CPU
GPU
GeForce Go 6400
Popular choices:
RADEON A9800XT
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 Go 6400 is positioned at rank #338 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 Go 6400
Performance Per Dollar
Performance Comparison
About G3D Mark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
🚀 Performance Leadership
The GeForce Go 6400 is the superior choice for raw performance. It leads with a 4.3% higher G3D Mark score. However, the RADEON A9800XT offers more VRAM, which may be beneficial for texture-heavy scenarios at higher resolutions.
| Insight | GeForce Go 6400 | RADEON A9800XT |
|---|---|---|
| Performance | ✅Leading raw performance (+4.3%) | ❌Lower raw frame rates (-4.3%) |
| Longevity | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2012 / Kepler (2012−2018)) | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2015 / GCN 3.0 (2014−2019)) |
| Ecosystem | Supports FSR Upscaling | Supports FSR Upscaling |
| VRAM | ❌ Less VRAM capacity | ✅ More VRAM (+3025%) |
| Efficiency | 💡 Excellent Perf/Watt | ⚡ Higher Power Consumption |
| Case Fit | — | 📏 Compact / SFF Friendly |
💎 Value Proposition
While current pricing data is unavailable, the GeForce Go 6400 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 RADEON A9800XT
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.
RADEON A9800XT
The RADEON A9800XT is manufactured by AMD. It was released in November 19 2015. It features the GCN 3.0 architecture. The boost clock speed is 970 MHz. It has 2048 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 250W. Manufactured using 28 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 23 points. Launch price was $229.
Graphics Performance
The GeForce Go 6400 scores 24 and the RADEON A9800XT reaches 23 in the G3D Mark benchmark — just a 4.3% difference, making them near-identical in rasterization performance. The GeForce Go 6400 is built on Kepler while the RADEON A9800XT uses GCN 3.0, both on a 28 nm process. Shader units: 384 (GeForce Go 6400) vs 2,048 (RADEON A9800XT). Raw compute: 0.6927 TFLOPS (GeForce Go 6400) vs 3.973 TFLOPS (RADEON A9800XT).
| Feature | GeForce Go 6400 | RADEON A9800XT |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 24+4% | 23 |
| Architecture | Kepler | GCN 3.0 |
| Process Node | 28 nm | 28 nm |
| Shading Units | 384 | 2048+433% |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 0.6927 TFLOPS | 3.973 TFLOPS+474% |
| ROPs | 16 | 32+100% |
| TMUs | 32 | 128+300% |
| L1 Cache | 32 KB | 512 KB+1500% |
| L2 Cache | 256 KB | 512 KB+100% |
Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)
| Feature | GeForce Go 6400 | RADEON A9800XT |
|---|---|---|
| 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 RADEON A9800XT has 512 MB. The RADEON A9800XT offers 3025% more capacity, crucial for higher resolutions and texture-heavy games. Bus width: 128-bit vs 64-bit. L2 Cache: 256 KB (GeForce Go 6400) vs 512 KB (RADEON A9800XT) — the RADEON A9800XT has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.
| Feature | GeForce Go 6400 | RADEON A9800XT |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 0.016 GB | 0.5 GB+3025% |
| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Bus Width | 128-bit+100% | 64-bit |
| L2 Cache | 256 KB | 512 KB+100% |
Display & API Support
DirectX support: 10.0 (GeForce Go 6400) vs 9_0 (RADEON A9800XT). Maximum simultaneous displays: 1 vs 2.
| Feature | GeForce Go 6400 | RADEON A9800XT |
|---|---|---|
| DirectX | 10.0+11% | 9_0 |
| Max Displays | 1 | 2+100% |
Power & Dimensions
The GeForce Go 6400 draws 65W versus the RADEON A9800XT's 250W — a 117.5% difference. The GeForce Go 6400 is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 350W (GeForce Go 6400) vs 350W (RADEON A9800XT). Power connectors: Legacy vs Legacy. Card length: 0mm vs 220mm, occupying 0 vs 1 slots.
| Feature | GeForce Go 6400 | RADEON A9800XT |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 65W-74% | 250W |
| Recommended PSU | 350W | 350W |
| Power Connector | Legacy | Legacy |
| Length | 0mm | 220mm |
| Height | 0mm | — |
| Slots | 0-100% | 1 |
| Temp (Load) | 75°C | — |
| Perf/Watt | 0.4+300% | 0.1 |
Value Analysis
The RADEON A9800XT is the newer GPU (2015 vs 2012).
| Feature | GeForce Go 6400 | RADEON A9800XT |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | — | $0 |
| Avg Price (30d) | — | $30 |
| Codename | GK107 | Antigua |
| Release | June 5 2012 | November 19 2015 |
| Ranking | #837 | #394 |
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 RADEON A9800XT
