GeForce 9400 GT vs GeForce GT 610
Reasons to consider GeForce 9400 GT |
| Based on an outdated architecture (Nvidia Tesla), there are no performance optimizations for current games and applications |
| PhysX support, however PhysX performance on newest games may be poor |
Reasons to consider GeForce GT 610 |
| This is a much newer product, it might have better long term support. |
| Higher theoretical gaming performance, based on specifications. |
| Supports PhysX |
| Based on an outdated architecture (Nvidia Fermi), there are no performance optimizations for current games and applications |
HWBench recommends GeForce GT 610
Based on theoretical specifications.
Core Configuration
| GeForce 9400 GT | GeForce GT 610 | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| GPU Name | G86 () | vs | GF119 (GF119-300-A1) | |
| Fab Process | 80 nm | vs | 40 nm | |
| Die Size | 127 mm² | vs | 79 mm² | |
| Transistors | 210 million | vs | 292 million | |
| Shaders | 16 | vs | 48 | |
| Compute Units | 2 | vs | 1 | |
| Core clock | 459 MHz | vs | 810 MHz | |
| ROPs | 4 | vs | 4 | |
| TMUs | 8 | vs | 8 |
Memory Configuration
| GeForce 9400 GT | GeForce GT 610 | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Memory Type | DDR2 | vs | DDR3 | |
| Bus Width | 64 bit | vs | 64 bit | |
| Memory Speed | 600 MHz
1200 MHz effective |
vs | 898 MHz
1796 MHz effective |
|
| Memory Size | 128 Mb | vs | 1024 Mb |
Additional details
| GeForce 9400 GT | GeForce GT 610 | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| TDP | 50 watts | vs | 29 watts | |
| Release Date | 1 Aug 2008 | vs | 2 Apr 2012 |
-
GeForce 9400 GT
1.
84 GP/s
-
GeForce GT 610
1.62 GP/s
GigaPixels — higher is better
-
GeForce 9400 GT
3.67 GT/s
-
GeForce GT 610
6.48 GT/s
GigaTexels — higher is better
-
GeForce 9400 GT
9.60 GB/s
-
GeForce GT 610
14.40 GB/s
GB/s — higher is better
-
GeForce 9400 GT
29.38 GFLOPs
-
GeForce GT 610
155.50 GFLOPs
GFLOPs — higher is better
| VS | ||
| GeForce 9400 GT | GeForce RTX 3050 4 GB |
| VS | ||
| GeForce 9400 GT | Radeon RX 6500 XT |
| VS | ||
| GeForce GT 610 | GeForce GT 710 (Fermi) |
| VS | ||
| GeForce GT 610 | Radeon HD 8330 IGP |
| VS | ||
| GeForce GT 705 OEM | GeForce GT 625 OEM |
| VS | ||
| GeForce GT 625 OEM | GeForce GT 230 |
Please enable JavaScript to view the comments powered by Disqus.
NVIDIA GeForce GT 610 vs NVIDIA GeForce 9500 GT
Comparative analysis of NVIDIA GeForce GT 610 and NVIDIA GeForce 9500 GT videocards for all known characteristics in the following categories: Essentials, Technical info, Video outputs and ports, Compatibility, dimensions and requirements, API support, Memory, Technologies.
Benchmark videocards performance analysis: PassMark — G3D Mark, PassMark — G2D Mark, Geekbench — OpenCL, CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — Face Detection (mPixels/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — T-Rex (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — Video Composition (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s), GFXBench 4.0 — Car Chase Offscreen (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 — Manhattan (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 — T-Rex (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 — Car Chase Offscreen (Fps), GFXBench 4.0 — Manhattan (Fps), GFXBench 4.0 — T-Rex (Fps), 3DMark Fire Strike — Graphics Score.
NVIDIA GeForce GT 610
Buy on Amazon
vs
NVIDIA GeForce 9500 GT
Buy on Amazon
Differences
Reasons to consider the NVIDIA GeForce GT 610
- Videocard is newer: launch date 3 year(s) 8 month(s) later
- Around 50% higher pipelines: 48 vs 32
- Around 74% better floating-point performance: 155.
5 gflops vs 89.6 gflops - A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running videocard: 40 nm vs 55 nm
- Around 72% lower typical power consumption: 29 Watt vs 50 Watt
- 4x more maximum memory size: 1024 MB vs 256 / 512 MB
- 2.1x better performance in PassMark — G3D Mark: 304 vs 142
- 3.7x better performance in PassMark — G2D Mark: 127 vs 34
- 4x better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — Face Detection (mPixels/s): 2.471 vs 0.612
- Around 37% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s): 77.99 vs 56.838
| Launch date | 2 April 2012 vs 29 July 2008 |
| Pipelines | 48 vs 32 |
| Floating-point performance | 155.5 gflops vs 89.6 gflops |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm vs 55 nm |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 29 Watt vs 50 Watt |
| Maximum memory size | 1024 MB vs 256 / 512 MB |
| PassMark — G3D Mark | 304 vs 142 |
| PassMark — G2D Mark | 127 vs 34 |
CompuBench 1. 5 Desktop — Face Detection (mPixels/s) |
2.471 vs 0.612 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 77.99 vs 56.838 |
Reasons to consider the NVIDIA GeForce 9500 GT
- Around 73% higher core clock speed: 1400 MHz vs 810 MHz
- Around 35% higher texture fill rate: 8.8 billion / sec vs 6.5 billion / sec
- 800x more memory clock speed: 800 (GDDR3) and 500 (DDR2) MHz vs 1.8 GB/s
- Around 30% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 — T-Rex (Frames): 1505 vs 1155
- Around 30% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 — T-Rex (Fps): 1505 vs 1155
| Core clock speed | 1400 MHz vs 810 MHz |
| Texture fill rate | 8.8 billion / sec vs 6. 5 billion / sec |
| Memory clock speed | 800 (GDDR3) and 500 (DDR2) MHz vs 1.8 GB/s |
| GFXBench 4.0 — T-Rex (Frames) | 1505 vs 1155 |
| GFXBench 4.0 — T-Rex (Fps) | 1505 vs 1155 |
Compare benchmarks
GPU 1: NVIDIA GeForce GT 610
GPU 2: NVIDIA GeForce 9500 GT
| PassMark — G3D Mark |
|
|
|||
| PassMark — G2D Mark |
|
|
|||
CompuBench 1. 5 Desktop — Face Detection (mPixels/s) |
|
|
|||
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) |
|
|
|||
| GFXBench 4.0 — T-Rex (Frames) |
|
|
|||
GFXBench 4. 0 — T-Rex (Fps) |
|
|
| Name | NVIDIA GeForce GT 610 | NVIDIA GeForce 9500 GT |
|---|---|---|
| PassMark — G3D Mark | 304 | 142 |
| PassMark — G2D Mark | 127 | 34 |
| Geekbench — OpenCL | 1277 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 2. 471 |
0.612 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 77.99 | 56.838 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — T-Rex (Frames/s) | 0.233 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — Video Composition (Frames/s) | 6.018 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 4.053 | |
| GFXBench 4.0 — Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 555 | |
| GFXBench 4.0 — Manhattan (Frames) | 835 | |
GFXBench 4. 0 — T-Rex (Frames) |
1155 | 1505 |
| GFXBench 4.0 — Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 555 | |
| GFXBench 4.0 — Manhattan (Fps) | 835 | |
| GFXBench 4.0 — T-Rex (Fps) | 1155 | 1505 |
| 3DMark Fire Strike — Graphics Score | 87 |
Compare specifications (specs)
| NVIDIA GeForce GT 610 | NVIDIA GeForce 9500 GT | |
|---|---|---|
| Architecture | Fermi 2. 0 |
Tesla |
| Code name | GF119 | G96C |
| Launch date | 2 April 2012 | 29 July 2008 |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $39.99 | $85.99 |
| Place in performance rating | 1588 | 1624 |
| Price now | $39.99 | $85.99 |
| Type | Desktop | Desktop |
| Value for money (0-100) | 10. 13 |
4.13 |
| Core clock speed | 810 MHz | 1400 MHz |
| CUDA cores | 48 | 32 |
| Floating-point performance | 155.5 gflops | 89.6 gflops |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 55 nm |
| Maximum GPU temperature | 102 °C | 105 °C |
| Pipelines | 48 | 32 |
| Texture fill rate | 6. 5 billion / sec |
8.8 billion / sec |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 29 Watt | 50 Watt |
| Transistor count | 292 million | 314 million |
| Audio input for HDMI | Internal | S / PDIF |
| Display Connectors | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x VGA, Dual Link DVI-I, HDMI, VGA | 2x DVI, 1x S-Video, Dual Link DVISingle Link DVI |
| HDCP | ||
| HDMI | ||
| Maximum VGA resolution | 2048×1536 | 2048×1536 |
| Multi monitor support | ||
| Bus support | PCI Express 2. 0 |
|
| Height | 2.7″ (6.9 cm) | 4.376″ (11.1 cm) |
| Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Length | 5.7″ (14.5 cm) | 6.875″ (17.5 cm) |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | None |
| DirectX | 12.0 (11_0) | 10.0 |
| OpenGL | 4.2 | 2.1 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1024 MB | 256 / 512 MB |
| Memory bandwidth | 14.
|