Radeon R5 A240 vs GeForce 9400M (G) / ION (LE)
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce 9400M (G) / ION (LE) with Radeon R5 A240, including specs and performance data.
R5 A240 outperforms 9400M (G) / ION (LE) by a whopping 376% 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 | 1396 | 1049 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 1.86 | 2.13 |
| Architecture | no data | GCN 1.0 (2012−2020) |
| GPU code name | MCP79MX | Oland |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop |
| Release date | 14 October 2008 (17 years ago) | 2014 (12 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 | 16 | 320 |
| Core clock speed | 450 MHz | 1030 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 780 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 282 Million | 950 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 65 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 12 Watt | 50 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | no data | 15.60 |
| ROPs | no data | 8 |
| TMUs | no data | 20 |
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 | no data | PCIe 3.0 x8 |
| Length | no data | 168 mm |
| Width | no data | 1-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | None |
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 | no data | DDR3 |
| Maximum RAM amount | no data | 2 GB |
| Memory bus width | no data | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | no data | 1800 MBps |
| Memory bandwidth | no data | 28.8 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 data | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 1.4a, 1x VGA |
| HDMI | - | + |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 10.0 | 12 (11_1) |
| Shader Model | no data | 6.5 (5.1) |
| OpenGL | no data | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | no data | 2.1 (1.2) |
| Vulkan | - | 1.2.170 |
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
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−300%
|
4−5
+300%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−300%
|
4−5
+300%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 3−4
−367%
|
14−16
+367%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 7−8
−329%
|
30−33
+329%
|
| Valorant | 24−27
−362%
|
120−130
+362%
|
Full HD
High
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 12−14
−362%
|
60−65
+362%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−300%
|
4−5
+300%
|
| Dota 2 | 9−10
−344%
|
40−45
+344%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 3−4
−367%
|
14−16
+367%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 7−8
−329%
|
30−33
+329%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 5−6
−320%
|
21−24
+320%
|
| Valorant | 24−27
−362%
|
120−130
+362%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−300%
|
4−5
+300%
|
| Dota 2 | 9−10
−344%
|
40−45
+344%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 3−4
−367%
|
14−16
+367%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 7−8
−329%
|
30−33
+329%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 5−6
−320%
|
21−24
+320%
|
| Valorant | 24−27
−362%
|
120−130
+362%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 3−4
−367%
|
14−16
+367%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 3−4
−367%
|
14−16
+367%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Forza Horizon 4 | 1−2
−300%
|
4−5
+300%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 1−2
−300%
|
4−5
+300%
|
4K
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
−364%
|
65−70
+364%
|
| Valorant | 1−2
−300%
|
4−5
+300%
|
4K
Ultra
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 1−2
−300%
|
4−5
+300%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 2−3
−350%
|
9−10
+350%
|
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.29 | 1.38 |
| Chip lithography | 65 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 12 Watt | 50 Watt |
9400M (G) / ION (LE) has 317% lower power consumption.
R5 A240, on the other hand, has a 376% higher aggregate performance score, and a 132% more advanced lithography process.
The Radeon R5 A240 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce 9400M (G) / ION (LE) in performance tests.
Be aware that GeForce 9400M (G) / ION (LE) is a notebook graphics card while Radeon R5 A240 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.
