Quadro FX Go1400 vs GeForce9400M
Quadro FX Go1400
Popular choices:
GeForce9400M
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 Quadro FX Go1400 is positioned at rank 349 and the GeForce9400M is on rank 630, so the Quadro FX Go1400 offers better cost-efficiency for playing games.
Avg price is the current average price collected from markets across the web.
Performance Per Dollar Quadro FX Go1400
Performance Per Dollar GeForce9400M
Performance Comparison
About G3D Mark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
⚠️ Generational Difference
The GeForce9400M is significantly newer (2015 vs 2008). The GeForce9400M likely supports modern features like Ray Tracing, Tensor Cores, and DLSS/FSR upscaling, which act as force multipliers for performance. The Quadro FX Go1400 lacks this hardware feature set, limiting its longevity in modern titles despite any raw power similarities.
🚀 Performance Leadership
The GeForce9400M is the superior choice for raw performance. It leads with a 3.9% higher G3D Mark score. However, the Quadro FX Go1400 offers more VRAM, which may be beneficial for texture-heavy scenarios at higher resolutions.
| Insight | Quadro FX Go1400 | GeForce9400M |
|---|---|---|
| Performance | ❌Lower raw frame rates (-3.9%) | ✅Leading raw performance (+3.9%) |
| Longevity | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2008 / Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013)) | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2015 / Maxwell (2014−2017)) |
| Ecosystem | Supports FSR Upscaling | Supports FSR Upscaling |
| VRAM | ✅ More VRAM (+700%) | ❌ Less VRAM capacity |
| Efficiency | ⚡ Higher Power Consumption | 💡 Excellent Perf/Watt |
| Case Fit | — | — |
💎 Value Proposition
While current pricing data is unavailable, the GeForce9400M 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 Quadro FX Go1400 and GeForce9400M
Quadro FX Go1400
The Quadro FX Go1400 is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in November 11 2008. It features the Tesla 2.0 architecture. The core clock speed is 602 MHz. It has 192 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 150W. Manufactured using 55 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 102 points. Launch price was $1,799.
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
The Quadro FX Go1400 scores 102 and the GeForce9400M reaches 106 in the G3D Mark benchmark — just a 3.9% difference, making them near-identical in rasterization performance. The Quadro FX Go1400 is built on Tesla 2.0 while the GeForce9400M uses Maxwell, both on 55 nm vs 28 nm. Shader units: 192 (Quadro FX Go1400) vs 384 (GeForce9400M). Raw compute: 0.4623 TFLOPS (Quadro FX Go1400) vs 0.9032 TFLOPS (GeForce9400M).
| Feature | Quadro FX Go1400 | GeForce9400M |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 102 | 106+4% |
| Architecture | Tesla 2.0 | Maxwell |
| Process Node | 55 nm | 28 nm |
| Shading Units | 192 | 384+100% |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 0.4623 TFLOPS | 0.9032 TFLOPS+95% |
| ROPs | 24+200% | 8 |
| TMUs | 64+167% | 24 |
| L2 Cache | 0.19 MB | 1 MB+426% |
Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)
| Feature | Quadro FX Go1400 | GeForce9400M |
|---|---|---|
| Upscaling Tech | FSR 1.0 (Software) | FSR 1.0 (Software) |
| Frame Generation | Not Supported | Not Supported |
| Ray Reconstruction | No | No |
| Low Latency | Standard | Standard |
Video Memory (VRAM)
The Quadro FX Go1400 comes with 4 GB of VRAM, while the GeForce9400M has 512 MB. The Quadro FX Go1400 offers 700% more capacity, crucial for higher resolutions and texture-heavy games. Bus width: 64-bit vs 64-bit. L2 Cache: 0.19 MB (Quadro FX Go1400) vs 1 MB (GeForce9400M) — the GeForce9400M has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.
| Feature | Quadro FX Go1400 | GeForce9400M |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 4 GB+700% | 0.5 GB |
| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Bus Width | 64-bit | 64-bit |
| L2 Cache | 0.19 MB | 1 MB+426% |
Power & Dimensions
The Quadro FX Go1400 draws 150W versus the GeForce9400M's 33W — a 127.9% difference. The GeForce9400M is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 350W (Quadro FX Go1400) vs 350W (GeForce9400M). Power connectors: PCIe-powered vs PCIe-powered.
| Feature | Quadro FX Go1400 | GeForce9400M |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 150W | 33W-78% |
| Recommended PSU | 350W | 350W |
| Power Connector | PCIe-powered | PCIe-powered |
| Slots | — | 0 |
| Temp (Load) | — | 85°C |
| Perf/Watt | 0.7 | 3.2+357% |
Top Performing GPUs
The most powerful gpus ranked by G3D Mark benchmark scores.
You May Also Compare
Similar GPU comparisons based on Quadro FX Go1400 and GeForce9400M
