ATI Radeon X1650 PRO vs GeForce 9400M

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared GeForce 9400M with Radeon X1650 PRO, including specs and performance data.

GeForce 9400M
2008
12 Watt
0.26
+18.2%

9400M outperforms ATI X1650 PRO by a moderate 18% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.

Place in the ranking13521374
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiency1.480.34
ArchitectureTesla (2006−2010)Ultra-Threaded SE (2005−2007)
GPU code nameC79RV530
Market segmentLaptopDesktop
Release date15 October 2008 (16 years ago)1 February 2007 (17 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 cores16no data
Core clock speed580 MHz600 MHz
Number of transistors314 million157 million
Manufacturing process technology65 nm90 nm
Power consumption (TDP)12 Watt44 Watt
Texture fill rate4.6402.400
Floating-point processing power0.0448 TFLOPSno data
ROPs44
TMUs84

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).

InterfacePCIe 2.0 x16PCIe 1.0 x16
Widthno data1-slot
Supplementary power connectorsno dataNone

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 typeSystem SharedGDDR3
Maximum RAM amountSystem Shared256 MB
Memory bus widthSystem Shared128 Bit
Memory clock speedSystem Shared700 MHz
Memory bandwidthno data22.4 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 ConnectorsNo outputs1x DVI, 1x VGA, 1x S-Video

API compatibility

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

DirectX11.1 (10_0)9.0c (9_3)
Shader Model4.03.0
OpenGL3.32.1
OpenCLN/AN/A
VulkanN/AN/A

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 9400M 0.26
+18.2%
ATI X1650 PRO 0.22

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 9400M 101
+20.2%
ATI X1650 PRO 84

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 0.26 0.22
Recency 15 October 2008 1 February 2007
Chip lithography 65 nm 90 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 12 Watt 44 Watt

GeForce 9400M has a 18.2% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 1 year, a 38.5% more advanced lithography process, and 266.7% lower power consumption.

The GeForce 9400M is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon X1650 PRO in performance tests.

Be aware that GeForce 9400M is a notebook card while Radeon X1650 PRO is a desktop one.


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

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite graphics card.


NVIDIA GeForce 9400M
GeForce 9400M
ATI Radeon X1650 PRO
Radeon X1650 PRO

Comparisons with similar GPUs

We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.

Community ratings

Here you can see the user ratings of the compared graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.


3 44 votes

Rate GeForce 9400M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.3 69 votes

Rate Radeon X1650 PRO on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about this comparison, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.