ATI Mobility Radeon HD 3400 vs GeForce 9400M GeForceBoost

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
Architectureno dataRV6xx (2008−2010)
Market segmentLaptopLaptop
Release date3 June 2008 (17 years ago)1 August 2010 (15 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 cores24no data
Manufacturing process technology65 nmno 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 bus width64 Bitno data
Shared memory-+

API and SDK support

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

DirectX10no data

Pros & cons summary


Recency 3 June 2008 1 August 2010

ATI Mobility HD 3400 has an age advantage of 2 years.

We couldn't decide between GeForce 9400M GeForceBoost and Mobility Radeon HD 3400. We've got no test results to judge.

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.


2.4 15 votes

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.3 66 votes

Rate Mobility Radeon HD 3400 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about GeForce 9400M GeForceBoost or Mobility Radeon HD 3400, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.