GeForce 256 vs GeForce3 Ti 200
GeForce 256
Popular choices:
GeForce3 Ti 200
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 GeForce3 Ti 200 is on rank 382, so the GeForce3 Ti 200 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 GeForce3 Ti 200
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 GeForce3 Ti 200.
| Insight | GeForce 256 | GeForce3 Ti 200 |
|---|---|---|
| Performance | ✅Leading raw performance (+25%) | ❌Lower raw frame rates (-25%) |
| Longevity | Pascal (2016−2021) (14nm) | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2018 / Turing (2018−2022)) |
| 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 256 offers a compelling cost-to-performance ratio. Priced at $20 versus $49 for the GeForce3 Ti 200, it costs 59% less. While it maintains basic entry-level capabilities, this results in a 206.3% higher cost efficiency score.
| Insight | GeForce 256 | GeForce3 Ti 200 |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ✅Better overall value (+206.3%) | ❌Lower cost efficiency |
| Upfront Cost | ✅More affordable ($20) | ⚠️Higher upfront cost ($49) |
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 GeForce3 Ti 200
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.
GeForce3 Ti 200
The GeForce3 Ti 200 is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in September 20 2018. It features the Turing architecture. The core clock ranges from 1515 MHz to 1710 MHz. It has 2944 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 215W. Manufactured using 12 nm process technology. It features 46 dedicated ray tracing cores for enhanced lighting effects. G3D Mark benchmark score: 4 points. Launch price was $699.
Graphics Performance
In G3D Mark, the GeForce 256 scores 5 versus the GeForce3 Ti 200's 4 — the GeForce 256 leads by 25%. The GeForce 256 is built on Pascal while the GeForce3 Ti 200 uses Turing, both on 14 nm vs 12 nm. Shader units: 384 (GeForce 256) vs 2,944 (GeForce3 Ti 200). Raw compute: 0.7972 TFLOPS (GeForce 256) vs 10.07 TFLOPS (GeForce3 Ti 200). Boost clocks: 1038 MHz vs 1710 MHz.
| Feature | GeForce 256 | GeForce3 Ti 200 |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 5+25% | 4 |
| Architecture | Pascal | Turing |
| Process Node | 14 nm | 12 nm |
| Shading Units | 384 | 2944+667% |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 0.7972 TFLOPS | 10.07 TFLOPS+1163% |
| Boost Clock | 1038 MHz | 1710 MHz+65% |
| ROPs | 16 | 64+300% |
| TMUs | 24 | 184+667% |
| L1 Cache | 0.14 MB | 2.9 MB+1971% |
| L2 Cache | 0.5 MB | 4 MB+700% |
Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)
| Feature | GeForce 256 | GeForce3 Ti 200 |
|---|---|---|
| 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. L2 Cache: 0.5 MB (GeForce 256) vs 4 MB (GeForce3 Ti 200) — the GeForce3 Ti 200 has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.
| Feature | GeForce 256 | GeForce3 Ti 200 |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 0.5 GB | 0.5 GB |
| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Bus Width | 128-bit+100% | 64-bit |
| L2 Cache | 0.5 MB | 4 MB+700% |
Display & API Support
DirectX support: 7.0 (GeForce 256) vs 8.1 (GeForce3 Ti 200). OpenGL: 1.2 vs 1.3. Maximum simultaneous displays: 1 vs 2.
| Feature | GeForce 256 | GeForce3 Ti 200 |
|---|---|---|
| DirectX | 7.0 | 8.1+16% |
| OpenGL | 1.2 | 1.3+8% |
| Max Displays | 1 | 2+100% |
Media & Encoding
Hardware encoder: None (GeForce 256) vs None (GeForce3 Ti 200). Decoder: MPEG-2 Motion Comp vs None. Supported codecs: MPEG-2 (GeForce 256) vs MPEG-2 (GeForce3 Ti 200).
| Feature | GeForce 256 | GeForce3 Ti 200 |
|---|---|---|
| Encoder | None | None |
| Decoder | MPEG-2 Motion Comp | None |
| Codecs | MPEG-2 | MPEG-2 |
Power & Dimensions
The GeForce 256 draws 10W versus the GeForce3 Ti 200's 215W — a 182.2% difference. The GeForce 256 is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 350W (GeForce 256) vs 350W (GeForce3 Ti 200). Power connectors: Legacy vs PCIe-powered. Card length: 165mm vs 183mm, occupying 1 vs 1 slots. Typical load temperature: 60°C vs 60.
| Feature | GeForce 256 | GeForce3 Ti 200 |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 10W-95% | 215W |
| Recommended PSU | 350W | 350W |
| Power Connector | Legacy | PCIe-powered |
| Length | 165mm | 183mm |
| Height | 100mm | 100mm |
| Slots | 1 | 1 |
| Temp (Load) | 60°C | 60 |
| Perf/Watt | 0.5 | 0.0 |
Value Analysis
The GeForce 256 launched at $199 MSRP and currently averages $20, while the GeForce3 Ti 200 launched at $149 and now averages $49. The GeForce 256 costs 59.2% less ($29 savings) at current market prices. Performance per dollar (G3D Mark / price): 0.3 (GeForce 256) vs 0.1 (GeForce3 Ti 200) — the GeForce 256 offers 200% better value. The GeForce 256 is the newer GPU (2019 vs 2018).
| Feature | GeForce 256 | GeForce3 Ti 200 |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $199 | $149-25% |
| Avg Price (30d) | $20-59% | $49 |
| Performance per Dollar | 0.3+200% | 0.1 |
| Codename | GP108B | TU104 |
| Release | February 20 2019 | September 20 2018 |
| Ranking | #643 | #94 |
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 GeForce3 Ti 200
