GeForce 9400M (G) / ION (LE) vs GTX 460

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared GeForce GTX 460 with GeForce 9400M (G) / ION (LE), including specs and performance data.

GTX 460
2010
2 GB GDDR5, 160 Watt
5.07
+1778%

GTX 460 outperforms 9400M (G) / ION (LE) by a whopping 1778% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking6021328
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation1.09no data
Power efficiency2.521.79
ArchitectureFermi (2010−2014)no data
GPU code nameGF104MCP79MX
Market segmentDesktopLaptop
Release date12 July 2010 (14 years ago)14 October 2008 (16 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$199 no data

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 cores33616
Core clock speed675 MHz450 MHz
Number of transistors1,950 million282 Million
Manufacturing process technology40 nm65 nm
Power consumption (TDP)160 Watt12 Watt
Texture fill rate37.80no data
Floating-point processing power0.9072 TFLOPSno data
ROPs24no data
TMUs56no data

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).

Bus support16x PCI-E 2.0no data
InterfacePCIe 2.0 x16no data
Length210 mmno data
Height4.376"(111 mm) (11.1 cm)no data
Width2-slotno data
Supplementary power connectors2x 6-pinno data
SLI options+-

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 typeGDDR5no data
Maximum RAM amount2 GBno data
Memory bus width192 Bitno data
Memory clock speed900 MHzno data
Memory bandwidth86.4 GB/sno data
Shared memory-+

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 ConnectorsTwo Dual Link DVI, Mini HDMIno data
Multi monitor support+no data
HDMI+-
HDCP+-
Maximum VGA resolution2048x1536no data
Audio input for HDMIInternalno data

API and SDK compatibility

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

DirectX12 (11_0)10.0
Shader Model5.1no data
OpenGL4.1no data
OpenCL1.1no data
VulkanN/A-
CUDA+-

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 Preset

Atomic Heart 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Atomic Heart 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Valorant 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%

Full HD
High Preset

Atomic Heart 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Dota 2 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Valorant 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Dota 2 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Valorant 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%

1440p
High Preset

PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 0−1 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 0−1 0−1

1440p
Epic Preset

Fortnite 0−1 0−1

4K
High Preset

Grand Theft Auto V 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Valorant 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Far Cry 5 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%

4K
Epic Preset

Fortnite 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 28 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 5.07 0.27
Recency 12 July 2010 14 October 2008
Chip lithography 40 nm 65 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 160 Watt 12 Watt

GTX 460 has a 1777.8% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 1 year, and a 62.5% more advanced lithography process.

9400M (G) / ION (LE), on the other hand, has 1233.3% lower power consumption.

The GeForce GTX 460 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce 9400M (G) / ION (LE) in performance tests.

Be aware that GeForce GTX 460 is a desktop card while GeForce 9400M (G) / ION (LE) is a notebook 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 GTX 460
GeForce GTX 460
NVIDIA GeForce 9400M (G) / ION (LE)
GeForce 9400M (G) / ION (LE)

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.


3.4 1040 votes

Rate GeForce GTX 460 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
2.5 37 votes

Rate GeForce 9400M (G) / ION (LE) on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can give us your opinion about GeForce GTX 460 or GeForce 9400M (G) / ION (LE), agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.