GeForce 9400 vs GeForce GTX 1650

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 is positioned at rank #616 in our cost-efficiency ranking, representing a Lower cost-benefit for your build. Components placed above yours deliver better value for money.

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

#605

Radeon RX 550X (móvel)

MSRP: $35|Avg: $35

4360%

#607

GeForce GTX 1070 with Max-Q Design

MSRP: N/A|Avg: $150

3953%

#608

GeForce GTX 1060 with Max-Q Design

MSRP: N/A|Avg: $100

3942%

#612

GeForce GTX 1050 (Mobile)

MSRP: N/A|Avg: $50

3585%

#613

Radeon RX 6300

MSRP: $60|Avg: $40

3560%

#615

GeForce 9800 GTX/9800 GTX+

MSRP: $229|Avg: $40

100%

#616

GeForce 9400

MSRP: $59|Avg: $15

100%

#617

GeForce 7350 LE

MSRP: $30|Avg: $10

99%

#619

Mobility Radeon HD 3850

MSRP: $150|Avg: $15

98%

#620

Mobility Radeon HD 4870

MSRP: $299|Avg: $20

97%

#621

GeForce 9800M GT

MSRP: $160|Avg: $5

96%

#622

Radeon HD 7600G + HD 7400M Dual

MSRP: $140|Avg: $35

94%

#623

Radeon HD 8550G + 8670M Dual

MSRP: $250|Avg: $40

93%

#624

GeForce 8300 GS

MSRP: $50|Avg: $50

92%

#625

Mobility Radeon HD 3400 Serisi

MSRP: $49|Avg: $10

91%

#626

Radeon HD 8570D + HD 8470 Dual

MSRP: $150|Avg: $50

90%

#627

GeForce 9500M GS

MSRP: $60|Avg: $15

89%

#628

GeForce 8800 GS

MSRP: $150|Avg: $40

88%

#630

GeForce 9800 GTX+

MSRP: $229|Avg: $50

86%

Based on actual market prices and performance benchmarks.

Performance Per Dollar

Based on actual market prices and performance benchmarks.

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 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 5253.1% higher G3D Mark score and 700% more VRAM (4 GB vs 512 MB). This advantage makes it significantly better for higher resolutions (1440p/4K) and graphic-intensive titles compared to the GeForce 9400.

Insight	GeForce 9400	GeForce GTX 1650
Performance	❌Lower raw frame rates (-5253.1%)	✅Leading raw performance (+5253.1%)
Longevity	🛑Obsolete Architecture (2015 / Maxwell (2014−2017))	Turing (2018−2022) (12nm)
Ecosystem	Supports FSR Upscaling	Supports FSR Upscaling
VRAM	❌ Less VRAM capacity	✅ More VRAM (+700%)
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 $15), its significant performance lead justifies the premium, offering 970.6% better value per dollar than the GeForce 9400.

Insight	GeForce 9400	GeForce GTX 1650
Cost Efficiency	❌Lower cost efficiency	✅Better overall value (+970.6%)
Upfront Cost	✅More affordable ($15)	⚠️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.

GeForce 9400 Benchmark Check

GeForce GTX 1650 Benchmark Check

Loading...

Check FPS for your specific build

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of GeForce 9400 and GeForce GTX 1650

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.

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 scores 147 versus the GeForce GTX 1650's 7,869 — the GeForce GTX 1650 leads by 5253.1%. The GeForce 9400 is built on Maxwell while the GeForce GTX 1650 uses Turing, both on 28 nm vs 12 nm. Shader units: 384 (GeForce 9400) vs 896 (GeForce GTX 1650). Raw compute: 0.9032 TFLOPS (GeForce 9400) vs 2.984 TFLOPS (GeForce GTX 1650). Boost clocks: 1176 MHz vs 1665 MHz.

Feature	GeForce 9400	GeForce GTX 1650
G3D Mark Score	147	7,869+5253%
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	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 comes with 512 MB of VRAM, while the GeForce GTX 1650 has 4 GB. The GeForce GTX 1650 offers 700% more capacity, crucial for higher resolutions and texture-heavy games. Bus width: 128-bit vs 128-bit.

Feature	GeForce 9400	GeForce GTX 1650
VRAM Capacity	0.5 GB	4 GB+700%
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 (GeForce 9400) vs 12 (GeForce GTX 1650). Vulkan: N/A vs 1.4. OpenGL: 3.3 vs 4.6. Maximum simultaneous displays: 2 vs 3.

Feature	GeForce 9400	GeForce GTX 1650
DirectX	10	12+20%
Vulkan	N/A	1.4
OpenGL	3.3	4.6+39%
Max Displays	2	3+50%

🎬

Media & Encoding

Hardware encoder: None (GeForce 9400) vs NVENC 5th gen (Volta) (GeForce GTX 1650). Decoder: PureVideo HD (VP2) vs NVDEC 4th gen. Supported codecs: H.264,MPEG-2,VC-1 (GeForce 9400) vs H.264,H.265/HEVC,VP8,VP9 (GeForce GTX 1650).

Feature	GeForce 9400	GeForce GTX 1650
Encoder	None	NVENC 5th gen (Volta)
Decoder	PureVideo HD (VP2)	NVDEC 4th gen
Codecs	H.264,MPEG-2,VC-1	H.264,H.265/HEVC,VP8,VP9

🔌

Power & Dimensions

The GeForce 9400 draws 33W versus the GeForce GTX 1650's 75W — a 77.8% difference. The GeForce 9400 is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 350W (GeForce 9400) vs 300W (GeForce GTX 1650). Power connectors: Legacy vs None. Card length: 168mm vs 229mm, occupying 1 vs 2 slots. Typical load temperature: 85 vs 70°C.

Feature	GeForce 9400	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)	85	70°C-18%
Perf/Watt	4.5	104.9+2231%

💰

Value Analysis

The GeForce 9400 launched at $59 MSRP and currently averages $15, while the GeForce GTX 1650 launched at $149 and now averages $75. The GeForce 9400 costs 80% less ($60 savings) at current market prices. Performance per dollar (G3D Mark / price): 9.8 (GeForce 9400) vs 104.9 (GeForce GTX 1650) — the GeForce GTX 1650 offers 970.4% better value. The GeForce GTX 1650 is the newer GPU (2019 vs 2015).