GeForce 9400 GT Rev. 2 vs Graphics Media Accelerator (GMA) 950

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
ArchitectureGen. 3 (2005)Tesla (2006−2010)
GPU code nameGMA 950G96C
Market segmentLaptopDesktop
Release date1 March 2005 (20 years ago)27 August 2008 (17 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 cores416
Core clock speedno data550 MHz
Boost clock speed250 MHzno data
Number of transistorsno data314 million
Manufacturing process technology130 nm55 nm
Power consumption (TDP)7 Watt50 Watt
Texture fill rateno data4.400
Floating-point processing powerno data0.0448 TFLOPS
ROPsno data4
TMUsno data8
L2 Cacheno data32 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).

Interfaceno dataPCIe 2.0 x16
Lengthno data168 mm
Widthno data1-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 typeno dataGDDR3
Maximum RAM amountno data512 MB
Memory bus widthno data128 Bit
Memory clock speedno data400 MHz
Memory bandwidthno data12.8 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 data1x DVI, 1x VGA, 1x S-Video

API and SDK support

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

DirectXno data11.1 (10_0)
Shader Modelno data4.0
OpenGLno data3.3
OpenCLno data1.1
Vulkan-N/A
CUDA-1.1

Pros & cons summary


Recency 1 March 2005 27 August 2008
Chip lithography 130 nm 55 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 7 Watt 50 Watt

Graphics Media Accelerator (GMA) 950 has 614.3% lower power consumption.

9400 GT Rev. 2, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 3 years, and a 136.4% more advanced lithography process.

We couldn't decide between Graphics Media Accelerator (GMA) 950 and GeForce 9400 GT Rev. 2. We've got no test results to judge.

Be aware that Graphics Media Accelerator (GMA) 950 is a notebook graphics card while GeForce 9400 GT Rev. 2 is a desktop 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.


Intel Graphics Media Accelerator (GMA) 950
Graphics Media Accelerator (GMA) 950
NVIDIA GeForce 9400 GT Rev. 2
GeForce 9400 GT Rev. 2

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.


2.3 83 votes

Rate Graphics Media Accelerator (GMA) 950 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.8 10 votes

Rate GeForce 9400 GT Rev. 2 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about Graphics Media Accelerator (GMA) 950 or GeForce 9400 GT Rev. 2, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.