GeForce Go 6400 vs MOBILITY RADEON 9550
GeForce Go 6400
Popular choices:
MOBILITY RADEON 9550
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 Go 6400 is positioned at rank 338 and the MOBILITY RADEON 9550 is on rank 732, so the GeForce Go 6400 offers better cost-efficiency for playing games.
Avg price is the current average price collected from markets across the web.
Performance Per Dollar GeForce Go 6400
Performance Per Dollar MOBILITY RADEON 9550
Performance Comparison
About G3D Mark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
🚀 Performance Leadership
The MOBILITY RADEON 9550 is the superior choice for raw performance. It leads with a 25% higher G3D Mark score and 293.8% more VRAM (65 MB vs 16 MB). This advantage makes it significantly better for higher resolutions (1440p/4K) and graphic-intensive titles compared to the GeForce Go 6400.
| Insight | GeForce Go 6400 | MOBILITY RADEON 9550 |
|---|---|---|
| Performance | ❌Lower raw frame rates (-25%) | ✅Leading raw performance (+25%) |
| Longevity | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2012 / Kepler (2012−2018)) | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2010 / TeraScale 2 (2009−2015)) |
| Ecosystem | Supports FSR Upscaling | Supports FSR Upscaling |
| VRAM | ❌ Less VRAM capacity | ✅ More VRAM (+293.8%) |
| Efficiency | ⚡ Higher Power Consumption | 💡 Excellent Perf/Watt |
| Case Fit | — | 📏 Compact / SFF Friendly |
💎 Value Proposition
While current pricing data is unavailable, the MOBILITY RADEON 9550 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.
Technical Specifications
Side-by-side comparison of GeForce Go 6400 and MOBILITY RADEON 9550
GeForce Go 6400
The GeForce Go 6400 is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in June 5 2012. It features the Kepler architecture. The core clock speed is 902 MHz. It has 384 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 65W. Manufactured using 28 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 24 points. Launch price was $99.
MOBILITY RADEON 9550
The MOBILITY RADEON 9550 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in January 7 2010. It features the TeraScale 2 architecture. The core clock speed is 700 MHz. It has 800 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 50W. Manufactured using 40 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 30 points.
Graphics Performance
In G3D Mark, the GeForce Go 6400 scores 24 versus the MOBILITY RADEON 9550's 30 — the MOBILITY RADEON 9550 leads by 25%. The GeForce Go 6400 is built on Kepler while the MOBILITY RADEON 9550 uses TeraScale 2, both on 28 nm vs 40 nm. Shader units: 384 (GeForce Go 6400) vs 800 (MOBILITY RADEON 9550). Raw compute: 0.6927 TFLOPS (GeForce Go 6400) vs 1.12 TFLOPS (MOBILITY RADEON 9550).
| Feature | GeForce Go 6400 | MOBILITY RADEON 9550 |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 24 | 30+25% |
| Architecture | Kepler | TeraScale 2 |
| Process Node | 28 nm | 40 nm |
| Shading Units | 384 | 800+108% |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 0.6927 TFLOPS | 1.12 TFLOPS+62% |
| ROPs | 16 | 16 |
| TMUs | 32 | 40+25% |
| L1 Cache | 32 KB | 80 KB+150% |
| L2 Cache | 256 KB | 256 KB |
Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)
| Feature | GeForce Go 6400 | MOBILITY RADEON 9550 |
|---|---|---|
| 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 Go 6400 comes with 16 MB of VRAM, while the MOBILITY RADEON 9550 has 65 MB. The MOBILITY RADEON 9550 offers 293.8% more capacity, crucial for higher resolutions and texture-heavy games. Bus width: 128-bit vs 128-bit.
| Feature | GeForce Go 6400 | MOBILITY RADEON 9550 |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 0.016 GB | 0.063 GB+294% |
| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Memory Bandwidth | Unknown | Unknown |
| Bus Width | 128-bit | 128-bit |
| L2 Cache | 256 KB | 256 KB |
Display & API Support
DirectX support: 10.0 (GeForce Go 6400) vs 9.0 (MOBILITY RADEON 9550). Maximum simultaneous displays: 1 vs 0.
| Feature | GeForce Go 6400 | MOBILITY RADEON 9550 |
|---|---|---|
| DirectX | 10.0+11% | 9.0 |
| Max Displays | 1 | 0 |
Power & Dimensions
The GeForce Go 6400 draws 65W versus the MOBILITY RADEON 9550's 50W — a 26.1% difference. The MOBILITY RADEON 9550 is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 350W (GeForce Go 6400) vs 350W (MOBILITY RADEON 9550). Power connectors: Legacy vs PCIe-powered. Card length: 0mm vs 1mm, occupying 0 vs 0 slots.
| Feature | GeForce Go 6400 | MOBILITY RADEON 9550 |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 65W | 50W-23% |
| Recommended PSU | 350W | 350W |
| Power Connector | Legacy | PCIe-powered |
| Length | 0mm | 1mm |
| Height | 0mm | — |
| Slots | 0 | 0 |
| Temp (Load) | 75°C | — |
| Perf/Watt | 0.4 | 0.6+50% |
Value Analysis
The GeForce Go 6400 is the newer GPU (2012 vs 2010).
| Feature | GeForce Go 6400 | MOBILITY RADEON 9550 |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | — | $100 |
| Avg Price (30d) | — | $10 |
| Codename | GK107 | Broadway |
| Release | June 5 2012 | January 7 2010 |
| Ranking | #837 | #846 |
Top Performing GPUs
The most powerful gpus ranked by G3D Mark benchmark scores.
You May Also Compare
Similar GPU comparisons based on GeForce Go 6400 and MOBILITY RADEON 9550
