GeForce 9400 GT vs GeForce GTX 1650
GeForce 9400 GT
Popular choices:
GeForce GTX 1650
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. The GeForce 9400 GT is positioned at rank #573 in our cost-efficiency ranking, representing a Lower cost-benefit for your build. Components placed above yours deliver better value for money.
Avg price is the current average price collected from markets across the web.
Performance Per Dollar GeForce 9400 GT
Performance Per Dollar
Performance Comparison
About G3D Mark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
⚠️ Generational Difference
The GeForce GTX 1650 uses modern memory architecture. The GeForce GTX 1650 likely supports modern features like Ray Tracing, Tensor Cores, and DLSS/FSR upscaling, which act as force multipliers for performance. The GeForce 9400 GT lacks this hardware feature set, limiting its longevity in modern titles despite any raw power similarities.
🚀 Performance Leadership
The GeForce GTX 1650 is the superior choice for raw performance. It leads with a 4019.9% higher G3D Mark score and 300% more VRAM (4 GB vs 1 GB). This advantage makes it significantly better for higher resolutions (1440p/4K) and graphic-intensive titles compared to the GeForce 9400 GT.
| Insight | GeForce 9400 GT | GeForce GTX 1650 |
|---|---|---|
| Performance | ❌Lower raw frame rates (-4019.9%) | ✅Leading raw performance (+4019.9%) |
| Longevity | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2015 / Maxwell (2014−2017)) | Turing (2018−2022) (12nm) |
| Ecosystem | Supports FSR Upscaling | Supports FSR Upscaling |
| VRAM | ❌ Less VRAM capacity | ✅ More VRAM (+300%) |
| Efficiency | ⚡ Higher Power Consumption | 💡 Excellent Perf/Watt |
| Case Fit | 📏 Compact / SFF Friendly | 📏 Compact / SFF Friendly |
💎 Value Proposition
The GeForce GTX 1650 offers a compelling cost-to-performance ratio. Although it costs $75 (vs $20), its significant performance lead justifies the premium, offering 998.6% better value per dollar than the GeForce 9400 GT.
| Insight | GeForce 9400 GT | GeForce GTX 1650 |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ❌Lower cost efficiency | ✅Better overall value (+998.6%) |
| Upfront Cost | ✅More affordable ($20) | ⚠️Higher upfront cost ($75) |
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 9400 GT and GeForce GTX 1650
GeForce 9400 GT
The GeForce 9400 GT 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: 191 points.
GeForce GTX 1650
The GeForce GTX 1650 is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in April 23 2019. It features the Turing architecture. The core clock ranges from 1485 MHz to 1665 MHz. It has 896 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 75W. Manufactured using 12 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 7,869 points. Launch price was $149.
Graphics Performance
In G3D Mark, the GeForce 9400 GT scores 191 versus the GeForce GTX 1650's 7,869 — the GeForce GTX 1650 leads by 4019.9%. The GeForce 9400 GT is built on Maxwell while the GeForce GTX 1650 uses Turing, both on 28 nm vs 12 nm. Shader units: 384 (GeForce 9400 GT) vs 896 (GeForce GTX 1650). Raw compute: 0.9032 TFLOPS (GeForce 9400 GT) vs 2.984 TFLOPS (GeForce GTX 1650). Boost clocks: 1176 MHz vs 1665 MHz.
| Feature | GeForce 9400 GT | GeForce GTX 1650 |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 191 | 7,869+4020% |
| Architecture | Maxwell | Turing |
| Process Node | 28 nm | 12 nm |
| Shading Units | 384 | 896+133% |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 0.9032 TFLOPS | 2.984 TFLOPS+230% |
| Boost Clock | 1176 MHz | 1665 MHz+42% |
| ROPs | 8 | 32+300% |
| TMUs | 24 | 56+133% |
| L1 Cache | 192 KB | 896 KB+367% |
| L2 Cache | 1 MB | 1 MB |
Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)
| Feature | GeForce 9400 GT | GeForce GTX 1650 |
|---|---|---|
| Upscaling Tech | FSR 1.0 (Software) | FSR 2.1 (Compatible) |
| Frame Generation | Not Supported | FSR 3 (Compatible) |
| Ray Reconstruction | No | No |
| Low Latency | Standard | Standard |
Video Memory (VRAM)
The GeForce 9400 GT comes with 1 GB of VRAM, while the GeForce GTX 1650 has 4 GB. The GeForce GTX 1650 offers 300% more capacity, crucial for higher resolutions and texture-heavy games. Bus width: 128-bit vs 128-bit.
| Feature | GeForce 9400 GT | GeForce GTX 1650 |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 1 GB | 4 GB+300% |
| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Memory Bandwidth | Unknown | 128 GB/s |
| Bus Width | 128-bit | 128-bit |
| L2 Cache | 1 MB | 1 MB |
Display & API Support
DirectX support: 10.0 (GeForce 9400 GT) vs 12 (GeForce GTX 1650). Vulkan: None vs 1.4. OpenGL: 3.3 vs 4.6. Maximum simultaneous displays: 2 vs 3.
| Feature | GeForce 9400 GT | GeForce GTX 1650 |
|---|---|---|
| DirectX | 10.0 | 12+20% |
| Vulkan | None | 1.4 |
| OpenGL | 3.3 | 4.6+39% |
| Max Displays | 2 | 3+50% |
Media & Encoding
Hardware encoder: No (GeForce 9400 GT) vs NVENC 5th gen (Volta) (GeForce GTX 1650). Decoder: PureVideo HD VP2 vs NVDEC 4th gen. Supported codecs: MPEG-2,H.264 (GeForce 9400 GT) vs H.264,H.265/HEVC,VP8,VP9 (GeForce GTX 1650).
| Feature | GeForce 9400 GT | GeForce GTX 1650 |
|---|---|---|
| Encoder | No | NVENC 5th gen (Volta) |
| Decoder | PureVideo HD VP2 | NVDEC 4th gen |
| Codecs | MPEG-2,H.264 | H.264,H.265/HEVC,VP8,VP9 |
Power & Dimensions
The GeForce 9400 GT draws 33W versus the GeForce GTX 1650's 75W — a 77.8% difference. The GeForce 9400 GT is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 350W (GeForce 9400 GT) vs 300W (GeForce GTX 1650). Power connectors: Legacy vs None. Card length: 168mm vs 229mm, occupying 1 vs 2 slots. Typical load temperature: 65°C vs 70°C.
| Feature | GeForce 9400 GT | GeForce GTX 1650 |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 33W-56% | 75W |
| Recommended PSU | 350W | 300W-14% |
| Power Connector | Legacy | None |
| Length | 168mm | 229mm |
| Height | 111mm | 111mm |
| Slots | 1-50% | 2 |
| Temp (Load) | 65°C-7% | 70°C |
| Perf/Watt | 5.8 | 104.9+1709% |
Value Analysis
The GeForce 9400 GT launched at $59 MSRP and currently averages $20, while the GeForce GTX 1650 launched at $149 and now averages $75. The GeForce 9400 GT costs 73.3% less ($55 savings) at current market prices. Performance per dollar (G3D Mark / price): 9.6 (GeForce 9400 GT) vs 104.9 (GeForce GTX 1650) — the GeForce GTX 1650 offers 992.7% better value. The GeForce GTX 1650 is the newer GPU (2019 vs 2015).
| Feature | GeForce 9400 GT | GeForce GTX 1650 |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $59-60% | $149 |
| Avg Price (30d) | $20-73% | $75 |
| Performance per Dollar | 9.6 | 104.9+993% |
| Codename | GM108 | TU117 |
| Release | March 13 2015 | April 23 2019 |
| Ranking | #847 | #323 |
Top Performing GPUs
The most powerful gpus ranked by G3D Mark benchmark scores.
You May Also Compare
Similar GPU comparisons based on GeForce 9400 GT and GeForce GTX 1650
