GeForce 9400M G vs Iris Pro Graphics 6200

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Iris Pro Graphics 6200 and GeForce 9400M G, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.

Iris Pro Graphics 6200
2014
15 Watt
3.95
+2224%

Iris Pro Graphics 6200 outperforms 9400M G by a whopping 2224% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking6971408
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiency18.040.97
ArchitectureGeneration 8.0 (2014−2015)Tesla (2006−2010)
GPU code nameBroadwell GT3eC79
Market segmentLaptopLaptop
Release date5 September 2014 (10 years ago)15 October 2008 (16 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 cores38416
Core clock speed300 MHz450 MHz
Boost clock speed1100 MHzno data
Number of transistors189 million314 million
Manufacturing process technology14 nm65 nm
Power consumption (TDP)15 Watt12 Watt
Texture fill rate52.803.600
Floating-point processing power0.8448 TFLOPS0.0352 TFLOPS
ROPs64
TMUs488

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 sizemedium sizedno data
InterfaceRing BusPCIe 2.0 x16

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 SharedSystem Shared
Maximum RAM amountSystem SharedSystem Shared
Memory bus widthSystem SharedSystem Shared
Memory clock speedSystem SharedSystem Shared
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 ConnectorsPortable Device DependentNo outputs

Supported technologies

Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.

Quick Sync+no data

API compatibility

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

DirectX12 (11_1)11.1 (10_0)
Shader Model5.14.0
OpenGL4.43.3
OpenCL3.0N/A
Vulkan+N/A

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. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.

Iris Pro Graphics 6200 3.95
+2224%
9400M G 0.17

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.

Iris Pro Graphics 6200 1523
+2173%
9400M G 67

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

Cyberpunk 2077 7−8 0−1

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 10−12 0−1
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 3−4 0−1
Battlefield 5 9−10 0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 9−10 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 7−8 0−1
Far Cry 5 8−9 0−1
Far Cry New Dawn 10−12 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 21−24 0−1
Hitman 3 9−10 0−1
Horizon Zero Dawn 27−30
+2600%
1−2
−2600%
Metro Exodus 7−8 0−1
Red Dead Redemption 2 10−11 0−1
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 14−16 0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion 40−45
+4100%
1−2
−4100%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 10−12 0−1
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 3−4 0−1
Battlefield 5 9−10 0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 9−10 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 7−8 0−1
Far Cry 5 8−9 0−1
Far Cry New Dawn 10−12 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 21−24 0−1
Hitman 3 9−10 0−1
Horizon Zero Dawn 27−30
+2600%
1−2
−2600%
Metro Exodus 7−8 0−1
Red Dead Redemption 2 10−11 0−1
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 14−16 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 16−18 0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion 40−45
+4100%
1−2
−4100%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 10−12 0−1
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 3−4 0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 9−10 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 7−8 0−1
Far Cry 5 8−9 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 21−24 0−1
Hitman 3 9−10 0−1
Horizon Zero Dawn 27−30
+2600%
1−2
−2600%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 14−16 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 16−18 0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion 40−45
+4100%
1−2
−4100%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 10−11 0−1

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 7−8 0−1
Far Cry New Dawn 6−7 0−1

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 3−4 0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3−4 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3 0−1
Far Cry 5 4−5 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 4−5 0−1
Hitman 3 8−9 0−1
Horizon Zero Dawn 9−10 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 3−4 0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion 24−27
+2300%
1−2
−2300%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 8−9 0−1

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5 2−3 0−1
Far Cry New Dawn 2−3 0−1
Hitman 3 0−1 0−1
Metro Exodus 0−1 0−1

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 3−4 0−1
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 2−3 0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 1−2 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 0−1 0−1
Far Cry 5 2−3 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 2−3 0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion 1−2 0−1

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 5−6 0−1

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 3.95 0.17
Recency 5 September 2014 15 October 2008
Chip lithography 14 nm 65 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 15 Watt 12 Watt

Iris Pro Graphics 6200 has a 2223.5% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 5 years, and a 364.3% more advanced lithography process.

9400M G, on the other hand, has 25% lower power consumption.

The Iris Pro Graphics 6200 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce 9400M G in performance tests.


Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.

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 Iris Pro Graphics 6200
Iris Pro Graphics 6200
NVIDIA GeForce 9400M G
GeForce 9400M G

Comparisons with similar GPUs

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.


3.3 85 votes

Rate Iris Pro Graphics 6200 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.5 6 votes

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about this comparison, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.