GeForce2 MX 100/200 vs GeForce3 Ti 200

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.

MSRP is the manufacturer's suggested retail price.•
Avg price is the current average price collected from markets across the web.

Performance Per Dollar

Based on actual market prices and performance benchmarks.

Performance Per Dollar GeForce3 Ti 200

#1

GeForce RTX 3060 Ti

MSRP: $399|Avg: $280

241800%

#2

GeForce RTX 5060

MSRP: $299|Avg: $299

232300%

#3

Radeon RX 5600 XT

MSRP: $279|Avg: $180

229600%

#4

Radeon RX 9060

MSRP: $249|Avg: $249

229200%

#5

GeForce RTX 5050

MSRP: $249|Avg: $249

228733%

#6

GeForce RTX 3050 OEM

MSRP: $249|Avg: $150

227433%

#7

Arc A580

MSRP: $179|Avg: $179

224567%

#8

Radeon RX 9060 XT

MSRP: $299|Avg: $299

223733%

#9

Radeon RX 9060 XT 8GB

MSRP: $299|Avg: $299

221667%

#10

Radeon RX 7600

MSRP: $269|Avg: $250

221067%

#11

Radeon RX 6600

MSRP: $329|Avg: $180

218400%

#12

GeForce RTX 4060

MSRP: $299|Avg: $299

217933%

#13

Arc B570

MSRP: $219|Avg: $219

214000%

#14

Arc B580

MSRP: $249|Avg: $249

213867%

#367

Radeon R5 430 OEM

MSRP: N/A|Avg: $13

266667%

#382

GeForce3 Ti 200

MSRP: $149|Avg: $49

100%

#383

GeForce4 Ti 4200

MSRP: $199|Avg: $5

100%

#384

GeForce4 Ti 4400

MSRP: $299|Avg: $49

67%

#385

GeForce4 MX 460

MSRP: $179|Avg: $15

67%

#386

GeForce4 Ti 4800 SE

MSRP: $299|Avg: $30

67%

#387

GeForce4 Ti 4800

MSRP: $399|Avg: $40

67%

#388

GeForce4 Ti 4600

MSRP: $399|Avg: $40

67%

#389

RADEON 7500

MSRP: $199|Avg: $50

67%

#390

GeForce3 Ti 500

MSRP: $349|Avg: $49

33%

Based on actual market prices and performance benchmarks.

Performance Comparison

About G3D Mark

🏆 Chipversus Verdict

⚠️ Generational Difference

The GeForce3 Ti 200 uses modern memory architecture. The GeForce3 Ti 200 likely supports modern features like Ray Tracing, Tensor Cores, and DLSS/FSR upscaling, which act as force multipliers for performance. The GeForce2 MX 100/200 lacks this hardware feature set, limiting its longevity in modern titles despite any raw power similarities.

🚀 Performance Leadership

The GeForce3 Ti 200 is the superior choice for raw performance. It leads with a 33.3% higher G3D Mark score. This advantage makes it significantly better for higher resolutions (1440p/4K) and graphic-intensive titles compared to the GeForce2 MX 100/200.

Insight	GeForce2 MX 100/200	GeForce3 Ti 200
Performance	❌Lower raw frame rates (-33.3%)	✅Leading raw performance (+33.3%)
Longevity	🛑Obsolete Architecture (2017 / Pascal (2016−2021))	🛑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 GeForce3 Ti 200 offers a compelling cost-to-performance ratio. Although it costs $49 (vs $49), its significant performance lead justifies the premium, offering 33.3% better value per dollar than the GeForce2 MX 100/200.

Insight	GeForce2 MX 100/200	GeForce3 Ti 200
Cost Efficiency	❌Lower cost efficiency	✅Better overall value (+33.3%)
Upfront Cost	Equivalent pricing	Equivalent pricing

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.

GeForce2 MX 100/200 Benchmark Check

GeForce3 Ti 200 Benchmark Check

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of GeForce2 MX 100/200 and GeForce3 Ti 200

GeForce2 MX 100/200

The GeForce2 MX 100/200 is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in May 17 2017. 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: 3 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 GeForce2 MX 100/200 scores 3 versus the GeForce3 Ti 200's 4 — the GeForce3 Ti 200 leads by 33.3%. The GeForce2 MX 100/200 is built on Pascal while the GeForce3 Ti 200 uses Turing, both on 14 nm vs 12 nm. Shader units: 384 (GeForce2 MX 100/200) vs 2,944 (GeForce3 Ti 200). Raw compute: 0.7972 TFLOPS (GeForce2 MX 100/200) vs 10.07 TFLOPS (GeForce3 Ti 200). Boost clocks: 1038 MHz vs 1710 MHz.

Feature	GeForce2 MX 100/200	GeForce3 Ti 200
G3D Mark Score	3	4+33%
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	GeForce2 MX 100/200	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: 64-bit vs 64-bit. L2 Cache: 0.5 MB (GeForce2 MX 100/200) vs 4 MB (GeForce3 Ti 200) — the GeForce3 Ti 200 has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.

Feature	GeForce2 MX 100/200	GeForce3 Ti 200
VRAM Capacity	0.5 GB	0.5 GB
Memory Type	GDDR5	GDDR5
Bus Width	64-bit	64-bit
L2 Cache	0.5 MB	4 MB+700%

🖥️

Display & API Support

DirectX support: 7.0 (GeForce2 MX 100/200) vs 8.1 (GeForce3 Ti 200). Vulkan: N/A vs N/A. OpenGL: 1.2 vs 1.3. Maximum simultaneous displays: 2 vs 2.

Feature	GeForce2 MX 100/200	GeForce3 Ti 200
DirectX	7.0	8.1+16%
Vulkan	N/A	N/A
OpenGL	1.2	1.3+8%
Max Displays	2	2

🎬

Media & Encoding

Hardware encoder: None (GeForce2 MX 100/200) vs None (GeForce3 Ti 200). Decoder: None vs None. Supported codecs: MPEG-2 (GeForce2 MX 100/200) vs MPEG-2 (GeForce3 Ti 200).

Feature	GeForce2 MX 100/200	GeForce3 Ti 200
Encoder	None	None
Decoder	None	None
Codecs	MPEG-2	MPEG-2

🔌

Power & Dimensions

The GeForce2 MX 100/200 draws 10W versus the GeForce3 Ti 200's 215W — a 182.2% difference. The GeForce2 MX 100/200 is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 350W (GeForce2 MX 100/200) vs 350W (GeForce3 Ti 200). Power connectors: PCIe-powered vs PCIe-powered. Card length: 165mm vs 183mm, occupying 1 vs 1 slots. Typical load temperature: 55 vs 60.

Feature	GeForce2 MX 100/200	GeForce3 Ti 200
TDP	10W-95%	215W
Recommended PSU	350W	350W
Power Connector	PCIe-powered	PCIe-powered
Length	165mm	183mm
Height	64mm	100mm
Slots	1	1
Temp (Load)	55-8%	60
Perf/Watt	0.3	0.0

💰

Value Analysis

The GeForce2 MX 100/200 launched at $0 MSRP and currently averages $49, while the GeForce3 Ti 200 launched at $149 and now averages $49. Performance per dollar (G3D Mark / price): 0.1 (GeForce2 MX 100/200) vs 0.1 (GeForce3 Ti 200) — the GeForce3 Ti 200 offers 0% better value. The GeForce3 Ti 200 is the newer GPU (2018 vs 2017).