GeForce GT 320M vs 9400M |
VS
Cast your vote Do you agree or disagree with GPUBoss?
VS
Differences What are the advantages of each
| |||||||
| Slightly more render output processors | 8 | vs | 4 | Twice as many render output processors | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| |||||||
| Higher clock speed | 580 MHz | vs | 500 MHz | More than 15% higher clock speed | |||
Report a correction
Features Key features of the GeForce GT 320M vs 9400M
pixel rate Number of pixels a graphics card can render to the screen every second
texture rate Speed at which a graphics card can perform texture mapping
floating point performance How fast the gpu can crunch numbers
shading units Subcomponents of the gpu, these run in parallel to enable fast pixel shading
texture mapping units Built into each gpu, these resize and rotate bitmaps for texturing scenes
render output processors GPU commponents responsible for transform pixels as they flow between memory buffers
Specifications Full list of technical specs
gpu | GeForce GT 320M | vs | 9400M |
|---|---|---|---|
| GPU brand | Nvidia | Nvidia | |
| GPU name | GT216 | C79MX | |
| Clock speed | 500 MHz | 580 MHz | |
| Is dual GPU | No | No | |
| Reference card | Nvidia GeForce GT 320M 500 MHz 512 MB | None | |
noise and power | |||
| TDP | 23W | 12W | |
raw performance | GeForce GT 320M | vs | 9400M |
|---|---|---|---|
| Shading units | 24 | 16 | |
| Texture mapping units | 8 | 8 | |
| Render output processors | 8 | 4 | |
| Pixel rate | 4 GPixel/s | 2.32 GPixel/s | |
| Texture rate | 4 GTexel/s | 4.64 GTexel/s | |
| Floating-point performance | 52.8 GFLOPS | 44.8 GFLOPS |
Follow us
Compare
Related Comparisons
Popular Comparisons
 | VS |  |
| $304 | ||
| 1060 vs 1050 Ti | ||
 | VS |  |
| 970 vs 960 | ||
| | VS | |
| $304 | ||
| 970 vs 1060 | ||
| | VS |  |
| 960 vs R9 380 | ||
| | VS |  |
| 970 vs R9 390 | ||
| | VS | |
| 970 vs 1050 Ti | ||
 | VS | |
| $274 | ||
| 750 Ti vs 960 | ||
