GeForce 9400 GT vs Quadro FX 1600M

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 9400 GT is positioned at rank 573 and the Quadro FX 1600M is on rank 298, so the Quadro FX 1600M offers better cost-efficiency for playing games.

MSRP is the manufacturer's suggested retail price.•
Avg price is the current average price collected from markets across the web.

Performance Per Dollar GeForce 9400 GT

#563

Radeon RX 550X (móvel)

MSRP: $35|Avg: $35

3351%

#565

GeForce GTX 1070 with Max-Q Design

MSRP: N/A|Avg: $150

3038%

#566

GeForce GTX 1060 with Max-Q Design

MSRP: N/A|Avg: $100

3030%

#570

GeForce GTX 1050 (Mobile)

MSRP: N/A|Avg: $50

2755%

#571

Radeon RX 6300

MSRP: $60|Avg: $40

2736%

#573

GeForce 9400 GT

MSRP: $59|Avg: $20

100%

#574

Radeon HD 8610G + HD 8600M Dual

MSRP: $150|Avg: $150

99%

#575

GeForce 240M GT

MSRP: $100|Avg: $5

99%

#576

Radeon HD 8450G + HD 8670M Dual

MSRP: $150|Avg: $150

98%

#577

GeForce 310

MSRP: $45|Avg: $5

98%

#578

Radeon HD 7640G + HD 8570M Dual

MSRP: $150|Avg: $40

98%

#579

GeForce 9600 GT

MSRP: $149|Avg: $20

98%

#580

Radeon R5 M320

MSRP: $150|Avg: $150

98%

#581

Radeon HD 7620G + HD 8600M Dual

MSRP: $140|Avg: $30

98%

#582

Radeon HD 8650G + 8600M Dual

MSRP: $200|Avg: $50

95%

#583

Mobility Radeon HD 4570

MSRP: $49|Avg: $15

94%

#584

Radeon Vega 10

MSRP: $499|Avg: $100

94%

#585

Radeon HD 8450G + HD 8600M Dual

MSRP: $150|Avg: $35

93%

#586

Radeon R7 M440

MSRP: $300|Avg: $300

93%

#588

Mobility Radeon HD 4350

MSRP: $50|Avg: $15

91%

Based on actual market prices and performance benchmarks.

Performance Per Dollar Quadro FX 1600M

#115

Radeon Instinct MI60

MSRP: $6000|Avg: $600

99%

#283

Tesla K20m

MSRP: $3199|Avg: $55

7576%

#298

Quadro FX 1600M

MSRP: N/A|Avg: N/A

100%

#299

GRID K220Q

MSRP: $469|Avg: $40

99%

#301

FirePro W9100

MSRP: $4000|Avg: $200

99%

#302

GRID T4-8Q

MSRP: $2500|Avg: $1000

97%

#303

FirePro 3D V3700

MSRP: $99|Avg: $10

93%

#304

GRID T4-1Q

MSRP: $1880|Avg: $600

90%

#305

GRID M60-2Q

MSRP: $3000|Avg: $150

89%

#306

NVS 310

MSRP: $159|Avg: $10

89%

#308

FirePro 3D V3750

MSRP: $199|Avg: $25

88%

#309

NVS 810

MSRP: $700|Avg: $80

87%

#310

GRID P40-2Q

MSRP: $5699|Avg: $340

86%

#311

Quadro 2000D

MSRP: $599|Avg: $40

84%

#312

FirePro 3D V8800

MSRP: $1499|Avg: $30

84%

#313

Quadro K5000

MSRP: $2499|Avg: $60

82%

Based on actual market prices and performance benchmarks.

Performance Comparison

About G3D Mark

🏆 Chipversus Verdict

⚠️ Generational Difference

The GeForce 9400 GT is significantly newer (2015 vs 2008). The GeForce 9400 GT likely supports modern features like Ray Tracing, Tensor Cores, and DLSS/FSR upscaling, which act as force multipliers for performance. The Quadro FX 1600M lacks this hardware feature set, limiting its longevity in modern titles despite any raw power similarities.

🚀 Performance Leadership

The Quadro FX 1600M is the superior choice for raw performance. It leads with a 2.1% higher G3D Mark score. However, the GeForce 9400 GT offers more VRAM, which may be beneficial for texture-heavy scenarios at higher resolutions.

Insight	GeForce 9400 GT	Quadro FX 1600M
Performance	❌Lower raw frame rates (-2.1%)	✅Leading raw performance (+2.1%)
Longevity	🛑Obsolete Architecture (2015 / Maxwell (2014−2017))	🛑Obsolete Architecture (2008 / Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013))
Ecosystem	Supports FSR Upscaling	Supports FSR Upscaling
VRAM	✅ More VRAM (+100%)	❌ Less VRAM capacity
Efficiency	💡 Excellent Perf/Watt	⚡ Higher Power Consumption
Case Fit	📏 Compact / SFF Friendly	—

💎 Value Proposition

While current pricing data is unavailable, the Quadro FX 1600M remains the clear technical winner. Check real-time availability to determine if the performance gap justifies the market price.

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.

GeForce 9400 GT Benchmark Check

Quadro FX 1600M Benchmark Check

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of GeForce 9400 GT and Quadro FX 1600M

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.

Quadro FX 1600M

The Quadro FX 1600M is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in November 11 2008. It features the Tesla 2.0 architecture. The core clock speed is 610 MHz. It has 240 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 189W. Manufactured using 55 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 195 points. Launch price was $3,499.

⚡

Graphics Performance

The GeForce 9400 GT scores 191 and the Quadro FX 1600M reaches 195 in the G3D Mark benchmark — just a 2.1% difference, making them near-identical in rasterization performance. The GeForce 9400 GT is built on Maxwell while the Quadro FX 1600M uses Tesla 2.0, both on 28 nm vs 55 nm. Shader units: 384 (GeForce 9400 GT) vs 240 (Quadro FX 1600M). Raw compute: 0.9032 TFLOPS (GeForce 9400 GT) vs 0.6221 TFLOPS (Quadro FX 1600M).

Feature	GeForce 9400 GT	Quadro FX 1600M
G3D Mark Score	191	195+2%
Architecture	Maxwell	Tesla 2.0
Process Node	28 nm	55 nm
Shading Units	384+60%	240
Compute (TFLOPS)	0.9032 TFLOPS+45%	0.6221 TFLOPS
ROPs	8	32+300%
TMUs	24	80+233%
L2 Cache	1 MB+300%	0.25 MB

✨

Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)

Feature	GeForce 9400 GT	Quadro FX 1600M
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 9400 GT comes with 1 GB of VRAM, while the Quadro FX 1600M has 512 MB. The GeForce 9400 GT offers 100% more capacity, crucial for higher resolutions and texture-heavy games. Bus width: 128-bit vs 64-bit. L2 Cache: 1 MB (GeForce 9400 GT) vs 0.25 MB (Quadro FX 1600M) — the GeForce 9400 GT has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.

Feature	GeForce 9400 GT	Quadro FX 1600M
VRAM Capacity	1 GB+100%	0.5 GB
Memory Type	GDDR5	GDDR5
Bus Width	128-bit+100%	64-bit
L2 Cache	1 MB+300%	0.25 MB

🔌

Power & Dimensions

The GeForce 9400 GT draws 33W versus the Quadro FX 1600M's 189W — a 140.5% difference. The GeForce 9400 GT is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 350W (GeForce 9400 GT) vs 350W (Quadro FX 1600M). Power connectors: Legacy vs PCIe-powered.