GeForce GTX 1650 vs GeForce 9400 GT

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.

MSRP is the manufacturer's suggested retail price.•
Avg price is the current average price collected from markets across the web.

Performance Per Dollar

Based on actual market prices and performance benchmarks.

Performance Per Dollar GeForce 9400 GT

#563

Radeon RX 550X (móvel)

MSRP: $35|Avg: $35

3351%

#565

GeForce GTX 1070 with Max-Q Design

MSRP: N/A|Avg: $150

3038%

#566

GeForce GTX 1060 with Max-Q Design

MSRP: N/A|Avg: $100

3030%

#570

GeForce GTX 1050 (Mobile)

MSRP: N/A|Avg: $50

2755%

#571

Radeon RX 6300

MSRP: $60|Avg: $40

2736%

#573

GeForce 9400 GT

MSRP: $59|Avg: $20

100%

#574

Radeon HD 8610G + HD 8600M Dual

MSRP: $150|Avg: $150

99%

#575

GeForce 240M GT

MSRP: $100|Avg: $5

99%

#576

Radeon HD 8450G + HD 8670M Dual

MSRP: $150|Avg: $150

98%

#577

GeForce 310

MSRP: $45|Avg: $5

98%

#578

Radeon HD 7640G + HD 8570M Dual

MSRP: $150|Avg: $40

98%

#579

GeForce 9600 GT

MSRP: $149|Avg: $20

98%

#580

Radeon R5 M320

MSRP: $150|Avg: $150

98%

#581

Radeon HD 7620G + HD 8600M Dual

MSRP: $140|Avg: $30

98%

#582

Radeon HD 8650G + 8600M Dual

MSRP: $200|Avg: $50

95%

#583

Mobility Radeon HD 4570

MSRP: $49|Avg: $15

94%

#584

Radeon Vega 10

MSRP: $499|Avg: $100

94%

#585

Radeon HD 8450G + HD 8600M Dual

MSRP: $150|Avg: $35

93%

#586

Radeon R7 M440

MSRP: $300|Avg: $300

93%

#588

Mobility Radeon HD 4350

MSRP: $50|Avg: $15

91%

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 GT 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 4019.9% higher G3D Mark score and 300% more VRAM (4 GB vs 1 GB). This advantage makes it significantly better for higher resolutions (1440p/4K) and graphic-intensive titles compared to the GeForce 9400 GT.

Insight	GeForce GTX 1650	GeForce 9400 GT
Performance	✅Leading raw performance (+4019.9%)	❌Lower raw frame rates (-4019.9%)
Longevity	Turing (2018−2022) (12nm)	🛑Obsolete Architecture (2015 / Maxwell (2014−2017))
Ecosystem	Supports FSR Upscaling	Supports FSR Upscaling
VRAM	✅ More VRAM (+300%)	❌ Less VRAM capacity
Efficiency	💡 Excellent Perf/Watt	⚡ Higher Power Consumption
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 $20), its significant performance lead justifies the premium, offering 998.6% better value per dollar than the GeForce 9400 GT.

Insight	GeForce GTX 1650	GeForce 9400 GT
Cost Efficiency	✅Better overall value (+998.6%)	❌Lower cost efficiency
Upfront Cost	⚠️Higher upfront cost ($75)	✅More affordable ($20)

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 GTX 1650 Benchmark Check

GeForce 9400 GT Benchmark Check

Loading...

Check FPS for your specific build

Technical Specifications

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

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.

GeForce 9400 GT

The GeForce 9400 GT 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: 191 points.

⚡

Graphics Performance

In G3D Mark, the GeForce GTX 1650 scores 7,869 versus the GeForce 9400 GT's 191 — the GeForce GTX 1650 leads by 4019.9%. The GeForce GTX 1650 is built on Turing while the GeForce 9400 GT uses Maxwell, both on 12 nm vs 28 nm. Shader units: 896 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 384 (GeForce 9400 GT). Raw compute: 2.984 TFLOPS (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 0.9032 TFLOPS (GeForce 9400 GT). Boost clocks: 1665 MHz vs 1176 MHz.

Feature	GeForce GTX 1650	GeForce 9400 GT
G3D Mark Score	7,869+4020%	191
Architecture	Turing	Maxwell
Process Node	12 nm	28 nm
Shading Units	896+133%	384
Compute (TFLOPS)	2.984 TFLOPS+230%	0.9032 TFLOPS
Boost Clock	1665 MHz+42%	1176 MHz
ROPs	32+300%	8
TMUs	56+133%	24
L1 Cache	896 KB+367%	192 KB
L2 Cache	1 MB	1 MB

✨

Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)

Feature	GeForce GTX 1650	GeForce 9400 GT
Upscaling Tech	FSR 2.1 (Compatible)	FSR 1.0 (Software)
Frame Generation	FSR 3 (Compatible)	Not Supported
Ray Reconstruction	No	No
Low Latency	Standard	Standard

💾

Video Memory (VRAM)

The GeForce GTX 1650 comes with 4 GB of VRAM, while the GeForce 9400 GT has 1 GB. The GeForce GTX 1650 offers 300% more capacity, crucial for higher resolutions and texture-heavy games. Bus width: 128-bit vs 128-bit.

Feature	GeForce GTX 1650	GeForce 9400 GT
VRAM Capacity	4 GB+300%	1 GB
Memory Type	GDDR5	GDDR5
Memory Bandwidth	128 GB/s	Unknown
Bus Width	128-bit	128-bit
L2 Cache	1 MB	1 MB

🖥️

Display & API Support

DirectX support: 12 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 10.0 (GeForce 9400 GT). Vulkan: 1.4 vs None. OpenGL: 4.6 vs 3.3. Maximum simultaneous displays: 3 vs 2.

Feature	GeForce GTX 1650	GeForce 9400 GT
DirectX	12+20%	10.0
Vulkan	1.4	None
OpenGL	4.6+39%	3.3
Max Displays	3+50%	2

🎬

Media & Encoding

Hardware encoder: NVENC 5th gen (Volta) (GeForce GTX 1650) vs No (GeForce 9400 GT). Decoder: NVDEC 4th gen vs PureVideo HD VP2. Supported codecs: H.264,H.265/HEVC,VP8,VP9 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs MPEG-2,H.264 (GeForce 9400 GT).

Feature	GeForce GTX 1650	GeForce 9400 GT
Encoder	NVENC 5th gen (Volta)	No
Decoder	NVDEC 4th gen	PureVideo HD VP2
Codecs	H.264,H.265/HEVC,VP8,VP9	MPEG-2,H.264

🔌

Power & Dimensions

The GeForce GTX 1650 draws 75W versus the GeForce 9400 GT's 33W — a 77.8% difference. The GeForce 9400 GT is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 300W (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 350W (GeForce 9400 GT). Power connectors: None vs Legacy. Card length: 229mm vs 168mm, occupying 2 vs 1 slots. Typical load temperature: 70°C vs 65°C.

Feature	GeForce GTX 1650	GeForce 9400 GT
TDP	75W	33W-56%
Recommended PSU	300W-14%	350W
Power Connector	None	Legacy
Length	229mm	168mm
Height	111mm	111mm
Slots	2	1-50%
Temp (Load)	70°C	65°C-7%
Perf/Watt	104.9+1709%	5.8

💰

Value Analysis

The GeForce GTX 1650 launched at $149 MSRP and currently averages $75, while the GeForce 9400 GT launched at $59 and now averages $20. The GeForce 9400 GT costs 73.3% less ($55 savings) at current market prices. Performance per dollar (G3D Mark / price): 104.9 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 9.6 (GeForce 9400 GT) — the GeForce GTX 1650 offers 992.7% better value. The GeForce GTX 1650 is the newer GPU (2019 vs 2015).