RTX A400 vs GeForce 930M

Place in the ranking	815	390
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Power efficiency	5.47	17.85
Architecture	Maxwell (2014−2017)	Ampere (2020−2024)
GPU code name	GM108	GA107
Market segment	Laptop	Workstation
Release date	13 March 2015 (9 years ago)	16 April 2024 (less than a year ago)

Detailed specifications

General parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.

Pipelines / CUDA cores	384	768
Core clock speed	549 MHz	727 MHz
Boost clock speed	549 MHz	1762 MHz
Number of transistors	no data	8,700 million
Manufacturing process technology	28 nm	8 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	33 Watt	50 Watt
Texture fill rate	13.18	42.29
Floating-point processing power	0.4216 TFLOPS	2.706 TFLOPS
ROPs	8	16
TMUs	24	24
Tensor Cores	no data	24
Ray Tracing Cores	no data	6

Form factor & compatibility

Information on compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For desktop graphics cards it's interface and bus (motherboard compatibility), additional power connectors (power supply compatibility).

Bus support	PCI Express 3.0	no data
Interface	PCIe 3.0 x8	PCIe 4.0 x8
Length	no data	163 mm
Width	no data	1-slot
Supplementary power connectors	None	None

VRAM capacity and type

Parameters of VRAM installed: its type, size, bus, clock and resulting bandwidth. Integrated GPUs have no dedicated video RAM and use a shared part of system RAM.

Memory type	DDR3	GDDR6
Maximum RAM amount	2 GB	4 GB
Memory bus width	64 Bit	64 Bit
Memory clock speed	800 MHz	1500 MHz
Memory bandwidth	12.8 GB/s	96 GB/s
Shared memory	-	-

Connectivity and outputs

Types and number of video connectors present on the reviewed GPUs. As a rule, data in this section is precise only for desktop reference ones (so-called Founders Edition for NVIDIA chips). OEM manufacturers may change the number and type of output ports, while for notebook cards availability of certain video outputs ports depends on the laptop model rather than on the card itself.

Display Connectors

Portable Device Dependent

4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a

Supported technologies

Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.

GPU Boost	2.0	no data
Optimus	+	-
GameWorks	+	-

API compatibility

List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.

DirectX	12 (11_0)	12 Ultimate (12_2)
Shader Model	6.7 (5.1)	6.7
OpenGL	4.5	4.6
OpenCL	3.0	3.0
Vulkan	1.3	1.3
CUDA	+	8.6

Synthetic benchmark performance

Non-gaming benchmark results comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.

Combined synthetic benchmark score

This is our combined benchmark score. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.

GeForce 930M 2.63

RTX A400 13.01
+395%

Passmark

This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark. It gives the graphics card a thorough evaluation under various types of load, providing four separate benchmarks for Direct3D versions 9, 10, 11 and 12 (the last being done in 4K resolution if possible), and few more tests engaging DirectCompute capabilities.

GeForce 930M 1013

RTX A400 5009
+394%

GeekBench 5 OpenCL

Geekbench 5 is a widespread graphics card benchmark combined from 11 different test scenarios. All these scenarios rely on direct usage of GPU's processing power, no 3D rendering is involved. This variation uses OpenCL API by Khronos Group.

GeForce 930M 5087

RTX A400 22705
+346%

Gaming performance

Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.

Average FPS across all PC games

Here are the average frames per second in a large set of popular games across different resolutions:

Full HD

−372%

85−90
+372%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

5−6
−380%

24−27

+380%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	8−9 −338%	35−40 +338%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	0−1	0−1
Battlefield 5	4−5 −350%	18−20 +350%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	6−7 −350%	27−30 +350%
Cyberpunk 2077	5−6 −380%	24−27 +380%
Far Cry 5	5−6 −380%	24−27 +380%
Far Cry New Dawn	7−8 −329%	30−33 +329%
Forza Horizon 4	12−14 −362%	60−65 +362%
Hitman 3	7−8 −329%	30−33 +329%
Horizon Zero Dawn	21−24 −376%	100−105 +376%
Metro Exodus	2−3 −350%	9−10 +350%
Red Dead Redemption 2	13 −362%	60−65 +362%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	10−12 −355%	50−55 +355%
Watch Dogs: Legion	35−40 −374%	180−190 +374%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	8−9 −338%	35−40 +338%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	0−1	0−1
Battlefield 5	4−5 −350%	18−20 +350%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	6−7 −350%	27−30 +350%
Cyberpunk 2077	5−6 −380%	24−27 +380%
Far Cry 5	5−6 −380%	24−27 +380%
Far Cry New Dawn	7−8 −329%	30−33 +329%
Forza Horizon 4	12−14 −362%	60−65 +362%
Hitman 3	7−8 −329%	30−33 +329%
Horizon Zero Dawn	21−24 −376%	100−105 +376%
Metro Exodus	2−3 −350%	9−10 +350%
Red Dead Redemption 2	6−7 −350%	27−30 +350%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	10−12 −355%	50−55 +355%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	24 −358%	110−120 +358%
Watch Dogs: Legion	35−40 −374%	180−190 +374%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	8−9 −338%	35−40 +338%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	0−1	0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	6−7 −350%	27−30 +350%
Cyberpunk 2077	5−6 −380%	24−27 +380%
Far Cry 5	5−6 −380%	24−27 +380%
Forza Horizon 4	12−14 −362%	60−65 +362%
Hitman 3	7−8 −329%	30−33 +329%
Horizon Zero Dawn	21−24 −376%	100−105 +376%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	10−12 −355%	50−55 +355%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	7 −329%	30−33 +329%
Watch Dogs: Legion	35−40 −374%	180−190 +374%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

6−7
−350%

27−30

+350%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5	4−5 −350%	18−20 +350%
Far Cry New Dawn	4−5 −350%	18−20 +350%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	2−3 −350%	9−10 +350%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	2−3 −350%	9−10 +350%
Cyberpunk 2077	1−2 −300%	4−5 +300%
Far Cry 5	3−4 −367%	14−16 +367%
Hitman 3	8−9 −338%	35−40 +338%
Horizon Zero Dawn	7−8 −329%	30−33 +329%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	2−3 −350%	9−10 +350%
Watch Dogs: Legion	14−16 −367%	70−75 +367%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

6−7
−350%

27−30

+350%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5	1−2 −300%	4−5 +300%
Far Cry New Dawn	1−2 −300%	4−5 +300%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	2−3 −350%	9−10 +350%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	1−2 −300%	4−5 +300%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	1−2 −300%	4−5 +300%
Far Cry 5	1−2 −300%	4−5 +300%
Watch Dogs: Legion	0−1	0−1

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

4−5
−350%

18−20

+350%

This is how GeForce 930M and RTX A400 compete in popular games:

RTX A400 is 372% faster in 1080p

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	2.63	13.01
Recency	13 March 2015	16 April 2024
Maximum RAM amount	2 GB	4 GB
Chip lithography	28 nm	8 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	33 Watt	50 Watt

GeForce 930M has 51.5% lower power consumption.

RTX A400, on the other hand, has a 394.7% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 9 years, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 250% more advanced lithography process.

The RTX A400 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce 930M in performance tests.

Be aware that GeForce 930M is a notebook card while RTX A400 is a workstation one.

Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.