RTX A2000 vs GeForce 9400M

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared GeForce 9400M with RTX A2000, including specs and performance data.

GeForce 9400M
2008
12 Watt
0.23

RTX A2000 outperforms 9400M by a whopping 13113% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking1366148
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluationno data93.00
Power efficiency1.5134.29
ArchitectureTesla (2006−2010)Ampere (2020−2024)
GPU code nameC79GA106
Market segmentLaptopWorkstation
Release date15 October 2008 (16 years ago)10 August 2021 (3 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)no data$449

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 cores163328
Core clock speed580 MHz562 MHz
Boost clock speedno data1200 MHz
Number of transistors314 million12,000 million
Manufacturing process technology65 nm8 nm
Power consumption (TDP)12 Watt70 Watt
Texture fill rate4.640124.8
Floating-point processing power0.0448 TFLOPS7.987 TFLOPS
ROPs448
TMUs8104
Tensor Coresno data104
Ray Tracing Coresno data26

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 x16PCIe 4.0 x16
Lengthno data167 mm
Widthno data2-slot
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 SharedGDDR6
Maximum RAM amountSystem Shared6 GB
Memory bus widthSystem Shared192 Bit
Memory clock speedSystem Shared1500 MHz
Memory bandwidthno data288.0 GB/s
Shared memory+-
Resizable BAR-+

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 outputs4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a

API and SDK compatibility

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

DirectX11.1 (10_0)12 Ultimate (12_2)
Shader Model4.06.8
OpenGL3.34.6
OpenCLN/A3.0
VulkanN/A1.3
CUDA-8.6
DLSS-+

Synthetic benchmark performance

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
RTX A2000 30.39
+13113%

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
RTX A2000 13582
+13348%

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 HD0−191
1440p-0−143
4K-0−128

Cost per frame, $

1080pno data4.93
1440pno data10.44
4Kno data16.04

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Atomic Heart 95−100
+0%
95−100
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 180−190
+0%
180−190
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 75−80
+0%
75−80
+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Atomic Heart 95−100
+0%
95−100
+0%
Battlefield 5 110−120
+0%
110−120
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 180−190
+0%
180−190
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 75−80
+0%
75−80
+0%
Far Cry 5 108
+0%
108
+0%
Fortnite 140−150
+0%
140−150
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 120−130
+0%
120−130
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 121
+0%
121
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 130−140
+0%
130−140
+0%
Valorant 200−210
+0%
200−210
+0%

Full HD
High Preset

Atomic Heart 95−100
+0%
95−100
+0%
Battlefield 5 110−120
+0%
110−120
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 180−190
+0%
180−190
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 270−280
+0%
270−280
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 75−80
+0%
75−80
+0%
Far Cry 5 98
+0%
98
+0%
Fortnite 140−150
+0%
140−150
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 120−130
+0%
120−130
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 106
+0%
106
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 129
+0%
129
+0%
Metro Exodus 60
+0%
60
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 130−140
+0%
130−140
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 117
+0%
117
+0%
Valorant 200−210
+0%
200−210
+0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 110−120
+0%
110−120
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 75−80
+0%
75−80
+0%
Far Cry 5 91
+0%
91
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 120−130
+0%
120−130
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 130−140
+0%
130−140
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 64
+0%
64
+0%
Valorant 200−210
+0%
200−210
+0%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Fortnite 140−150
+0%
140−150
+0%

1440p
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2 80−85
+0%
80−85
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 220−230
+0%
220−230
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 58
+0%
58
+0%
Metro Exodus 34
+0%
34
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 170−180
+0%
170−180
+0%
Valorant 230−240
+0%
230−240
+0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 85−90
+0%
85−90
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Far Cry 5 61
+0%
61
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 90−95
+0%
90−95
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 47
+0%
47
+0%

1440p
Epic Preset

Fortnite 80−85
+0%
80−85
+0%

4K
High Preset

Atomic Heart 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 56
+0%
56
+0%
Metro Exodus 20
+0%
20
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 40
+0%
40
+0%
Valorant 190−200
+0%
190−200
+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Far Cry 5 30
+0%
30
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 60−65
+0%
60−65
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%

4K
Epic Preset

Fortnite 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 60 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 0.23 30.39
Recency 15 October 2008 10 August 2021
Chip lithography 65 nm 8 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 12 Watt 70 Watt

GeForce 9400M has 483.3% lower power consumption.

RTX A2000, on the other hand, has a 13113% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 12 years, and a 712.5% more advanced lithography process.

The RTX A2000 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce 9400M in performance tests.

Be aware that GeForce 9400M is a notebook card while RTX A2000 is a workstation 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
GeForce 9400M
NVIDIA RTX A2000
RTX A2000

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.


3 44 votes

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.9 600 votes

Rate RTX A2000 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can give us your opinion about GeForce 9400M or RTX A2000, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.