CPU
GPU
GeForce 9400M G
Popular choices:
Radeon X1600 Pro
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 9400M G is positioned at rank 650 and the Radeon X1600 Pro is on rank 342, so the Radeon X1600 Pro offers better cost-efficiency for playing games.
Avg price is the current average price collected from markets across the web.
Performance Per Dollar GeForce 9400M G
Performance Per Dollar Radeon X1600 Pro
Performance Comparison
About G3D Mark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
⚠️ Generational Difference
The Radeon X1600 Pro uses modern memory architecture. The Radeon X1600 Pro likely supports modern features like Ray Tracing, Tensor Cores, and DLSS/FSR upscaling, which act as force multipliers for performance. The GeForce 9400M G lacks this hardware feature set, limiting its longevity in modern titles despite any raw power similarities.
🚀 Performance Leadership
The Radeon X1600 Pro is the superior choice for raw performance. It leads with a 5.3% higher G3D Mark score and 100% more VRAM (512 MB vs 256 MB). This advantage makes it significantly better for higher resolutions (1440p/4K) and graphic-intensive titles compared to the GeForce 9400M G.
| Insight | GeForce 9400M G | Radeon X1600 Pro |
|---|---|---|
| Performance | ❌Lower raw frame rates (-5.3%) | ✅Leading raw performance (+5.3%) |
| Longevity | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2015 / Maxwell (2014−2017)) | RDNA 1.0 (2019−2020) (7nm) |
| 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 9400M G offers a compelling cost-to-performance ratio. Priced at $10 versus $49 for the Radeon X1600 Pro, it costs 80% less. While it maintains basic entry-level capabilities, this results in a 365.3% higher cost efficiency score.
| Insight | GeForce 9400M G | Radeon X1600 Pro |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ✅Better overall value (+365.3%) | ❌Lower cost efficiency |
| Upfront Cost | ✅More affordable ($10) | ⚠️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 9400M G and Radeon X1600 Pro
GeForce 9400M G
The GeForce 9400M G 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: 94 points.
Radeon X1600 Pro
The Radeon X1600 Pro is manufactured by AMD. It was released in January 21 2020. It features the RDNA 1.0 architecture. The core clock ranges from 1130 MHz to 1560 MHz. It has 2048 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 150W. Manufactured using 7 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 99 points.
Graphics Performance
In G3D Mark, the GeForce 9400M G scores 94 versus the Radeon X1600 Pro's 99 — the Radeon X1600 Pro leads by 5.3%. The GeForce 9400M G is built on Maxwell while the Radeon X1600 Pro uses RDNA 1.0, both on 28 nm vs 7 nm. Shader units: 384 (GeForce 9400M G) vs 2,048 (Radeon X1600 Pro). Raw compute: 0.9032 TFLOPS (GeForce 9400M G) vs 6.39 TFLOPS (Radeon X1600 Pro). Boost clocks: 1176 MHz vs 1560 MHz.
| Feature | GeForce 9400M G | Radeon X1600 Pro |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 94 | 99+5% |
| Architecture | Maxwell | RDNA 1.0 |
| Process Node | 28 nm | 7 nm |
| Shading Units | 384 | 2048+433% |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 0.9032 TFLOPS | 6.39 TFLOPS+607% |
| Boost Clock | 1176 MHz | 1560 MHz+33% |
| ROPs | 8 | 64+700% |
| TMUs | 24 | 128+433% |
| L2 Cache | 1 MB | 3 MB+200% |
Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)
| Feature | GeForce 9400M G | Radeon X1600 Pro |
|---|---|---|
| Upscaling Tech | FSR 1.0 (Software) | FSR 1.0 (Software) |
| Frame Generation | Not Supported | Not Supported |
| Ray Reconstruction | No | No |
| Low Latency | Standard | AMD Anti-Lag |
Video Memory (VRAM)
The GeForce 9400M G comes with 256 MB of VRAM, while the Radeon X1600 Pro has 512 MB. The Radeon X1600 Pro offers 100% more capacity, crucial for higher resolutions and texture-heavy games. Bus width: 128-bit vs 64-bit. L2 Cache: 1 MB (GeForce 9400M G) vs 3 MB (Radeon X1600 Pro) — the Radeon X1600 Pro has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.
| Feature | GeForce 9400M G | Radeon X1600 Pro |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 0.25 GB | 0.5 GB+100% |
| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Bus Width | 128-bit+100% | 64-bit |
| L2 Cache | 1 MB | 3 MB+200% |
Display & API Support
DirectX support: 11.1 (10_0) (GeForce 9400M G) vs 9.0c (Radeon X1600 Pro). Vulkan: N/A vs N/A. OpenGL: 3.3 vs 2.1. Maximum simultaneous displays: 2 vs 2.
| Feature | GeForce 9400M G | Radeon X1600 Pro |
|---|---|---|
| DirectX | 11.1 (10_0)+23% | 9.0c |
| Vulkan | N/A | N/A |
| OpenGL | 3.3+57% | 2.1 |
| Max Displays | 2 | 2 |
Media & Encoding
Hardware encoder: None (GeForce 9400M G) vs None (Radeon X1600 Pro). Decoder: PureVideo HD (VP3) vs Avivo. Supported codecs: H.264,MPEG-2,VC-1 (GeForce 9400M G) vs MPEG-2,H.264,VC-1 (Radeon X1600 Pro).
| Feature | GeForce 9400M G | Radeon X1600 Pro |
|---|---|---|
| Encoder | None | None |
| Decoder | PureVideo HD (VP3) | Avivo |
| Codecs | H.264,MPEG-2,VC-1 | MPEG-2,H.264,VC-1 |
Power & Dimensions
The GeForce 9400M G draws 33W versus the Radeon X1600 Pro's 150W — a 127.9% difference. The GeForce 9400M G is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 350W (GeForce 9400M G) vs 350W (Radeon X1600 Pro). Power connectors: Legacy vs PCIe-powered. Card length: 0mm vs 168mm, occupying 0 vs 1 slots. Typical load temperature: 75 vs 75.
| Feature | GeForce 9400M G | Radeon X1600 Pro |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 33W-78% | 150W |
| Recommended PSU | 350W | 350W |
| Power Connector | Legacy | PCIe-powered |
| Length | 0mm | 168mm |
| Height | 0mm | 111mm |
| Slots | 0-100% | 1 |
| Temp (Load) | 75 | 75 |
| Perf/Watt | 2.8+300% | 0.7 |
Value Analysis
The GeForce 9400M G launched at $50 MSRP and currently averages $10, while the Radeon X1600 Pro launched at $149 and now averages $49. The GeForce 9400M G costs 79.6% less ($39 savings) at current market prices. Performance per dollar (G3D Mark / price): 9.4 (GeForce 9400M G) vs 2.0 (Radeon X1600 Pro) — the GeForce 9400M G offers 370% better value. The Radeon X1600 Pro is the newer GPU (2020 vs 2015).
| Feature | GeForce 9400M G | Radeon X1600 Pro |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $50-66% | $149 |
| Avg Price (30d) | $10-80% | $49 |
| Performance per Dollar | 9.4+370% | 2.0 |
| Codename | GM108 | Navi 10 |
| Release | March 13 2015 | January 21 2020 |
| Ranking | #847 | #216 |
Top Performing GPUs
The most powerful gpus ranked by G3D Mark benchmark scores.
You May Also Compare
Similar GPU comparisons based on GeForce 9400M G and Radeon X1600 Pro
