GeForce 9400M G vs Radeon R7 250E
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon R7 250E with GeForce 9400M G, including specs and performance data.
R7 250E outperforms 9400M G by a whopping 2476% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 670 | 1408 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 1.27 | no data |
| Power efficiency | 5.46 | 0.97 |
| Architecture | GCN 1.0 (2011−2020) | Tesla (2006−2010) |
| GPU code name | Cape Verde | C79 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Laptop |
| Release date | 20 December 2013 (10 years ago) | 15 October 2008 (16 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $109 | no data |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
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 | 512 | 16 |
| Core clock speed | 800 MHz | 450 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 1,500 million | 314 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 65 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 55 Watt | 12 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 25.60 | 3.600 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.8192 TFLOPS | 0.0352 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 16 | 4 |
| TMUs | 32 | 8 |
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).
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Length | 168 mm | no data |
| Width | 1-slot | no data |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | no data |
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 | GDDR5 | System Shared |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | System Shared |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | System Shared |
| Memory clock speed | 1125 MHz | System Shared |
| Memory bandwidth | 72 GB/s | no data |
| 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 | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort | No outputs |
| HDMI | + | - |
API compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (11_1) | 11.1 (10_0) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 4.0 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 3.3 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | N/A |
| Vulkan | 1.2.131 | N/A |
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 | 4.38 | 0.17 |
| Recency | 20 December 2013 | 15 October 2008 |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 65 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 55 Watt | 12 Watt |
R7 250E has a 2476.5% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 5 years, and a 132.1% more advanced lithography process.
9400M G, on the other hand, has 358.3% lower power consumption.
The Radeon R7 250E is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce 9400M G in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon R7 250E is a desktop card while GeForce 9400M G 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.
