Apple M1 GPU vs GeForce 9400M GeForceBoost
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | not rated | not rated |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Release date | 3 June 2008 (16 years ago) | 10 November 2020 (4 years 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 | 24 | 8 |
| Manufacturing process technology | 65 nm | 5 nm |
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 bus width | 64 Bit | no data |
| Shared memory | - | + |
API compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 10 | no data |
Pros & cons summary
| Recency | 3 June 2008 | 10 November 2020 |
| Chip lithography | 65 nm | 5 nm |
Apple M1 GPU has an age advantage of 12 years, and a 1200% more advanced lithography process.
We couldn't decide between GeForce 9400M GeForceBoost and Apple M1 GPU. We've got no test results to judge.
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.
