GeForce 256 vs GeForce4 Ti 4200
GeForce 256
Popular choices:
GeForce4 Ti 4200
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 GeForce4 Ti 4200 is on rank 382, so the GeForce4 Ti 4200 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 GeForce4 Ti 4200
Performance Comparison
About G3D Mark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
🚀 Performance Leadership
The GeForce4 Ti 4200 is the superior choice for raw performance. It leads with a 20% 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 | GeForce4 Ti 4200 |
|---|---|---|
| Performance | ❌Lower raw frame rates (-20%) | ✅Leading raw performance (+20%) |
| Longevity | Pascal (2016−2021) (14nm) | Ada Lovelace (2022−2024) (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 GeForce4 Ti 4200 offers a compelling cost-to-performance ratio. Priced at $5 versus $20 for the GeForce 256, it costs 75% less. While it maintains basic entry-level capabilities, this results in a 380% higher cost efficiency score.
| Insight | GeForce 256 | GeForce4 Ti 4200 |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ❌Lower cost efficiency | ✅Better overall value (+380%) |
| Upfront Cost | ⚠️Higher upfront cost ($20) | ✅More affordable ($5) |
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 GeForce4 Ti 4200
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.
GeForce4 Ti 4200
The GeForce4 Ti 4200 is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in September 20 2022. It features the Ada Lovelace architecture. The core clock ranges from 2235 MHz to 2520 MHz. It has 16384 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 450W. Manufactured using 5 nm process technology. It features 128 dedicated ray tracing cores for enhanced lighting effects. G3D Mark benchmark score: 6 points. Launch price was $1,599.
Graphics Performance
In G3D Mark, the GeForce 256 scores 5 versus the GeForce4 Ti 4200's 6 — the GeForce4 Ti 4200 leads by 20%. The GeForce 256 is built on Pascal while the GeForce4 Ti 4200 uses Ada Lovelace, both on 14 nm vs 5 nm. Shader units: 384 (GeForce 256) vs 16,384 (GeForce4 Ti 4200). Raw compute: 0.7972 TFLOPS (GeForce 256) vs 82.58 TFLOPS (GeForce4 Ti 4200). Boost clocks: 1038 MHz vs 2520 MHz.
| Feature | GeForce 256 | GeForce4 Ti 4200 |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 5 | 6+20% |
| Architecture | Pascal | Ada Lovelace |
| Process Node | 14 nm | 5 nm |
| Shading Units | 384 | 16384+4167% |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 0.7972 TFLOPS | 82.58 TFLOPS+10259% |
| Boost Clock | 1038 MHz | 2520 MHz+143% |
| ROPs | 16 | 176+1000% |
| TMUs | 24 | 512+2033% |
| L1 Cache | 0.14 MB | 16 MB+11329% |
| L2 Cache | 0.5 MB | 72 MB+14300% |
Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)
| Feature | GeForce 256 | GeForce4 Ti 4200 |
|---|---|---|
| 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 72 MB (GeForce4 Ti 4200) — the GeForce4 Ti 4200 has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.
| Feature | GeForce 256 | GeForce4 Ti 4200 |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 0.5 GB | 0.5 GB |
| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Bus Width | 128-bit+100% | 64-bit |
| L2 Cache | 0.5 MB | 72 MB+14300% |
Display & API Support
DirectX support: 7.0 (GeForce 256) vs 8.1 (GeForce4 Ti 4200). OpenGL: 1.2 vs 1.5. Maximum simultaneous displays: 1 vs 2.
| Feature | GeForce 256 | GeForce4 Ti 4200 |
|---|---|---|
| DirectX | 7.0 | 8.1+16% |
| OpenGL | 1.2 | 1.5+25% |
| Max Displays | 1 | 2+100% |
Media & Encoding
Hardware encoder: None (GeForce 256) vs None (GeForce4 Ti 4200). Decoder: MPEG-2 Motion Comp vs None. Supported codecs: MPEG-2 (GeForce 256) vs MPEG-2 (GeForce4 Ti 4200).
| Feature | GeForce 256 | GeForce4 Ti 4200 |
|---|---|---|
| Encoder | None | None |
| Decoder | MPEG-2 Motion Comp | None |
| Codecs | MPEG-2 | MPEG-2 |
Power & Dimensions
The GeForce 256 draws 10W versus the GeForce4 Ti 4200's 450W — a 191.3% difference. The GeForce 256 is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 350W (GeForce 256) vs 350W (GeForce4 Ti 4200). Power connectors: Legacy vs PCIe-powered. Card length: 165mm vs 175mm, occupying 1 vs 1 slots. Typical load temperature: 60°C vs 65.
| Feature | GeForce 256 | GeForce4 Ti 4200 |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 10W-98% | 450W |
| Recommended PSU | 350W | 350W |
| Power Connector | Legacy | PCIe-powered |
| Length | 165mm | 175mm |
| Height | 100mm | 100mm |
| Slots | 1 | 1 |
| Temp (Load) | 60°C-8% | 65 |
| Perf/Watt | 0.5 | 0.0 |
Value Analysis
The GeForce 256 launched at $199 MSRP and currently averages $20, while the GeForce4 Ti 4200 launched at $199 and now averages $5. The GeForce4 Ti 4200 costs 75% less ($15 savings) at current market prices. Performance per dollar (G3D Mark / price): 0.3 (GeForce 256) vs 1.2 (GeForce4 Ti 4200) — the GeForce4 Ti 4200 offers 300% better value. The GeForce4 Ti 4200 is the newer GPU (2022 vs 2019).
| Feature | GeForce 256 | GeForce4 Ti 4200 |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $199 | $199 |
| Avg Price (30d) | $20 | $5-75% |
| Performance per Dollar | 0.3 | 1.2+300% |
| Codename | GP108B | AD102 |
| Release | February 20 2019 | September 20 2022 |
| Ranking | #643 | #4 |
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 GeForce4 Ti 4200
