ATI Radeon E2400 vs GeForce 9400 GT
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce 9400 GT with Radeon E2400, including specs and performance data.
9400 GT outperforms ATI E2400 by a whopping 223% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 1250 | 1429 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 0.58 | 0.36 |
| Architecture | Tesla (2006−2010) | TeraScale (2005−2013) |
| GPU code name | G96C | RV610 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Laptop |
| Release date | 27 August 2008 (16 years ago) | 28 June 2007 (17 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $79.99 | no data |
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 | 16 | 40 |
| Core clock speed | 550 MHz | 600 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 314 million | 180 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 55 nm | 65 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 50 Watt | 25 Watt |
| Maximum GPU temperature | 105 °C | no data |
| Texture fill rate | 4.400 | 2.400 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.0448 TFLOPS | 0.048 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 4 | 4 |
| TMUs | 8 | 4 |
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-E 2.0 | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | MXM-II |
| Length | 168 mm | no data |
| Height | 4.376" (11.1 cm) | no data |
| Width | 1-slot | no data |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | no data |
| SLI options | + | - |
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 | DDR2 | GDDR3 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 512 MB | 128 MB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 64 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 400 MHz | 700 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 12.8 GB/s | 11.2 GB/s |
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 | Dual Link DVI | No outputs |
| Multi monitor support | + | no data |
| HDMI | + | - |
| Maximum VGA resolution | 2048x1536 | no data |
| Audio input for HDMI | S/PDIF | no data |
API compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 11.1 (10_0) | 10.0 (10_0) |
| Shader Model | 4.0 | 4.0 |
| OpenGL | 2.1 | 3.3 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | N/A |
| Vulkan | N/A | N/A |
| CUDA | + | - |
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.
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.
Gaming performance
Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.42 | 0.13 |
| Recency | 27 August 2008 | 28 June 2007 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 512 MB | 128 MB |
| Chip lithography | 55 nm | 65 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 50 Watt | 25 Watt |
9400 GT has a 223.1% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 1 year, a 300% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 18.2% more advanced lithography process.
ATI E2400, on the other hand, has 100% lower power consumption.
The GeForce 9400 GT is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon E2400 in performance tests.
Be aware that GeForce 9400 GT is a desktop card while Radeon E2400 is a notebook one.
Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Comparisons with similar GPUs
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
