireStream 9250 |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 0.5 GB | 1 GB+100% |
| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Bus Width | 128-bit+100% | 64-bit |
| L2 Cache | 1 MB+300% | 0.25 MB |
Display & API Support
DirectX support: 12 (11_0) (GeForce 840A) vs 10.1 (FireStream 9250). Vulkan: 1.1 vs N/A. OpenGL: 4.5 vs 3.3. Maximum simultaneous displays: 3 vs 1.
| Feature | GeForce 840A | FireStream 9250 |
|---|---|---|
| DirectX | 12 (11_0)+19% | 10.1 |
| Vulkan | 1.1 | N/A |
| OpenGL | 4.5+36% | 3.3 |
| Max Displays | 3+200% | 1 |
Media & Encoding
Hardware encoder: NVENC (Maxwell) (GeForce 840A) vs None (FireStream 9250). Decoder: NVDEC (Maxwell) vs UVD 2.0. Supported codecs: H.264,VC-1,MPEG-2 (GeForce 840A) vs H.264,VC-1 (FireStream 9250).
| Feature | GeForce 840A | FireStream 9250 |
|---|---|---|
| Encoder | NVENC (Maxwell) | None |
| Decoder | NVDEC (Maxwell) | UVD 2.0 |
| Codecs | H.264,VC-1,MPEG-2 | H.264,VC-1 |
Power & Dimensions
The GeForce 840A draws 33W versus the FireStream 9250's 150W — a 127.9% difference. The GeForce 840A is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 350W (GeForce 840A) vs 350W (FireStream 9250). Power connectors: Legacy vs PCIe-powered. Typical load temperature: 75°C vs Unknown.
| Feature | GeForce 840A | FireStream 9250 |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 33W-78% | 150W |
| Recommended PSU | 350W | 350W |
| Power Connector | Legacy | PCIe-powered |
| Length | — | 234mm |
| Height | — | 111mm |
| Slots | — | 1 |
| Temp (Load) | 75°C | Unknown-100% |
| Perf/Watt | 33.8+333% | 7.8 |
Value Analysis
The GeForce 840A launched at $100 MSRP and currently averages $25, while the FireStream 9250 launched at $999 and now averages $49. The GeForce 840A costs 49% less ($24 savings) at current market prices. Performance per dollar (G3D Mark / price): 44.6 (GeForce 840A) vs 23.8 (FireStream 9250) — the GeForce 840A offers 87.4% better value. The GeForce 840A is the newer GPU (2014 vs 2008).
| Feature | GeForce 840A | FireStream 9250 |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $100-90% | $999 |
| Avg Price (30d) | $25-49% | $49 |
| Performance per Dollar | 44.6+87% | 23.8 |
| Codename | GM108 | RV770 |
| Release | March 17 2014 | June 16 2008 |
| Ranking | #850 | #840 |
Top Performing GPUs
The most powerful gpus ranked by G3D Mark benchmark scores.
You May Also Compare
Similar GPU comparisons based on GeForce 840A and FireStream 9250
