GeForce 256 vs GeForce4 Ti 4600
GeForce 256
Popular choices:
GeForce4 Ti 4600
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 4600 is on rank 384, so the GeForce4 Ti 4600 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 4600
Performance Comparison
About G3D Mark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
⚠️ Generational Difference
The GeForce 256 is significantly newer (2019 vs 2010). The GeForce 256 likely supports modern features like Ray Tracing, Tensor Cores, and DLSS/FSR upscaling, which act as force multipliers for performance. The GeForce4 Ti 4600 lacks this hardware feature set, limiting its longevity in modern titles despite any raw power similarities.
🚀 Performance Leadership
The GeForce4 Ti 4600 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 | GeForce4 Ti 4600 |
|---|---|---|
| Performance | ❌Lower raw frame rates (-20%) | ✅Leading raw performance (+20%) |
| Longevity | Pascal (2016−2021) (14nm) | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2010 / Fermi (2010−2014)) |
| 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 256 offers a compelling cost-to-performance ratio. Priced at $20 versus $40 for the GeForce4 Ti 4600, it costs 50% less. While it maintains basic entry-level capabilities, this results in a 66.7% higher cost efficiency score.
| Insight | GeForce 256 | GeForce4 Ti 4600 |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ✅Better overall value (+66.7%) | ❌Lower cost efficiency |
| Upfront Cost | ✅More affordable ($20) | ⚠️Higher upfront cost ($40) |
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 4600
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 4600
The GeForce4 Ti 4600 is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in July 12 2010. It features the Fermi architecture. The core clock speed is 675 MHz. It has 336 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 160W. Manufactured using 40 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 6 points. Launch price was $229.
Graphics Performance
In G3D Mark, the GeForce 256 scores 5 versus the GeForce4 Ti 4600's 6 — the GeForce4 Ti 4600 leads by 20%. The GeForce 256 is built on Pascal while the GeForce4 Ti 4600 uses Fermi, both on 14 nm vs 40 nm. Shader units: 384 (GeForce 256) vs 336 (GeForce4 Ti 4600). Raw compute: 0.7972 TFLOPS (GeForce 256) vs 0.9072 TFLOPS (GeForce4 Ti 4600).
| Feature | GeForce 256 | GeForce4 Ti 4600 |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 5 | 6+20% |
| Architecture | Pascal | Fermi |
| Process Node | 14 nm | 40 nm |
| Shading Units | 384+14% | 336 |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 0.7972 TFLOPS | 0.9072 TFLOPS+14% |
| ROPs | 16 | 32+100% |
| TMUs | 24 | 56+133% |
| L1 Cache | 144 KB | 448 KB+211% |
| L2 Cache | 512 KB | 512 KB |
Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)
| Feature | GeForce 256 | GeForce4 Ti 4600 |
|---|---|---|
| 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 GeForce4 Ti 4600 has 128 MB. The GeForce 256 offers 300% more capacity, crucial for higher resolutions and texture-heavy games. Bus width: 128-bit vs 64-bit.
| Feature | GeForce 256 | GeForce4 Ti 4600 |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 0.5 GB+300% | 0.125 GB |
| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Bus Width | 128-bit+100% | 64-bit |
| L2 Cache | 512 KB | 512 KB |
Display & API Support
DirectX support: 7.0 (GeForce 256) vs 8.1 (GeForce4 Ti 4600). OpenGL: 1.2 vs 1.3. Maximum simultaneous displays: 1 vs 2.
| Feature | GeForce 256 | GeForce4 Ti 4600 |
|---|---|---|
| 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 No (GeForce4 Ti 4600). Decoder: MPEG-2 Motion Comp vs No.
| Feature | GeForce 256 | GeForce4 Ti 4600 |
|---|---|---|
| Encoder | None | No |
| Decoder | MPEG-2 Motion Comp | No |
| Codecs | MPEG-2 |
Power & Dimensions
The GeForce 256 draws 10W versus the GeForce4 Ti 4600's 160W — a 176.5% difference. The GeForce 256 is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 350W (GeForce 256) vs 350W (GeForce4 Ti 4600). Power connectors: Legacy vs PCIe-powered. Card length: 165mm vs 216mm, occupying 1 vs 1 slots. Typical load temperature: 60°C vs 65°C.
| Feature | GeForce 256 | GeForce4 Ti 4600 |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 10W-94% | 160W |
| Recommended PSU | 350W | 350W |
| Power Connector | Legacy | PCIe-powered |
| Length | 165mm | 216mm |
| 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 GeForce4 Ti 4600 launched at $399 and now averages $40. The GeForce 256 costs 50% less ($20 savings) at current market prices. Performance per dollar (G3D Mark / price): 0.3 (GeForce 256) vs 0.1 (GeForce4 Ti 4600) — the GeForce 256 offers 200% better value. The GeForce 256 is the newer GPU (2019 vs 2010).
| Feature | GeForce 256 | GeForce4 Ti 4600 |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $199-50% | $399 |
| Avg Price (30d) | $20-50% | $40 |
| Performance per Dollar | 0.3+200% | 0.1 |
| Codename | GP108B | GF104 |
| Release | February 20 2019 | July 12 2010 |
| Ranking | #643 | #652 |
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 4600
