RSX Reality Synthesizer vs GeForce 9400M G

VS

Primary details

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

Place in the rankingnot ratednot rated
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
ArchitectureTesla (2006−2010)Curie (2003−2013)
GPU code nameC79RSX-CXD5302
Market segmentDesktopDesktop
Release date15 October 2008 (16 years ago)4 October 2012 (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 cores16no data
Core clock speed450 MHz550 MHz
Number of transistors314 million302 million
Manufacturing process technology65 nm40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)12 Watt80 Watt
Texture fill rate3.60013.20
Floating-point processing power0.0352 TFLOPSno data
ROPs48
TMUs824

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 x16IGP
WidthIGPIGP

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 Shared1400 MHz
Memory bandwidthno data22.4 GB/s

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 outputsNo outputs

API compatibility

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

DirectX11.1 (10_0)N/A
Shader Model4.0no data
OpenGL3.3ES 1.1
OpenCLN/Ano data
VulkanN/A-

Pros & cons summary


Recency 15 October 2008 4 October 2012
Chip lithography 65 nm 40 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 12 Watt 80 Watt

9400M G has 566.7% lower power consumption.

RSX Reality Synthesizer, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 3 years, and a 62.5% more advanced lithography process.

We couldn't decide between GeForce 9400M G and RSX Reality Synthesizer. We've got no test results to judge.


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 G
GeForce 9400M G
NVIDIA RSX Reality Synthesizer
RSX Reality Synthesizer

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.


3.6 5 votes

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
2.7 30 votes

Rate RSX Reality Synthesizer 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.