GeForce 9400M G vs Radeon R7 350

VS

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking600not rated
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiency7.07no data
ArchitectureGCN 1.0 (2011−2020)Tesla (2006−2010)
GPU code nameCape VerdeC79
Market segmentDesktopLaptop
Release date6 July 2016 (8 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 cores51216
Core clock speed800 MHz450 MHz
Number of transistors1,500 million314 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm65 nm
Power consumption (TDP)55 Watt12 Watt
Texture fill rate25.603.600
Floating-point processing power0.8192 TFLOPS0.0352 TFLOPS
ROPs164
TMUs328

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 3.0 x16PCIe 2.0 x16
Length168 mmno data
Width1-slotno data
Supplementary power connectorsNoneno 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 typeGDDR5System Shared
Maximum RAM amount2 GBSystem Shared
Memory bus width128 BitSystem Shared
Memory clock speed1125 MHzSystem Shared
Memory bandwidth72 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 Connectors1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPortNo outputs
HDMI+-

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
OpenGL4.63.3
OpenCL1.2N/A
Vulkan1.2.131N/A

Pros & cons summary


Recency 6 July 2016 15 October 2008
Chip lithography 28 nm 65 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 55 Watt 12 Watt

R7 350 has an age advantage of 7 years, and a 132.1% more advanced lithography process.

9400M G, on the other hand, has 358.3% lower power consumption.

We couldn't decide between Radeon R7 350 and GeForce 9400M G. We've got no test results to judge.

Be aware that Radeon R7 350 is a desktop card while GeForce 9400M G is a notebook one.


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.


AMD Radeon R7 350
Radeon R7 350
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.


3.8 477 votes

Rate Radeon R7 350 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.6 5 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.