GeForce GTX 1650 vs GeForce9400M

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 GeForce9400M

#620

Radeon RX 550X (móvel)

MSRP: $35|Avg: $35

5026%

#622

GeForce GTX 1070 with Max-Q Design

MSRP: N/A|Avg: $150

4556%

#623

GeForce GTX 1060 with Max-Q Design

MSRP: N/A|Avg: $100

4544%

#627

GeForce GTX 1050 (Mobile)

MSRP: N/A|Avg: $50

4132%

#628

Radeon RX 6300

MSRP: $60|Avg: $40

4104%

#630

GeForce9400M

MSRP: N/A|Avg: N/A

100%

#631

Mobility Radeon X1700

MSRP: $49|Avg: $15

99%

#632

GeForce 9800 GTX+

MSRP: $229|Avg: $50

99%

#633

Mobility Radeon HD 560v

MSRP: $150|Avg: $30

98%

#634

GeForce 9300

MSRP: $60|Avg: $20

98%

#635

Qualcomm Adreno X1-45 GPU

MSRP: $899|Avg: $400

97%

#636

GeForce 8400M G

MSRP: $50|Avg: $20

97%

#637

Mobility Radeon HD 2400 XT

MSRP: $49|Avg: $49

96%

#638

GeForce 8400M GS

MSRP: $50|Avg: $20

96%

#639

GeForce 9100

MSRP: $40|Avg: $5

95%

#640

GeForce 9600M GT

MSRP: $80|Avg: $20

94%

#641

GeForce 8300

MSRP: $50|Avg: $50

94%

#642

Mobility Radeon HD 3430

MSRP: $49|Avg: $49

93%

#643

Mobility Radeon HD serie 4200

MSRP: $49|Avg: $10

92%

#644

GeForce 9500 GS

MSRP: $110|Avg: $10

91%

#645

GeForce 9300GE

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 GeForce9400M 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 7323.6% higher G3D Mark score and 700% more VRAM (4 GB vs 512 MB). This advantage makes it significantly better for higher resolutions (1440p/4K) and graphic-intensive titles compared to the GeForce9400M.

Insight	GeForce GTX 1650	GeForce9400M
Performance	✅Leading raw performance (+7323.6%)	❌Lower raw frame rates (-7323.6%)
Longevity	Turing (2018−2022) (12nm)	🛑Obsolete Architecture (2015 / Maxwell (2014−2017))
Ecosystem	Supports FSR Upscaling	Supports FSR Upscaling
VRAM	✅ More VRAM (+700%)	❌ Less VRAM capacity
Efficiency	💡 Excellent Perf/Watt	⚡ Higher Power Consumption
Case Fit	📏 Compact / SFF Friendly	—

💎 Value Proposition

While current pricing data is unavailable, the GeForce GTX 1650 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.

GeForce GTX 1650 Benchmark Check

GeForce9400M Benchmark Check

Loading...

Check FPS for your specific build

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of GeForce GTX 1650 and GeForce9400M

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.

GeForce9400M

The GeForce9400M 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: 106 points.

⚡

Graphics Performance

In G3D Mark, the GeForce GTX 1650 scores 7,869 versus the GeForce9400M's 106 — the GeForce GTX 1650 leads by 7323.6%. The GeForce GTX 1650 is built on Turing while the GeForce9400M uses Maxwell, both on 12 nm vs 28 nm. Shader units: 896 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 384 (GeForce9400M). Raw compute: 2.984 TFLOPS (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 0.9032 TFLOPS (GeForce9400M). Boost clocks: 1665 MHz vs 1176 MHz.

Feature	GeForce GTX 1650	GeForce9400M
G3D Mark Score	7,869+7324%	106
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	GeForce9400M
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 GeForce9400M has 512 MB. The GeForce GTX 1650 offers 700% more capacity, crucial for higher resolutions and texture-heavy games. Bus width: 128-bit vs 64-bit.

Feature	GeForce GTX 1650	GeForce9400M
VRAM Capacity	4 GB+700%	0.5 GB
Memory Type	GDDR5	GDDR5
Bus Width	128-bit+100%	64-bit
L2 Cache	1 MB	1 MB

🖥️

Display & API Support

DirectX support: 12 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 11.1 (10_0) (GeForce9400M). OpenGL: 4.6 vs 3.3. Maximum simultaneous displays: 3 vs 2.

Feature	GeForce GTX 1650	GeForce9400M
DirectX	12+8%	11.1 (10_0)
OpenGL	4.6+39%	3.3
Max Displays	3+50%	2

🎬

Media & Encoding

Hardware encoder: NVENC 5th gen (Volta) (GeForce GTX 1650) vs No NVENC (Tesla) (GeForce9400M). Decoder: NVDEC 4th gen vs PureVideo HD VP3. Supported codecs: H.264,H.265/HEVC,VP8,VP9 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs H.264,VC-1,MPEG-2 (GeForce9400M).

Feature	GeForce GTX 1650	GeForce9400M
Encoder	NVENC 5th gen (Volta)	No NVENC (Tesla)
Decoder	NVDEC 4th gen	PureVideo HD VP3
Codecs	H.264,H.265/HEVC,VP8,VP9	H.264,VC-1,MPEG-2

🔌

Power & Dimensions

The GeForce GTX 1650 draws 75W versus the GeForce9400M's 33W — a 77.8% difference. The GeForce9400M is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 300W (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 350W (GeForce9400M). Power connectors: None vs PCIe-powered. Typical load temperature: 70°C vs 85°C.

Feature	GeForce GTX 1650	GeForce9400M
TDP	75W	33W-56%
Recommended PSU	300W-14%	350W
Power Connector	None	PCIe-powered
Length	229mm	—
Height	111mm	—
Slots	2	0-100%
Temp (Load)	70°C-18%	85°C
Perf/Watt	104.9+3178%	3.2