GeForce Go 7400 vs Radeon X1550
GeForce Go 7400
Popular choices:
Radeon X1550
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 7400 is positioned at rank #310 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 7400
Performance Per Dollar
Performance Comparison
About G3D Mark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
🚀 Performance Leadership
The Radeon X1550 is the superior choice for raw performance. It leads with a 1.5% 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 Go 7400.
| Insight | GeForce Go 7400 | Radeon X1550 |
|---|---|---|
| Performance | ❌Lower raw frame rates (-1.5%) | ✅Leading raw performance (+1.5%) |
| Longevity | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2014 / Kepler (2012−2018)) | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2017 / GCN 4.0 (2016−2020)) |
| Ecosystem | Supports FSR Upscaling | Supports FSR Upscaling |
| VRAM | ❌ Less VRAM capacity | ✅ More VRAM (+100%) |
| Efficiency | ⚡ Higher Power Consumption | 💡 Excellent Perf/Watt |
| Case Fit | — | 📏 Compact / SFF Friendly |
💎 Value Proposition
While current pricing data is unavailable, the Radeon X1550 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 7400 and Radeon X1550
GeForce Go 7400
The GeForce Go 7400 is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in May 29 2014. It features the Kepler architecture. The core clock speed is 993 MHz. It has 384 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 64W. Manufactured using 28 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 66 points. Launch price was $89.
Radeon X1550
The Radeon X1550 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in April 20 2017. It features the GCN 4.0 architecture. The core clock ranges from 1100 MHz to 1183 MHz. It has 512 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 50W. Manufactured using 14 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 67 points. Launch price was $79.
Graphics Performance
The GeForce Go 7400 scores 66 and the Radeon X1550 reaches 67 in the G3D Mark benchmark — just a 1.5% difference, making them near-identical in rasterization performance. The GeForce Go 7400 is built on Kepler while the Radeon X1550 uses GCN 4.0, both on 28 nm vs 14 nm. Shader units: 384 (GeForce Go 7400) vs 512 (Radeon X1550). Raw compute: 0.7626 TFLOPS (GeForce Go 7400) vs 1.211 TFLOPS (Radeon X1550).
| Feature | GeForce Go 7400 | Radeon X1550 |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 66 | 67+2% |
| Architecture | Kepler | GCN 4.0 |
| Process Node | 28 nm | 14 nm |
| Shading Units | 384 | 512+33% |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 0.7626 TFLOPS | 1.211 TFLOPS+59% |
| ROPs | 16 | 16 |
| TMUs | 32 | 32 |
| L1 Cache | 32 KB | 128 KB+300% |
| L2 Cache | 256 KB | 256 KB |
Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)
| Feature | GeForce Go 7400 | Radeon X1550 |
|---|---|---|
| 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 7400 comes with 256 MB of VRAM, while the Radeon X1550 has 512 MB. The Radeon X1550 offers 100% more capacity, crucial for higher resolutions and texture-heavy games. Bus width: 128-bit vs 64-bit.
| Feature | GeForce Go 7400 | Radeon X1550 |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 0.25 GB | 0.5 GB+100% |
| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Bus Width | 128-bit+100% | 64-bit |
| L2 Cache | 256 KB | 256 KB |
Display & API Support
DirectX support: 9.0c (GeForce Go 7400) vs 9_0c (Radeon X1550). Maximum simultaneous displays: 2 vs 2.
| Feature | GeForce Go 7400 | Radeon X1550 |
|---|---|---|
| DirectX | 9.0c | 9_0c |
| Max Displays | 2 | 2 |
Media & Encoding
Hardware encoder: No (GeForce Go 7400) vs Avivo (Radeon X1550). Decoder: PureVideo vs Avivo.
| Feature | GeForce Go 7400 | Radeon X1550 |
|---|---|---|
| Encoder | No | Avivo |
| Decoder | PureVideo | Avivo |
| Codecs | MPEG-2,WMV9,H.264 | — |
Power & Dimensions
The GeForce Go 7400 draws 64W versus the Radeon X1550's 50W — a 24.6% difference. The Radeon X1550 is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 350W (GeForce Go 7400) vs 350W (Radeon X1550). Power connectors: Legacy vs PCIe-powered. Card length: 0mm vs 168mm, occupying 0 vs 1 slots.
| Feature | GeForce Go 7400 | Radeon X1550 |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 64W | 50W-22% |
| Recommended PSU | 350W | 350W |
| Power Connector | Legacy | PCIe-powered |
| Length | 0mm | 168mm |
| Height | 0mm | — |
| Slots | 0-100% | 1 |
| Temp (Load) | 75°C | — |
| Perf/Watt | 1.0 | 1.3+30% |
Value Analysis
The Radeon X1550 is the newer GPU (2017 vs 2014).
| Feature | GeForce Go 7400 | Radeon X1550 |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | — | $0 |
| Avg Price (30d) | — | $49 |
| Codename | GK107 | Lexa |
| Release | May 29 2014 | April 20 2017 |
| Ranking | #777 | #668 |
Top Performing GPUs
The most powerful gpus ranked by G3D Mark benchmark scores.
You May Also Compare
Similar GPU comparisons based on GeForce Go 7400 and Radeon X1550
