NVIDIA GeForce 9400 GT

The NVIDIA GeForce 9400 GT is a 55 nm TSMC part featuring the G96C chip and Tesla architecture, with 314 million transistors on a 121 mm² die. Launched on 2008-08-26, it sits between GeForce 8 and GeForce 200 in the product sequence, and its production status is end-of-life. The database record contains an empty benchmark array, an average benchmark score of 0, and no nearest rivals; the only positional signal is the percentile 50 placement among all GPUs.

Who Should Consider It

Any recommendation for this card must start from an unusual fact: there are no benchmark scores on record. The benchmark array is empty and the average benchmark score is 0, so resolution and settings guidance cannot be grounded in measured frames. Instead, the specifications define a narrow performance envelope. The card has 16 shading units, 8 texture mapping units, and 4 ROPs. Those fixed counts point to low image complexity and modest fill workloads, not high-detail rendering.

The memory subsystem reinforces that interpretation. A 512 MB DDR2 frame buffer with a 128-bit bus and 12.80 GB/s bandwidth is a constrained pool for textures and geometry at elevated resolutions. High-resolution settings require more memory capacity and more bandwidth, so the data suggests that lower resolutions and reduced texture quality are the intended operating range. For users with a legacy PCIe 2.0 x16 slot, the card outputs to 1x DVI, 1x VGA, and 1x S-Video, making it a candidate for basic display output on older monitors or systems that need a simple third output.

What about gaming? The absence of recorded scores prevents a settings-tier recommendation. The theoretical peaks are low: 44.80 GFLOPS of FP32 compute, 2.200 GPixel/s pixel rate, and 4.400 GTexel/s texture rate. Those numbers are the absolute ceiling, not a promise of playable performance. The data shows a component intended for modest workloads, with no evidence from synthetic benchmarks to justify aggressive resolution or quality settings.

Power and Cooling

The 9400 GT has a TDP of 50 W, which is a very small power envelope. The card is single-slot and does not require any power connectors; the only power-related entry is a suggested PSU of 250 W. That combination means installation is simple: no auxiliary cable has to be routed from the power supply. The physical length is 168 mm, or 6.6 inches, so it fits in many compact chassis. Cooling is not a major concern given the absence of power connectors and the low TDP, but the database does not list cooler type, height, or noise data. What the record confirms is a modest power profile: 50 W, no connectors, and a 250 W suggested system power supply.

Ray Tracing and Feature Set

The database lists null entries for both RT cores and tensor cores. That means no dedicated ray tracing or tensor core counts are recorded for this GPU. The architectural label is Tesla, which predates those specialized blocks; the card’s feature set is therefore conventional rasterization rather than ray tracing or AI acceleration. On the API side, DirectX 11.1 is listed with feature level 10_0, and OpenGL 3.3 is listed. Vulkan is null, so no Vulkan support is present in the record.

The DirectX 11.1 (10_0) entry is worth reading precisely: the card supports a DirectX 11.1 API version, but the feature level is 10_0. That means hardware capabilities map to the older feature profile, not the full DirectX 11 feature set. OpenGL 3.3 provides legacy compatibility but does not imply modern geometry or compute features. The absence of Vulkan further limits the card to older API pathways. For anyone asking whether this GPU can handle ray tracing or tensor-based workloads, the answer from the data is that no such hardware units are enumerated.

FAQ

Q: Does the GeForce 9400 GT support Vulkan?

A: No Vulkan version is listed; the entry is null. The supported APIs are DirectX 11.1 with the 10_0 feature level and OpenGL 3.3.

Q: How much memory does the 9400 GT have, and what kind is it?

A: It has 512 MB of DDR2 memory on a 128-bit bus, with 12.80 GB/s of bandwidth and an effective memory speed of 800 Mbps.

Q: Does this card require extra power connectors?

A: No power connectors are listed. The card has a 50 W TDP and a suggested PSU of 250 W.

Q: What display outputs are available?

A: The card offers 1x DVI, 1x VGA, and 1x S-Video.

Q: Is the 9400 GT a ray tracing card?

A: The database lists null values for RT cores and tensor cores, so no dedicated ray tracing or tensor hardware is recorded.

Q: What is the benchmark score of the 9400 GT?

A: The benchmark array is empty and the average benchmark score is 0. There are also no nearest rivals, so no score comparisons or deltas are available.

How It Compares

The nearestRivals array in the FACT PACK is empty. As a result, there are no rival names, no rival scores, and no deltaPct values to cite. Direct comparison to other GPUs cannot be produced from this record. The only comparative data points are the percentile placement of 50 among all GPUs and the generational context of GeForce 8 as predecessor and GeForce 200 as successor.

Without rival entries, the card’s standing is positional rather than quantitative. It is not possible to say how far ahead or behind it is from a specific competing model, because no nearest-rival data exists. The predecessor and successor fields show where it sits in NVIDIA’s own lineup, but they do not carry performance benchmarks. This absence of comparison data is itself a finding: the record is a specification sheet, not a performance evaluation.

Memory Subsystem

The memory configuration is 512 MB of DDR2 on a 128-bit bus. The memory clock is 400 MHz, which the record describes as 800 Mbps effective. Bandwidth works out to 12.80 GB/s. That bandwidth is the sustained data rate available to the GPU for frame buffer traffic, texture reads, and vertex data. High resolutions demand more memory bandwidth because larger surfaces need more pixels written and read each frame. A 128-bit bus with DDR2 memory is a limiting factor for such workloads.

The 512 MB capacity also frames the card’s potential. A 512 MB buffer can hold a reasonable amount of scene data at low resolutions, but high-resolution textures and anti-aliasing buffers would quickly consume that space. The data suggests the memory subsystem is balanced for the GPU’s low-throughput design: 16 shading units, 8 TMUs, and 4 ROPs cannot generate enough texture and pixel traffic to saturate a wider interface. Still, the 12.80 GB/s figure is the key constraint for any resolution analysis, because it is the maximum rate at which the frame buffer can be accessed.

Benchmark Performance

The benchmark performance section is defined by missing data. The avgBenchmarkScore is 0, the benchmarks list is empty, and nearestRivals is empty. Therefore, there are no score deltas to compute, no percentage lead or deficit over a rival, and no measured average performance to report. The only numeric benchmark-adjacent field is percentile 50, which places the card at the midpoint of the database’s all-GPU distribution. But without scores, that percentile cannot be converted into framerates or synthetic index points.

What can be quantified are the theoretical throughput limits. FP32 compute is rated at 44.80 GFLOPS. Pixel fill is 2.200 GPixel/s, and texture fill is 4.400 GTexel/s. These are hardware ceilings, not game scores. They show a device built for low-resolution, low-detail tasks. In the absence of any rival deltaPct values, no claim such as “30% faster than X” or “20% slower than Y” can be made from this FACT PACK. The honest analytical conclusion is that this card exists in the database as a specification entry rather than a benchmarked performer.