GeForce 9400 GT vs GT 635M
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GT 635M with GeForce 9400 GT, including specs and performance data.
635M outperforms 9400 GT by a whopping 170% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Contents
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 1093 | 1326 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 2.81 | 0.73 |
| Architecture | Fermi 2.0 (2010−2014) | Tesla (2006−2010) |
| GPU code name | GF116 | G96C |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop |
| Release date | 22 March 2012 (14 years ago) | 27 August 2008 (18 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $79.99 |
Detailed specifications
General parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. Real power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially if overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | Up to 144 | 16 |
| Core clock speed | Up to 675 MHz | 550 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 753 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 1,170 million | 314 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 55 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 35 Watt | 50 Watt |
| Maximum GPU temperature | no data | 105 °C |
| Texture fill rate | 16.20 | 4.400 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.3888 TFLOPS | 0.0448 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 16 | 4 |
| TMUs | 24 | 8 |
| L1 Cache | 192 KB | no data |
| L2 Cache | 256 KB | 32 KB |
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).
| Laptop size | large | no data |
| Bus support | PCI Express 2.0 | PCI-E 2.0 |
| Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Length | no data | 168 mm |
| Height | no data | 4.376" (11.1 cm) |
| Width | no data | 1-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | None |
| 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 | DDR3 | DDR2 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 512 MB |
| Memory bus width | Up to 192bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 900 MHz | 400 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | Up to 43.2 GB/s | 12.8 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | no data |
Connectivity and outputs
This section shows the types and number of video connectors on each GPU. The data applies specifically to desktop reference models (for example, NVIDIA’s Founders Edition). OEM partners often modify both the number and types of ports. On notebook GPUs, video‐output options are determined by the laptop’s design rather than the graphics chip itself.
| Display Connectors | No outputs | Dual Link DVI |
| Multi monitor support | no data | + |
| HDMI | + | + |
| HDCP | + | - |
| Maximum VGA resolution | Up to 2048x1536 | 2048x1536 |
| Audio input for HDMI | no data | S/PDIF |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| 3D Blu-Ray | + | - |
| Optimus | + | - |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 API | 11.1 (10_0) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 4.0 |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 2.1 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | 1.1 |
| Vulkan | N/A | N/A |
| CUDA | + | + |
Synthetic benchmarks
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.
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.
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 | 24
+200%
| 8−9
−200%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | no data | 10.00 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Atomic Heart | 3−4
+200%
|
1−2
−200%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3 | 0−1 |
Full HD
Medium
| Atomic Heart | 3−4
+200%
|
1−2
−200%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Fortnite | 4−5
+300%
|
1−2
−300%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 7−8
+250%
|
2−3
−250%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
+200%
|
3−4
−200%
|
| Valorant | 35−40
+192%
|
12−14
−192%
|
Full HD
High
| Atomic Heart | 3−4
+200%
|
1−2
−200%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 36
+200%
|
12−14
−200%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 16−18
+183%
|
6−7
−183%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Fortnite | 4−5
+300%
|
1−2
−300%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 7−8
+250%
|
2−3
−250%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Metro Exodus | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
+200%
|
3−4
−200%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 7−8
+250%
|
2−3
−250%
|
| Valorant | 35−40
+192%
|
12−14
−192%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 16−18
+183%
|
6−7
−183%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 7−8
+250%
|
2−3
−250%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
+200%
|
3−4
−200%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 7−8
+250%
|
2−3
−250%
|
| Valorant | 35−40
+192%
|
12−14
−192%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 4−5
+300%
|
1−2
−300%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 3−4
+200%
|
1−2
−200%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 8−9
+300%
|
2−3
−300%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 12−14
+225%
|
4−5
−225%
|
| Valorant | 8−9
+300%
|
2−3
−300%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 3−4
+200%
|
1−2
−200%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 2−3 | 0−1 |
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 2−3 | 0−1 |
4K
High
| Atomic Heart | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
+200%
|
5−6
−200%
|
| Valorant | 8−9
+300%
|
2−3
−300%
|
4K
Ultra
| Dota 2 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 2−3 | 0−1 |
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 2−3 | 0−1 |
This is how GT 635M and 9400 GT compete in popular games:
- GT 635M is 200% faster in 1080p
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 1.27 | 0.47 |
| Recency | 22 March 2012 | 27 August 2008 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 512 MB |
| Chip lithography | 40 nm | 55 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 35 Watt | 50 Watt |
GT 635M has a 170% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 3 years, a 300% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 38% more advanced lithography process, and 43% lower power consumption.
The GeForce GT 635M is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce 9400 GT in performance tests.
Be aware that GeForce GT 635M is a notebook graphics card while GeForce 9400 GT is a desktop one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
