GeForce MX250 vs 9400M

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared GeForce 9400M and GeForce MX250, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.

GeForce 9400M
2008
12 Watt
0.23

MX250 outperforms 9400M by a whopping 2239% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking1416635
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiency1.5543.55
ArchitectureTesla (2006−2010)Pascal (2016−2021)
GPU code nameC79GP108B
Market segmentLaptopLaptop
Release date15 October 2008 (16 years ago)20 February 2019 (6 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 cores16384
Core clock speed580 MHz937 MHz
Boost clock speedno data1038 MHz
Number of transistors314 million1,800 million
Manufacturing process technology65 nm14 nm
Power consumption (TDP)12 Watt10 Watt
Texture fill rate4.64024.91
Floating-point processing power0.0448 TFLOPS0.7972 TFLOPS
ROPs416
TMUs824
L1 Cacheno data144 KB
L2 Cacheno data512 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 sizeno datalarge
InterfacePCIe 2.0 x16PCIe 3.0 x4
Supplementary power connectorsno dataNone

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 SharedGDDR5
Maximum RAM amountSystem Shared2 GB
Memory bus widthSystem Shared64 Bit
Memory clock speedSystem Shared1502 MHz
Memory bandwidthno data48.06 GB/s
Shared memory+-

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 ConnectorsNo outputsPortable Device Dependent

API and SDK support

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

DirectX11.1 (10_0)12 (12_1)
Shader Model4.06.7 (6.4)
OpenGL3.34.6
OpenCLN/A3.0
VulkanN/A1.3
CUDA-6.1

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.

GeForce 9400M 0.23
GeForce MX250 5.38
+2239%

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.

GeForce 9400M 101
Samples: 116
GeForce MX250 2380
+2256%
Samples: 2420

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 HD0−122

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low

Counter-Strike 2 75
+0%
75
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 14
+0%
14
+0%
Hogwarts Legacy 15
+0%
15
+0%

Full HD
Medium

Battlefield 5 24
+0%
24
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 41
+0%
41
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 11
+0%
11
+0%
Far Cry 5 19
+0%
19
+0%
Fortnite 55
+0%
55
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 31
+0%
31
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 17
+0%
17
+0%
Hogwarts Legacy 8
+0%
8
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 28
+0%
28
+0%
Valorant 118
+0%
118
+0%

Full HD
High

Battlefield 5 19
+0%
19
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 21
+0%
21
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 95−100
+0%
95−100
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Dota 2 64
+0%
64
+0%
Far Cry 5 17
+0%
17
+0%
Fortnite 25
+0%
25
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 24
+0%
24
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 13
+0%
13
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 28
+0%
28
+0%
Hogwarts Legacy 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
Metro Exodus 7
+0%
7
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 23
+0%
23
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 21
+0%
21
+0%
Valorant 115
+0%
115
+0%

Full HD
Ultra

Battlefield 5 14
+0%
14
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Dota 2 57
+0%
57
+0%
Far Cry 5 16
+0%
16
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 16
+0%
16
+0%
Hogwarts Legacy 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 19
+0%
19
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 12
+0%
12
+0%
Valorant 65−70
+0%
65−70
+0%

Full HD
Epic

Fortnite 22
+0%
22
+0%

1440p
High

Counter-Strike 2 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Metro Exodus 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Valorant 60−65
+0%
60−65
+0%

1440p
Ultra

Battlefield 5 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Far Cry 5 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Hogwarts Legacy 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%

1440p
Epic

Fortnite 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%

4K
High

Grand Theft Auto V 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Hogwarts Legacy 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Metro Exodus 0−1 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Valorant 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%

4K
Ultra

Battlefield 5 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Dota 2 20−22
+0%
20−22
+0%
Far Cry 5 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Hogwarts Legacy 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%

4K
Epic

Fortnite 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 63 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 0.23 5.38
Recency 15 October 2008 20 February 2019
Chip lithography 65 nm 14 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 12 Watt 10 Watt

GeForce MX250 has a 2239.1% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 10 years, a 364.3% more advanced lithography process, and 20% lower power consumption.

The GeForce MX250 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce 9400M in performance tests.

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
GeForce 9400M
NVIDIA GeForce MX250
GeForce MX250

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.


2.8 52 votes

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.5 1679 votes

Rate GeForce MX250 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about GeForce 9400M or GeForce MX250, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.