GeForce FX 5900 Ultra vs 9400M (G) / ION (LE)

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared GeForce 9400M (G) / ION (LE) with GeForce FX 5900 Ultra, including specs and performance data.

9400M (G) / ION (LE)
2008
12 Watt
0.31
+210%

9400M (G) / ION (LE) outperforms FX 5900 Ultra by a whopping 210% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking13311455
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiency1.810.12
Architectureno dataRankine (2003−2005)
GPU code nameMCP79MXNV35
Market segmentLaptopDesktop
Release date14 October 2008 (16 years ago)23 October 2003 (21 year ago)
Launch price (MSRP)no data$499

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.

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 cores16no data
Core clock speed450 MHz450 MHz
Number of transistors282 Million135 million
Manufacturing process technology65 nm130 nm
Power consumption (TDP)12 Watt59 Watt
Texture fill rateno data3.600
ROPsno data4
TMUsno data8

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).

Interfaceno dataAGP 8x
Lengthno data218 mm
Widthno data2-slot
Supplementary power connectorsno data1x Molex

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 typeno dataDDR
Maximum RAM amountno data256 MB
Memory bus widthno data256 Bit
Memory clock speedno data425 MHz
Memory bandwidthno data27.2 GB/s
Shared memory+no data

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 data1x DVI, 1x VGA, 1x S-Video

API and SDK compatibility

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

DirectX10.09.0a
OpenGLno data1.5 (2.1)
OpenCLno dataN/A
Vulkan-N/A

Gaming performance

Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Atomic Heart 2−3 0−1
Counter-Strike 2 7−8
+250%
2−3
−250%
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2 0−1

Full HD
Medium Preset

Atomic Heart 2−3 0−1
Counter-Strike 2 7−8
+250%
2−3
−250%
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 3−4 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 7−8
+250%
2−3
−250%
Valorant 24−27
+225%
8−9
−225%

Full HD
High Preset

Atomic Heart 2−3 0−1
Counter-Strike 2 7−8
+250%
2−3
−250%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 12−14
+225%
4−5
−225%
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2 0−1
Dota 2 10−11
+233%
3−4
−233%
Forza Horizon 4 3−4 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 7−8
+250%
2−3
−250%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 4−5
+300%
1−2
−300%
Valorant 24−27
+225%
8−9
−225%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Counter-Strike 2 7−8
+250%
2−3
−250%
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2 0−1
Dota 2 10−11
+233%
3−4
−233%
Forza Horizon 4 3−4 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 7−8
+250%
2−3
−250%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 4−5
+300%
1−2
−300%
Valorant 24−27
+225%
8−9
−225%

1440p
High Preset

PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 2−3 0−1

1440p
Ultra Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 0−1 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 1−2 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 1−2 0−1

1440p
Epic Preset

Fortnite 0−1 0−1

4K
High Preset

Atomic Heart 0−1 0−1
Grand Theft Auto V 14−16
+275%
4−5
−275%
Valorant 2−3 0−1

4K
Ultra Preset

Far Cry 5 1−2 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 2−3 0−1

4K
Epic Preset

Fortnite 2−3 0−1

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 0.31 0.10
Recency 14 October 2008 23 October 2003
Chip lithography 65 nm 130 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 12 Watt 59 Watt

9400M (G) / ION (LE) has a 210% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 4 years, a 100% more advanced lithography process, and 391.7% lower power consumption.

The GeForce 9400M (G) / ION (LE) is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce FX 5900 Ultra in performance tests.

Be aware that GeForce 9400M (G) / ION (LE) is a notebook card while GeForce FX 5900 Ultra is a desktop one.

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 (G) / ION (LE)
GeForce 9400M (G) / ION (LE)
NVIDIA GeForce FX 5900 Ultra
GeForce FX 5900 Ultra

Other comparisons

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.


2.5 37 votes

Rate GeForce 9400M (G) / ION (LE) on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.5 6 votes

Rate GeForce FX 5900 Ultra on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can give us your opinion about GeForce 9400M (G) / ION (LE) or GeForce FX 5900 Ultra, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.