NVIDIA
GeForce 9400 GT vs Intel Arc A310
Full comparison of specs, performance and benchmarks
Intel
Arc A310
Aggregate performance score
We've compared 9400 GT and Arc A310 across specs and all relevant benchmarks.
↗9400 GT outperforms Arc A310 by ~24% on the catalog index; this is not a measured FPS gain.+24%
Scores are normalized on the Head to Head scale. Higher is better. How is this calculated?H2HBench Data Quality
Low confidenceSpecifications: Field verification not recordedVerified gaming results: 0Estimated / unverified results: 32Price record updated: Sep 6, 2026
Limited verified data
H2HBench Verdict
Higher catalog score: GeForce 9400 GT (~11%)
The score difference is not a measured FPS improvement.
Reasons to consider 9400 GT
- Higher catalog performance index
- Lower stated power consumption
- Lower recorded market price
- Recorded feature support: OpenCL 1.1, CUDA 1.1 · Not supported
Reasons to consider Arc A310
- More graphics memory
- Recorded feature support: OpenCL 3.0 · XeSS
Catalog metrics radar
Axes with missing data are hidden; every value uses a fixed scale.
NVIDIA
IntelPerformance
Efficiency
Price / performance
Memory capacity
4133
100100
100100
760
Graphics card ranking
Positions 122–127of 321
Which should you choose?
Two practical conclusions based on community votes and gaming value.
GeForce 9400 GT
173 likesHead to Head visitors currently choose this model more often.
Overview
Scores are calculated from specifications, performance, and efficiency.
GamesDirectX, OpenCL, and Vulkan performance
41Better
33
Professional applications3D modeling, video editing, and rendering
36Better
30
AI and machine learningMachine-learning and AI capabilities
34Better
28
Power efficiencyPower consumption across workloads
100
100
Head to Head scoreOverall catalog score
59Better
53
Specifications
The better numeric value is highlighted in green, taking the metric direction into account.
Device class
DirectX
OpenGL
TFLOPSBetter
Power consumptionBetter
Release date
Architecture
Compute API
Launch priceBetter
Shader units / coresBetter
Die sizeBetter
Memory cache
Max monitors
Clock speedBetter
Base clockBetter
Boost clockBetter
Transistor countBetter
Memory frequencyBetter
Memory type
Power connector
Thickness
VRAMBetter
Memory busBetter
Memory bandwidthBetter
Interface
Power consumptionBetter
Process nodeBetter
Recommended PSUBetter
Length
Max resolution
USB Type-C
Vulkan
DisplayPort
HDMI
Upscaling
Gaming FPS
Available results are shown separately; missing data is not treated as zero.
The Gaming FPS section compares 9400 GT and Arc A310 across curated H2H Lab game presets. The useful signal is not only average FPS, but also how each device behaves at 1440p and 4K, how memory capacity and bus width affect heavy textures, and whether the game engine favors raster performance, ray tracing, or driver maturity.
9400 GTArc A310
Verified externalEstimatedSources ↗
Counter-Strike 2
1080p High
196 FPS
165 FPS
1080p Ultra
138 FPS
116 FPS
1440p Ultra
88 FPS
62 FPS
4K Ultra
33 FPS
22 FPS
Counter-Strike 29400 GT196 FPSArc A310165 FPS9400 GT138 FPSArc A310116 FPS9400 GT88 FPSArc A31062 FPS9400 GT33 FPSArc A31022 FPS
Cyberpunk 20779400 GT127 FPSArc A310106 FPS9400 GT109 FPSArc A31092 FPS9400 GT63 FPSArc A31045 FPS9400 GT22 FPSArc A31015 FPS
Forza Horizon 59400 GT160 FPSArc A310134 FPS9400 GT104 FPSArc A31087 FPS9400 GT79 FPSArc A31056 FPS9400 GT48 FPSArc A31033 FPS
Hogwarts Legacy9400 GT104 FPSArc A31087 FPS9400 GT87 FPSArc A31073 FPS9400 GT57 FPSArc A31041 FPS9400 GT22 FPSArc A31015 FPS
H2H workload indices
Comparable internal indices on a fixed 0–100 scale.
H2H Raster IndexH2H Index / 100413322%
H2H Compute IndexH2H Index / 100324227%
H2H Rendering IndexH2H Index / 100314128%
H2H Memory Workload IndexH2H Index / 100760158%
H2H Efficiency IndexH2H Index / 1001001000%
These are versioned H2H calculated indices derived from normalized catalog data. They are not results from a third-party benchmark.
H2H AI workload indices
Estimated workload profiles based on available performance and memory data.
H2H Image Generation IndexH2H Index / 100264554%
H2H ML Training IndexH2H Index / 100274448%
H2H Inference IndexH2H Index / 100314128%
H2H Local LLM IndexH2H Index / 100224874%
H2H Computer Vision IndexH2H Index / 100314128%
These are versioned H2H calculated indices derived from normalized catalog data. They are not results from a third-party benchmark.
Graphics APIs, SDKs and upscaling
DirectX10.012.2
VulkanNot supported1.4
OpenGL3.34.6
UpscalingNot supportedXeSS
Compute APIOpenCL 1.1, CUDA 1.1OpenCL 3.0
Architecture and release
ArchitectureTeslaXe-HPG
Process node65 nm6 nmBetter
Release date20082022
Device classDesktopDesktop
GPU cores, die and clocks
Transistor count314 million7200 millionBetter
Die size121 mm²Better157 mm²
Shader units / cores16768Better
Base clock550 MHz1750 MHzBetter
Boost clock550 MHz2000 MHzBetter
Board size, power and compatibility
InterfacePCIe 2x16PCIe 4x8
Length168 mmVaries by board
ThicknessSingle-slotSingle-slot
Recommended PSU250 W200 WBetter
Power connectorNoneNone
Display outputs and limits
HDMIBoard dependentHDMI 2.1
DisplayPortBoard dependentmini-DisplayPort 2.0
USB Type-CNoNo
Max monitors34
Max resolution2560 × 16007680 × 4320
Memory and compute throughput
VRAM256 MB DDR2Better4 GB GDDR6
Memory typeDDR2GDDR6
Memory bus128 bitBetter64 bit
TFLOPS0.0452.688Better
Other comparisons
Reviews and questions
Explain this comparison
Beyond percentages: causes, relevant specifications, and practical impact behind every chart.
What AI will explain
Overall score, radar, FPS, synthetic tests, specifications, efficiency, and value.
Evidence details
Data coverage
- Verified gaming results
- 0
- Verified synthetic results
- 0
- Games with verified results
- 0
- Verified community results
- 0
- Estimated / unverified results
- 32
- Specifications
- 0 / 70
Calculated scores · How is this calculated?
Scores use the catalog model and may include estimated inputs. Open each score to see its origin and the methodology.
clamp(round(performance × 0.7 + (efficiency ?? 50) × 0.2 + (value is missing ? 0 : (value − 50) × 0.2)), 0, 100)Price evidence · View sources (5)
Verified community results
No verified community benchmarks yet.
Reviewed by
No individual editorial review is recorded for this comparison.
Comparison history
Show recorded changes (3)
- · Record updated: products
- · Record updated: products
- · Record updated: products
Why you can trust this comparison
Origin and confidence are evaluated from the evidence attached to each value. Unverified results are identified, and specification, benchmark and price dates remain separate.
Owner experiences
Real builds, results, and community feedback.
Moderator reviewedHelpful to the communityExpert badges
Frequently asked comparison questions
Short recommendations based on performance, memory, power consumption, and intended use.
01Which is better for gaming: 9400 GT or Arc A310?+
9400 GT has the higher overall gaming score, while 9400 GT offers the better price-to-performance ratio. The final choice depends on resolution and settings.
02Which is better for streaming?+
9400 GT is the stronger streaming choice thanks to performance, hardware encoding, and application support. Check AV1, H.264, and HEVC support before buying.
03Which is better for Blender?+
9400 GT is generally the better option for Blender and GPU rendering. Rendering-engine support and available VRAM also matter.
04Which is better for video editing?+
9400 GT offers more overall performance, while 9400 GT offers more memory headroom. Codecs, hardware encoders, and editor optimization can change the result.
05Which is better for neural networks and AI?+
9400 GT is the more practical option for local AI workloads. VRAM capacity, compute libraries, and framework compatibility are especially important.
06Which is better for 1080p?+
9400 GT is the most rational 1080p choice, where high frame rates and cost per frame matter most.
07Which is better for 1440p?+
9400 GT leads in combined 1440p performance. 9400 GT can be preferable for heavy textures and games with high VRAM usage.
08Which is better for 4K?+
9400 GT is preferable for 4K, where total performance, memory bandwidth, and VRAM capacity have the greatest impact.
09Which is better for a quiet PC?+
9400 GT is easier to use in a quiet build because of its lower estimated power and thermal load. Actual noise depends on the specific cooler.
10Which is better without replacing the power supply?+
9400 GT is the safer candidate because its stated power consumption is lower. Verify PSU wattage, age, and power connectors.
11Is it worth upgrading from the previous generation?+
Consider upgrading to 9400 GT if your current device no longer delivers the required FPS, memory capacity, or feature support. A gain below 15–20% is usually worth waiting for a price cut.