GeForce 9400M vs Radeon R9 280

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon R9 280 with GeForce 9400M, including specs and performance data.

R9 280
2014
3 GB GDDR5, 200 Watt
13.07
+5346%

R9 280 outperforms 9400M by a whopping 5346% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking4151424
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation4.63no data
Power efficiency5.071.55
ArchitectureGCN 1.0 (2012−2020)Tesla (2006−2010)
GPU code nameTahitiC79
Market segmentDesktopLaptop
Designreferenceno data
Release date4 March 2014 (11 years ago)15 October 2008 (17 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$279 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 cores179216
Core clock speedno data580 MHz
Boost clock speed933 MHzno data
Number of transistors4,313 million314 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm65 nm
Power consumption (TDP)200 Watt12 Watt
Texture fill rate104.54.640
Floating-point processing power3.344 TFLOPS0.0448 TFLOPS
ROPs324
TMUs1128
L1 Cache448 KBno data
L2 Cache768 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 x16PCIe 2.0 x16
Length275 mmno data
Width2-slotno data
Supplementary power connectors1 x 6-pin + 1 x 8-pinno 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 amount3 GBSystem Shared
Memory bus width384 BitSystem Shared
Memory clock speed1250 MHzSystem Shared
Memory bandwidth240 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 Connectors2x DVI, 1x HDMI, 2x mini-DisplayPortNo outputs
Eyefinity+-
HDMI+-

Supported technologies

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

CrossFire+-
FreeSync+-
HD3D+-
LiquidVR+-
TressFX+-
TrueAudio+-
UVD+-
DDMA audio+no data

API and SDK support

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

DirectXDirectX® 1211.1 (10_0)
Shader Model5.14.0
OpenGL4.63.3
OpenCL1.2N/A
Vulkan+N/A

Synthetic benchmarks

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.

R9 280 13.07
+5346%
GeForce 9400M 0.24

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.

R9 280 5533
+5378%
Samples: 3713
GeForce 9400M 101
Samples: 116

Gaming performance

Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 13.07 0.24
Recency 4 March 2014 15 October 2008
Chip lithography 28 nm 65 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 200 Watt 12 Watt

R9 280 has a 5345.8% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 5 years, and a 132.1% more advanced lithography process.

GeForce 9400M, on the other hand, has 1566.7% lower power consumption.

The Radeon R9 280 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce 9400M in performance tests.

Be aware that Radeon R9 280 is a desktop graphics card while GeForce 9400M 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 R9 280
Radeon R9 280
NVIDIA GeForce 9400M
GeForce 9400M

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.


3.6 436 votes

Rate Radeon R9 280 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
2.8 52 votes

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about Radeon R9 280 or GeForce 9400M, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.