GeForce FX 5200 vs GeForce4 Ti 4800
GeForce FX 5200
Popular choices:
GeForce4 Ti 4800
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 FX 5200 is positioned at rank 374 and the GeForce4 Ti 4800 is on rank 384, so the GeForce FX 5200 offers better cost-efficiency for playing games.
Avg price is the current average price collected from markets across the web.
Performance Per Dollar GeForce FX 5200
Performance Per Dollar GeForce4 Ti 4800
Performance Comparison
About G3D Mark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
⚠️ Generational Difference
The GeForce FX 5200 is significantly newer (2025 vs 2010). The GeForce FX 5200 likely supports modern features like Ray Tracing, Tensor Cores, and DLSS/FSR upscaling, which act as force multipliers for performance. The GeForce4 Ti 4800 lacks this hardware feature set, limiting its longevity in modern titles despite any raw power similarities.
🚀 Performance Leadership
The GeForce FX 5200 is the superior choice for raw performance. It leads with a 33.3% higher G3D Mark score. However, the GeForce4 Ti 4800 offers more VRAM, which may be beneficial for texture-heavy scenarios at higher resolutions.
| Insight | GeForce FX 5200 | GeForce4 Ti 4800 |
|---|---|---|
| Performance | ✅Leading raw performance (+33.3%) | ❌Lower raw frame rates (-33.3%) |
| Longevity | Blackwell 2.0 (2025−2026) (5nm) | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2010 / Fermi (2010−2014)) |
| Ecosystem | Supports FSR Upscaling | Supports FSR Upscaling |
| VRAM | ❌ Less VRAM capacity | ✅ More VRAM (+300%) |
| Efficiency | ⚡ Higher Power Consumption | 💡 Excellent Perf/Watt |
| Case Fit | 📏 Compact / SFF Friendly | 📏 Compact / SFF Friendly |
💎 Value Proposition
The GeForce FX 5200 offers a compelling cost-to-performance ratio. Priced at $25 versus $40 for the GeForce4 Ti 4800, it costs 38% less. While it maintains basic entry-level capabilities, this results in a 113.3% higher cost efficiency score.
| Insight | GeForce FX 5200 | GeForce4 Ti 4800 |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ✅Better overall value (+113.3%) | ❌Lower cost efficiency |
| Upfront Cost | ✅More affordable ($25) | ⚠️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 FX 5200 and GeForce4 Ti 4800
GeForce FX 5200
The GeForce FX 5200 is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in January 30 2025. It features the Rankine 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: 8 points. Launch price was $1,999.
GeForce4 Ti 4800
The GeForce4 Ti 4800 is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in March 26 2010. It features the Fermi architecture. The core clock speed is 700 MHz. It has 480 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 250W. Manufactured using 40 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 6 points. Launch price was $499.
Graphics Performance
In G3D Mark, the GeForce FX 5200 scores 8 versus the GeForce4 Ti 4800's 6 — the GeForce FX 5200 leads by 33.3%. The GeForce FX 5200 is built on Rankine while the GeForce4 Ti 4800 uses Fermi, both on 5 nm vs 40 nm. Shader units: 21,760 (GeForce FX 5200) vs 480 (GeForce4 Ti 4800). Raw compute: 104.8 TFLOPS (GeForce FX 5200) vs 1.345 TFLOPS (GeForce4 Ti 4800).
| Feature | GeForce FX 5200 | GeForce4 Ti 4800 |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 8+33% | 6 |
| Architecture | Rankine | Fermi |
| Process Node | 5 nm | 40 nm |
| Shading Units | 21760+4433% | 480 |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 104.8 TFLOPS+7692% | 1.345 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 176+267% | 48 |
| TMUs | 680+1033% | 60 |
| L1 Cache | 21.3 MB+2166% | 0.94 MB |
| L2 Cache | 96 MB+12700% | 0.75 MB |
Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)
| Feature | GeForce FX 5200 | GeForce4 Ti 4800 |
|---|---|---|
| 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 FX 5200 comes with 128 MB of VRAM, while the GeForce4 Ti 4800 has 512 MB. The GeForce4 Ti 4800 offers 300% more capacity, crucial for higher resolutions and texture-heavy games. Bus width: 128-bit vs 64-bit. L2 Cache: 96 MB (GeForce FX 5200) vs 0.75 MB (GeForce4 Ti 4800) — the GeForce FX 5200 has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.
| Feature | GeForce FX 5200 | GeForce4 Ti 4800 |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 0.125 GB | 0.5 GB+300% |
| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Bus Width | 128-bit+100% | 64-bit |
| L2 Cache | 96 MB+12700% | 0.75 MB |
Display & API Support
DirectX support: 9.0a (GeForce FX 5200) vs 8.1 (GeForce4 Ti 4800). Vulkan: N/A vs None. OpenGL: 1.5 vs 1.3. Maximum simultaneous displays: 2 vs 2.
| Feature | GeForce FX 5200 | GeForce4 Ti 4800 |
|---|---|---|
| DirectX | 9.0a+11% | 8.1 |
| Vulkan | N/A | None |
| OpenGL | 1.5+15% | 1.3 |
| Max Displays | 2 | 2 |
Media & Encoding
Hardware encoder: None (GeForce FX 5200) vs No (GeForce4 Ti 4800). Decoder: MPEG-2 Motion Compensation vs No.
| Feature | GeForce FX 5200 | GeForce4 Ti 4800 |
|---|---|---|
| Encoder | None | No |
| Decoder | MPEG-2 Motion Compensation | No |
| Codecs | MPEG-2 |
Power & Dimensions
The GeForce FX 5200 draws 575W versus the GeForce4 Ti 4800's 250W — a 78.8% difference. The GeForce4 Ti 4800 is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 350W (GeForce FX 5200) vs 350W (GeForce4 Ti 4800). Power connectors: Legacy vs PCIe-powered. Card length: 152mm vs 216mm, occupying 1 vs 1 slots. Typical load temperature: 70 vs 65°C.
| Feature | GeForce FX 5200 | GeForce4 Ti 4800 |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 575W | 250W-57% |
| Recommended PSU | 350W | 350W |
| Power Connector | Legacy | PCIe-powered |
| Length | 152mm | 216mm |
| Height | 100mm | 111mm |
| Slots | 1 | 1 |
| Temp (Load) | 70 | 65°C-7% |
| Perf/Watt | 0.0 | 0.0 |
Value Analysis
The GeForce FX 5200 launched at $70 MSRP and currently averages $25, while the GeForce4 Ti 4800 launched at $399 and now averages $40. The GeForce FX 5200 costs 37.5% less ($15 savings) at current market prices. Performance per dollar (G3D Mark / price): 0.3 (GeForce FX 5200) vs 0.1 (GeForce4 Ti 4800) — the GeForce FX 5200 offers 200% better value. The GeForce FX 5200 is the newer GPU (2025 vs 2010).
| Feature | GeForce FX 5200 | GeForce4 Ti 4800 |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $70-82% | $399 |
| Avg Price (30d) | $25-38% | $40 |
| Performance per Dollar | 0.3+200% | 0.1 |
| Codename | GB202 | GF100 |
| Release | January 30 2025 | March 26 2010 |
| Ranking | #3 | #488 |
Top Performing GPUs
The most powerful gpus ranked by G3D Mark benchmark scores.
You May Also Compare
Similar GPU comparisons based on GeForce FX 5200 and GeForce4 Ti 4800
