GeForce 256 vs GeForce PCX 5300
GeForce 256
Popular choices:
GeForce PCX 5300
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 PCX 5300 is on rank 376, so the GeForce PCX 5300 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 PCX 5300
Performance Comparison
About G3D Mark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
⚠️ Generational Difference
The GeForce PCX 5300 is significantly newer (2025 vs 2019). The GeForce PCX 5300 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 PCX 5300 is the superior choice for raw performance. It leads with a 20% higher G3D Mark score. However, the GeForce 256 offers more VRAM, which may be beneficial for texture-heavy scenarios at higher resolutions.
| Insight | GeForce 256 | GeForce PCX 5300 |
|---|---|---|
| Performance | ❌Lower raw frame rates (-20%) | ✅Leading raw performance (+20%) |
| Longevity | Pascal (2016−2021) (14nm) | Blackwell 2.0 (2025−2026) (5nm) |
| Ecosystem | Supports FSR Upscaling | Supports FSR Upscaling |
| VRAM | ✅ More VRAM (+300%) | ❌ Less VRAM capacity |
| Efficiency | 💡 Excellent Perf/Watt | ⚡ Higher Power Consumption |
| Case Fit | 📏 Compact / SFF Friendly | 📏 Compact / SFF Friendly |
💎 Value Proposition
The GeForce PCX 5300 offers a compelling cost-to-performance ratio. Priced at $15 versus $20 for the GeForce 256, it costs 25% less. While it maintains basic entry-level capabilities, this results in a 60% higher cost efficiency score.
| Insight | GeForce 256 | GeForce PCX 5300 |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ❌Lower cost efficiency | ✅Better overall value (+60%) |
| Upfront Cost | ⚠️Higher upfront cost ($20) | ✅More affordable ($15) |
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 PCX 5300
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 PCX 5300
The GeForce PCX 5300 is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in January 30 2025. It features the Blackwell 2.0 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: 6 points. Launch price was $1,999.
Graphics Performance
In G3D Mark, the GeForce 256 scores 5 versus the GeForce PCX 5300's 6 — the GeForce PCX 5300 leads by 20%. The GeForce 256 is built on Pascal while the GeForce PCX 5300 uses Blackwell 2.0, both on 14 nm vs 5 nm. Shader units: 384 (GeForce 256) vs 21,760 (GeForce PCX 5300). Raw compute: 0.7972 TFLOPS (GeForce 256) vs 104.8 TFLOPS (GeForce PCX 5300). Boost clocks: 1038 MHz vs 2407 MHz.
| Feature | GeForce 256 | GeForce PCX 5300 |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 5 | 6+20% |
| Architecture | Pascal | Blackwell 2.0 |
| 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 PCX 5300 |
|---|---|---|
| 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)
The GeForce 256 comes with 512 MB of VRAM, while the GeForce PCX 5300 has 128 MB. The GeForce 256 offers 300% more capacity, crucial for higher resolutions and texture-heavy games. Bus width: 128-bit vs 128-bit. L2 Cache: 0.5 MB (GeForce 256) vs 96 MB (GeForce PCX 5300) — the GeForce PCX 5300 has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.
| Feature | GeForce 256 | GeForce PCX 5300 |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 0.5 GB+300% | 0.125 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 PCX 5300). OpenGL: 1.2 vs 1.5. Maximum simultaneous displays: 1 vs 2.
| Feature | GeForce 256 | GeForce PCX 5300 |
|---|---|---|
| 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 None (GeForce PCX 5300). Decoder: MPEG-2 Motion Comp vs None.
| Feature | GeForce 256 | GeForce PCX 5300 |
|---|---|---|
| Encoder | None | None |
| Decoder | MPEG-2 Motion Comp | None |
| Codecs | MPEG-2 |
Power & Dimensions
The GeForce 256 draws 10W versus the GeForce PCX 5300's 575W — a 193.2% difference. The GeForce 256 is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 350W (GeForce 256) vs 350W (GeForce PCX 5300). Power connectors: Legacy vs Legacy. Card length: 165mm vs 168mm, occupying 1 vs 1 slots. Typical load temperature: 60°C vs 70.
| Feature | GeForce 256 | GeForce PCX 5300 |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 10W-98% | 575W |
| Recommended PSU | 350W | 350W |
| Power Connector | Legacy | Legacy |
| Length | 165mm | 168mm |
| Height | 100mm | 100mm |
| Slots | 1 | 1 |
| Temp (Load) | 60°C-14% | 70 |
| Perf/Watt | 0.5 | 0.0 |
Value Analysis
The GeForce 256 launched at $199 MSRP and currently averages $20, while the GeForce PCX 5300 launched at $60 and now averages $15. The GeForce PCX 5300 costs 25% less ($5 savings) at current market prices. Performance per dollar (G3D Mark / price): 0.3 (GeForce 256) vs 0.4 (GeForce PCX 5300) — the GeForce PCX 5300 offers 33.3% better value. The GeForce PCX 5300 is the newer GPU (2025 vs 2019).
| Feature | GeForce 256 | GeForce PCX 5300 |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $199 | $60-70% |
| Avg Price (30d) | $20 | $15-25% |
| Performance per Dollar | 0.3 | 0.4+33% |
| 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 PCX 5300
