CPU
GPU
Radeon X1600 Pro
Popular choices:
GeForce 9400M G
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 Radeon X1600 Pro is positioned at rank 342 and the GeForce 9400M G is on rank 650, so the Radeon X1600 Pro offers better cost-efficiency for playing games.
Avg price is the current average price collected from markets across the web.
Performance Per Dollar Radeon X1600 Pro
Performance Per Dollar GeForce 9400M G
Performance Comparison
About G3D Mark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
⚠️ Generational Difference
The Radeon X1600 Pro uses modern memory architecture. The Radeon X1600 Pro likely supports modern features like Ray Tracing, Tensor Cores, and DLSS/FSR upscaling, which act as force multipliers for performance. The GeForce 9400M G lacks this hardware feature set, limiting its longevity in modern titles despite any raw power similarities.
🚀 Performance Leadership
The Radeon X1600 Pro is the superior choice for raw performance. It leads with a 5.3% 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 9400M G.
| Insight | Radeon X1600 Pro | GeForce 9400M G |
|---|---|---|
| Performance | ✅Leading raw performance (+5.3%) | ❌Lower raw frame rates (-5.3%) |
| Longevity | RDNA 1.0 (2019−2020) (7nm) | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2015 / Maxwell (2014−2017)) |
| Ecosystem | Supports FSR Upscaling | Supports FSR Upscaling |
| VRAM | ✅ More VRAM (+100%) | ❌ Less VRAM capacity |
| Efficiency | ⚡ Higher Power Consumption | 💡 Excellent Perf/Watt |
| Case Fit | 📏 Compact / SFF Friendly | — |
💎 Value Proposition
The GeForce 9400M G offers a compelling cost-to-performance ratio. Priced at $10 versus $49 for the Radeon X1600 Pro, it costs 80% less. While it maintains basic entry-level capabilities, this results in a 365.3% higher cost efficiency score.
| Insight | Radeon X1600 Pro | GeForce 9400M G |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ❌Lower cost efficiency | ✅Better overall value (+365.3%) |
| Upfront Cost | ⚠️Higher upfront cost ($49) | ✅More affordable ($10) |
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 Radeon X1600 Pro and GeForce 9400M G
Radeon X1600 Pro
The Radeon X1600 Pro is manufactured by AMD. It was released in January 21 2020. It features the RDNA 1.0 architecture. The core clock ranges from 1130 MHz to 1560 MHz. It has 2048 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 150W. Manufactured using 7 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 99 points.
GeForce 9400M G
The GeForce 9400M G 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: 94 points.
Graphics Performance
In G3D Mark, the Radeon X1600 Pro scores 99 versus the GeForce 9400M G's 94 — the Radeon X1600 Pro leads by 5.3%. The Radeon X1600 Pro is built on RDNA 1.0 while the GeForce 9400M G uses Maxwell, both on 7 nm vs 28 nm. Shader units: 2,048 (Radeon X1600 Pro) vs 384 (GeForce 9400M G). Raw compute: 6.39 TFLOPS (Radeon X1600 Pro) vs 0.9032 TFLOPS (GeForce 9400M G). Boost clocks: 1560 MHz vs 1176 MHz.
| Feature | Radeon X1600 Pro | GeForce 9400M G |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 99+5% | 94 |
| Architecture | RDNA 1.0 | Maxwell |
| Process Node | 7 nm | 28 nm |
| Shading Units | 2048+433% | 384 |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 6.39 TFLOPS+607% | 0.9032 TFLOPS |
| Boost Clock | 1560 MHz+33% | 1176 MHz |
| ROPs | 64+700% | 8 |
| TMUs | 128+433% | 24 |
| L2 Cache | 3 MB+200% | 1 MB |
Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)
| Feature | Radeon X1600 Pro | GeForce 9400M G |
|---|---|---|
| Upscaling Tech | FSR 1.0 (Software) | FSR 1.0 (Software) |
| Frame Generation | Not Supported | Not Supported |
| Ray Reconstruction | No | No |
| Low Latency | AMD Anti-Lag | Standard |
Video Memory (VRAM)
The Radeon X1600 Pro comes with 512 MB of VRAM, while the GeForce 9400M G has 256 MB. The Radeon X1600 Pro offers 100% more capacity, crucial for higher resolutions and texture-heavy games. Bus width: 64-bit vs 128-bit. L2 Cache: 3 MB (Radeon X1600 Pro) vs 1 MB (GeForce 9400M G) — the Radeon X1600 Pro has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.
| Feature | Radeon X1600 Pro | GeForce 9400M G |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 0.5 GB+100% | 0.25 GB |
| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Bus Width | 64-bit | 128-bit+100% |
| L2 Cache | 3 MB+200% | 1 MB |
Display & API Support
DirectX support: 9.0c (Radeon X1600 Pro) vs 11.1 (10_0) (GeForce 9400M G). Vulkan: N/A vs N/A. OpenGL: 2.1 vs 3.3. Maximum simultaneous displays: 2 vs 2.
| Feature | Radeon X1600 Pro | GeForce 9400M G |
|---|---|---|
| DirectX | 9.0c | 11.1 (10_0)+23% |
| Vulkan | N/A | N/A |
| OpenGL | 2.1 | 3.3+57% |
| Max Displays | 2 | 2 |
Media & Encoding
Hardware encoder: None (Radeon X1600 Pro) vs None (GeForce 9400M G). Decoder: Avivo vs PureVideo HD (VP3). Supported codecs: MPEG-2,H.264,VC-1 (Radeon X1600 Pro) vs H.264,MPEG-2,VC-1 (GeForce 9400M G).
| Feature | Radeon X1600 Pro | GeForce 9400M G |
|---|---|---|
| Encoder | None | None |
| Decoder | Avivo | PureVideo HD (VP3) |
| Codecs | MPEG-2,H.264,VC-1 | H.264,MPEG-2,VC-1 |
Power & Dimensions
The Radeon X1600 Pro draws 150W versus the GeForce 9400M G's 33W — a 127.9% difference. The GeForce 9400M G is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 350W (Radeon X1600 Pro) vs 350W (GeForce 9400M G). Power connectors: PCIe-powered vs Legacy. Card length: 168mm vs 0mm, occupying 1 vs 0 slots. Typical load temperature: 75 vs 75.
| Feature | Radeon X1600 Pro | GeForce 9400M G |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 150W | 33W-78% |
| Recommended PSU | 350W | 350W |
| Power Connector | PCIe-powered | Legacy |
| Length | 168mm | 0mm |
| Height | 111mm | 0mm |
| Slots | 1 | 0-100% |
| Temp (Load) | 75 | 75 |
| Perf/Watt | 0.7 | 2.8+300% |
Value Analysis
The Radeon X1600 Pro launched at $149 MSRP and currently averages $49, while the GeForce 9400M G launched at $50 and now averages $10. The GeForce 9400M G costs 79.6% less ($39 savings) at current market prices. Performance per dollar (G3D Mark / price): 2.0 (Radeon X1600 Pro) vs 9.4 (GeForce 9400M G) — the GeForce 9400M G offers 370% better value. The Radeon X1600 Pro is the newer GPU (2020 vs 2015).
| Feature | Radeon X1600 Pro | GeForce 9400M G |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $149 | $50-66% |
| Avg Price (30d) | $49 | $10-80% |
| Performance per Dollar | 2.0 | 9.4+370% |
| Codename | Navi 10 | GM108 |
| Release | January 21 2020 | March 13 2015 |
| Ranking | #216 | #847 |
Top Performing GPUs
The most powerful gpus ranked by G3D Mark benchmark scores.
You May Also Compare
Similar GPU comparisons based on Radeon X1600 Pro and GeForce 9400M G
