GeForce 256 vs GeForce2 MX/MX 400
GeForce 256
Popular choices:
GeForce2 MX/MX 400
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 GeForce2 MX/MX 400 is on rank 750, so the GeForce2 MX/MX 400 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 GeForce2 MX/MX 400
Performance Comparison
About G3D Mark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
🚀 Performance Leadership
The GeForce 256 is the superior choice for raw performance. It leads with a 25% higher G3D Mark score. This advantage makes it significantly better for higher resolutions (1440p/4K) and graphic-intensive titles compared to the GeForce2 MX/MX 400.
| Insight | GeForce 256 | GeForce2 MX/MX 400 |
|---|---|---|
| Performance | ✅Leading raw performance (+25%) | ❌Lower raw frame rates (-25%) |
| Longevity | Pascal (2016−2021) (14nm) | Turing (2018−2022) (12nm) |
| 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 | — |
💎 Value Proposition
The GeForce2 MX/MX 400 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 6.7% higher cost efficiency score.
| Insight | GeForce 256 | GeForce2 MX/MX 400 |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ❌Lower cost efficiency | ✅Better overall value (+6.7%) |
| 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 GeForce2 MX/MX 400
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.
GeForce2 MX/MX 400
The GeForce2 MX/MX 400 is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in August 1 2020. It features the Turing architecture. The core clock ranges from 1395 MHz to 1575 MHz. It has 896 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 25W. Manufactured using 12 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 4 points.
Graphics Performance
In G3D Mark, the GeForce 256 scores 5 versus the GeForce2 MX/MX 400's 4 — the GeForce 256 leads by 25%. The GeForce 256 is built on Pascal while the GeForce2 MX/MX 400 uses Turing, both on 14 nm vs 12 nm. Shader units: 384 (GeForce 256) vs 896 (GeForce2 MX/MX 400). Raw compute: 0.7972 TFLOPS (GeForce 256) vs 3.226 TFLOPS (GeForce2 MX/MX 400). Boost clocks: 1038 MHz vs 1575 MHz.
| Feature | GeForce 256 | GeForce2 MX/MX 400 |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 5+25% | 4 |
| Architecture | Pascal | Turing |
| Process Node | 14 nm | 12 nm |
| Shading Units | 384 | 896+133% |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 0.7972 TFLOPS | 3.226 TFLOPS+305% |
| Boost Clock | 1038 MHz | 1575 MHz+52% |
| ROPs | 16 | 32+100% |
| TMUs | 24 | 64+167% |
Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)
| Feature | GeForce 256 | GeForce2 MX/MX 400 |
|---|---|---|
| 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 64-bit.
| Feature | GeForce 256 | GeForce2 MX/MX 400 |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 0.5 GB | 0.5 GB |
| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Bus Width | 128-bit+100% | 64-bit |
Display & API Support
DirectX support: 7.0 (GeForce 256) vs 7.0 (GeForce2 MX/MX 400). OpenGL: 1.2 vs 1.2. Maximum simultaneous displays: 1 vs 2.
| Feature | GeForce 256 | GeForce2 MX/MX 400 |
|---|---|---|
| DirectX | 7.0 | 7.0 |
| OpenGL | 1.2 | 1.2 |
| Max Displays | 1 | 2+100% |
Media & Encoding
Hardware encoder: None (GeForce 256) vs None (GeForce2 MX/MX 400). Decoder: MPEG-2 Motion Comp vs MPEG-2 Decoder. Supported codecs: MPEG-2 (GeForce 256) vs MPEG-2 (GeForce2 MX/MX 400).
| Feature | GeForce 256 | GeForce2 MX/MX 400 |
|---|---|---|
| Encoder | None | None |
| Decoder | MPEG-2 Motion Comp | MPEG-2 Decoder |
| Codecs | MPEG-2 | MPEG-2 |
Power & Dimensions
The GeForce 256 draws 10W versus the GeForce2 MX/MX 400's 25W — a 85.7% difference. The GeForce 256 is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 350W (GeForce 256) vs 350W (GeForce2 MX/MX 400). Power connectors: Legacy vs PCIe-powered. Typical load temperature: 60°C vs 55°C.
| Feature | GeForce 256 | GeForce2 MX/MX 400 |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 10W-60% | 25W |
| Recommended PSU | 350W | 350W |
| Power Connector | Legacy | PCIe-powered |
| Length | 165mm | — |
| Height | 100mm | 100mm |
| Slots | 1 | 1 |
| Temp (Load) | 60°C | 55°C-8% |
| Perf/Watt | 0.5+150% | 0.2 |
Value Analysis
The GeForce 256 launched at $199 MSRP and currently averages $20, while the GeForce2 MX/MX 400 launched at $129 and now averages $15. The GeForce2 MX/MX 400 costs 25% less ($5 savings) at current market prices. Performance per dollar (G3D Mark / price): 0.3 (GeForce 256) vs 0.3 (GeForce2 MX/MX 400) — the GeForce2 MX/MX 400 offers 0% better value. The GeForce2 MX/MX 400 is the newer GPU (2020 vs 2019).
| Feature | GeForce 256 | GeForce2 MX/MX 400 |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $199 | $129-35% |
| Avg Price (30d) | $20 | $15-25% |
| Performance per Dollar | 0.3 | 0.3 |
| Codename | GP108B | N17S-G5 / GP107-670-A1 |
| Release | February 20 2019 | August 1 2020 |
| Ranking | #643 | #523 |
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 GeForce2 MX/MX 400
