GeForce 9400M GeForceBoost vs Radeon R7 250

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking872not rated
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation0.10no data
Power efficiency2.97no data
ArchitectureGCN 1.0 (2012−2020)no data
GPU code nameOlandno data
Market segmentDesktopLaptop
Designreferenceno data
Release date8 October 2013 (12 years ago)3 June 2008 (17 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$89 no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.

no data

Performance to price scatter graph

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 cores38424
Boost clock speed1050 MHzno data
Number of transistors950 millionno data
Manufacturing process technology28 nm65 nm
Power consumption (TDP)75 Wattno data
Texture fill rate25.20no data
Floating-point processing power0.8064 TFLOPSno data
ROPs8no data
TMUs24no data
L1 Cache96 KBno data
L2 Cache256 KBno 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 supportPCIe 3.0no data
InterfacePCIe 3.0 x8no data
Length168 mmno data
Width2-slotno data
Supplementary power connectorsN/Ano data

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 width128 Bit64 Bit
Memory clock speed1150 MHzno data
Memory bandwidth72 GB/sno data
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 Connectors1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x VGAno data
HDMI+-

Supported technologies

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

AppAcceleration+-
CrossFire+-
FreeSync+-
DDMA audio+no data

API and SDK support

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

DirectXDirectX® 1210
Shader Model5.1no data
OpenGL4.6no data
OpenCL1.2no data

Synthetic benchmarks

Non-gaming benchmark results comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.



3DMark Vantage Performance

3DMark Vantage is an outdated DirectX 10 benchmark using 1280x1024 screen resolution. It taxes the graphics card with two scenes, one depicting a girl escaping some militarized base located within a sea cave, the other displaying a space fleet attack on a defenseless planet. It was discontinued in April 2017, and Time Spy benchmark is now recommended to be used instead.

R7 250 12581
+9965%
9400M GeForceBoost 125

Pros & cons summary


Recency 8 October 2013 3 June 2008
Chip lithography 28 nm 65 nm

R7 250 has an age advantage of 5 years, and a 132.1% more advanced lithography process.

We couldn't decide between Radeon R7 250 and GeForce 9400M GeForceBoost. We've got no test results to judge.

Be aware that Radeon R7 250 is a desktop graphics card while GeForce 9400M GeForceBoost 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.


AMD Radeon R7 250
Radeon R7 250
NVIDIA GeForce 9400M GeForceBoost
GeForce 9400M GeForceBoost

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.


3.5 505 votes

Rate Radeon R7 250 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
2.4 14 votes

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about Radeon R7 250 or GeForce 9400M GeForceBoost, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.