GeForce 256 vs GeForce FX 5200LE
GeForce 256
Popular choices:
GeForce FX 5200LE
Popular choices:
Performance Spectrum - GPU
About G3D Mark
G3D Mark is a standard benchmark that measures graphics performance in real-world gaming scenarios. It simplifies comparing cards from different brands, where higher scores directly correlate with better fps and smoother gaming experiences.
Value Upgrade Path
This is the official ChipVERSUS Value Rating, comparing raw performance (G3D Mark) per dollar. Components placed above yours deliver better value for money. The GeForce 256 is positioned at rank 750 and the GeForce FX 5200LE is on rank 371, so the GeForce FX 5200LE offers better cost-efficiency for playing games.
Avg price is the current average price collected from markets across the web.
Performance Per Dollar GeForce 256
Performance Per Dollar GeForce FX 5200LE
Performance Comparison
About G3D Mark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
⚠️ Generational Difference
The GeForce FX 5200LE is significantly newer (2025 vs 2019). The GeForce FX 5200LE likely supports modern features like Ray Tracing, Tensor Cores, and DLSS/FSR upscaling, which act as force multipliers for performance. The GeForce 256 lacks this hardware feature set, limiting its longevity in modern titles despite any raw power similarities.
🚀 Performance Leadership
The GeForce FX 5200LE is the superior choice for raw performance. It leads with a 40% higher G3D Mark score. This advantage makes it significantly better for higher resolutions (1440p/4K) and graphic-intensive titles compared to the GeForce 256.
| Insight | GeForce 256 | GeForce FX 5200LE |
|---|---|---|
| Performance | ❌Lower raw frame rates (-40%) | ✅Leading raw performance (+40%) |
| Longevity | Pascal (2016−2021) (14nm) | Blackwell 2.0 (2025−2026) (5nm) |
| Ecosystem | Supports FSR Upscaling | Supports FSR Upscaling |
| VRAM | ❌ Less VRAM capacity | ✅ More VRAM (+0%) |
| Efficiency | 💡 Excellent Perf/Watt | ⚡ Higher Power Consumption |
| Case Fit | 📏 Compact / SFF Friendly | 📏 Compact / SFF Friendly |
💎 Value Proposition
The GeForce FX 5200LE offers a compelling cost-to-performance ratio. Although it costs $25 (vs $20), its significant performance lead justifies the premium, offering 12% better value per dollar than the GeForce 256.
| Insight | GeForce 256 | GeForce FX 5200LE |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ❌Lower cost efficiency | ✅Better overall value (+12%) |
| Upfront Cost | ✅More affordable ($20) | ⚠️Higher upfront cost ($25) |
Performance Check
Real-world benchmarks and performance projections based on comprehensive hardware analysis and comparative metrics. Values represent expected performance on High/Ultra settings at 1080p, 1440p, and 4K. Modeled using a Ryzen 7 7800X3D reference profile to minimize specific CPU bottlenecks.
Note: Performance behavior can vary per game. Specific architectures may perform better or worse depending on game engine optimizations and API implementation.
Technical Specifications
Side-by-side comparison of GeForce 256 and GeForce FX 5200LE
GeForce 256
The GeForce 256 is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in February 20 2019. It features the Pascal architecture. The core clock ranges from 937 MHz to 1038 MHz. It has 384 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 10W. Manufactured using 14 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 5 points.
GeForce FX 5200LE
The GeForce FX 5200LE is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in January 30 2025. It features the Rankine architecture. The core clock ranges from 2017 MHz to 2407 MHz. It has 21760 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 575W. Manufactured using 5 nm process technology. It features 170 dedicated ray tracing cores for enhanced lighting effects. G3D Mark benchmark score: 7 points. Launch price was $1,999.
Graphics Performance
In G3D Mark, the GeForce 256 scores 5 versus the GeForce FX 5200LE's 7 — the GeForce FX 5200LE leads by 40%. The GeForce 256 is built on Pascal while the GeForce FX 5200LE uses Rankine, both on 14 nm vs 5 nm. Shader units: 384 (GeForce 256) vs 21,760 (GeForce FX 5200LE). Raw compute: 0.7972 TFLOPS (GeForce 256) vs 104.8 TFLOPS (GeForce FX 5200LE). Boost clocks: 1038 MHz vs 2407 MHz.
| Feature | GeForce 256 | GeForce FX 5200LE |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 5 | 7+40% |
| Architecture | Pascal | Rankine |
| Process Node | 14 nm | 5 nm |
| Shading Units | 384 | 21760+5567% |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 0.7972 TFLOPS | 104.8 TFLOPS+13046% |
| Boost Clock | 1038 MHz | 2407 MHz+132% |
| ROPs | 16 | 176+1000% |
| TMUs | 24 | 680+2733% |
| L1 Cache | 0.14 MB | 21.3 MB+15114% |
| L2 Cache | 0.5 MB | 96 MB+19100% |
Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)
| Feature | GeForce 256 | GeForce FX 5200LE |
|---|---|---|
| Upscaling Tech | FSR 1.0 (Software) | FSR 1.0 (Software) |
| Frame Generation | Not Supported | Not Supported |
| Ray Reconstruction | No | No |
| Low Latency | Standard | Standard |
Video Memory (VRAM)
Both cards feature 512 MB of GDDR5. Bus width: 128-bit vs 128-bit. L2 Cache: 0.5 MB (GeForce 256) vs 96 MB (GeForce FX 5200LE) — the GeForce FX 5200LE has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.
| Feature | GeForce 256 | GeForce FX 5200LE |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 0.5 GB | 0.5 GB |
| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Memory Bandwidth | Unknown | Unknown |
| Bus Width | 128-bit | 128-bit |
| L2 Cache | 0.5 MB | 96 MB+19100% |
Display & API Support
DirectX support: 7.0 (GeForce 256) vs 9.0a (GeForce FX 5200LE). OpenGL: 1.2 vs 1.5. Maximum simultaneous displays: 1 vs 2.
| Feature | GeForce 256 | GeForce FX 5200LE |
|---|---|---|
| DirectX | 7.0 | 9.0a+29% |
| OpenGL | 1.2 | 1.5+25% |
| Max Displays | 1 | 2+100% |
Media & Encoding
Hardware encoder: None (GeForce 256) vs No (GeForce FX 5200LE). Decoder: MPEG-2 Motion Comp vs No. Supported codecs: MPEG-2 (GeForce 256) vs MPEG-2 (GeForce FX 5200LE).
| Feature | GeForce 256 | GeForce FX 5200LE |
|---|---|---|
| Encoder | None | No |
| Decoder | MPEG-2 Motion Comp | No |
| Codecs | MPEG-2 | MPEG-2 |
Power & Dimensions
The GeForce 256 draws 10W versus the GeForce FX 5200LE's 575W — a 193.2% difference. The GeForce 256 is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 350W (GeForce 256) vs 350W (GeForce FX 5200LE). Power connectors: Legacy vs Legacy. Card length: 165mm vs 168mm, occupying 1 vs 1 slots. Typical load temperature: 60°C vs 65°C.
| Feature | GeForce 256 | GeForce FX 5200LE |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 10W-98% | 575W |
| Recommended PSU | 350W | 350W |
| Power Connector | Legacy | Legacy |
| Length | 165mm | 168mm |
| Height | 100mm | 111mm |
| Slots | 1 | 1 |
| Temp (Load) | 60°C-8% | 65°C |
| Perf/Watt | 0.5 | 0.0 |
Value Analysis
The GeForce 256 launched at $199 MSRP and currently averages $20, while the GeForce FX 5200LE launched at $43 and now averages $25. The GeForce 256 costs 20% less ($5 savings) at current market prices. Performance per dollar (G3D Mark / price): 0.3 (GeForce 256) vs 0.3 (GeForce FX 5200LE) — the GeForce FX 5200LE offers 0% better value. The GeForce FX 5200LE is the newer GPU (2025 vs 2019).
| Feature | GeForce 256 | GeForce FX 5200LE |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $199 | $43-78% |
| Avg Price (30d) | $20-20% | $25 |
| Performance per Dollar | 0.3 | 0.3 |
| Codename | GP108B | GB202 |
| Release | February 20 2019 | January 30 2025 |
| Ranking | #643 | #3 |
Top Performing GPUs
The most powerful gpus ranked by G3D Mark benchmark scores.
You May Also Compare
Similar GPU comparisons based on GeForce 256 and GeForce FX 5200LE
