
GeForce2 MX 100/200
Popular choices:

Radeon IGP 320M
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.
Avg price is the current average price collected from markets across the web.
Performance Per Dollar
Performance Per Dollar Radeon IGP 320M
Performance Comparison
About G3D Mark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
⚠️ Generational Difference
The Radeon IGP 320M uses modern memory architecture. The Radeon IGP 320M 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 Radeon IGP 320M 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 | Radeon IGP 320M |
|---|---|---|
| Performance | ❌Lower raw frame rates (-33.3%) | ✅Leading raw performance (+33.3%) |
| Longevity | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2017 / Pascal (2016−2021)) | RDNA 1.0 (2019−2020) (7nm) |
| 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 | — |
💎 Value Proposition
While current pricing data is unavailable, the Radeon IGP 320M remains the clear technical winner. Check real-time availability to determine if the performance gap justifies the market price.
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.

Counter-Strike 2

League of Legends

Valorant
Technical Specifications
Side-by-side comparison of GeForce2 MX 100/200 and Radeon IGP 320M

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.

Radeon IGP 320M
The Radeon IGP 320M is manufactured by AMD. It was released in November 13 2019. It features the RDNA 1.0 architecture. The core clock ranges from 1000 MHz to 1250 MHz. It has 1280 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 85W. Manufactured using 7 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 4 points.
Graphics Performance
In G3D Mark, the GeForce2 MX 100/200 scores 3 versus the Radeon IGP 320M's 4 — the Radeon IGP 320M leads by 33.3%. The GeForce2 MX 100/200 is built on Pascal while the Radeon IGP 320M uses RDNA 1.0, both on 14 nm vs 7 nm. Shader units: 384 (GeForce2 MX 100/200) vs 1,280 (Radeon IGP 320M). Raw compute: 0.7972 TFLOPS (GeForce2 MX 100/200) vs 3.2 TFLOPS (Radeon IGP 320M). Boost clocks: 1038 MHz vs 1250 MHz.
| Feature | GeForce2 MX 100/200 | Radeon IGP 320M |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 3 | 4+33% |
| Architecture | Pascal | RDNA 1.0 |
| Process Node | 14 nm | 7 nm |
| Shading Units | 384 | 1280+233% |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 0.7972 TFLOPS | 3.2 TFLOPS+301% |
| Boost Clock | 1038 MHz | 1250 MHz+20% |
| ROPs | 16 | 32+100% |
| TMUs | 24 | 80+233% |
| L2 Cache | 0.5 MB | 2 MB+300% |
Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)
| Feature | GeForce2 MX 100/200 | Radeon IGP 320M |
|---|---|---|
| Upscaling Tech | FSR 1.0 (Software) | FSR 1.0 (Software) |
| Frame Generation | Not Supported | Not Supported |
| Ray Reconstruction | No | No |
| Low Latency | Standard | AMD Anti-Lag |
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 2 MB (Radeon IGP 320M) — the Radeon IGP 320M has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.
| Feature | GeForce2 MX 100/200 | Radeon IGP 320M |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 0.5 GB | 0.5 GB |
| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Bus Width | 64-bit | 64-bit |
| L2 Cache | 0.5 MB | 2 MB+300% |
Display & API Support
Maximum simultaneous displays: 2 vs 2.
| Feature | GeForce2 MX 100/200 | Radeon IGP 320M |
|---|---|---|
| Max Displays | 2 | 2 |
Media & Encoding
Hardware encoder: None (GeForce2 MX 100/200) vs None (Radeon IGP 320M). Decoder: None vs None. Supported codecs: MPEG-2 (GeForce2 MX 100/200) vs MPEG-2 (Radeon IGP 320M).
| Feature | GeForce2 MX 100/200 | Radeon IGP 320M |
|---|---|---|
| Encoder | None | None |
| Decoder | None | None |
| Codecs | MPEG-2 | MPEG-2 |
Power & Dimensions
The GeForce2 MX 100/200 draws 10W versus the Radeon IGP 320M's 85W — a 157.9% difference. The GeForce2 MX 100/200 is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 350W (GeForce2 MX 100/200) vs 350W (Radeon IGP 320M). Power connectors: PCIe-powered vs PCIe-powered.
| Feature | GeForce2 MX 100/200 | Radeon IGP 320M |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 10W-88% | 85W |
| Recommended PSU | 350W | 350W |
| Power Connector | PCIe-powered | PCIe-powered |
| Length | 165mm | — |
| Height | 64mm | — |
| Slots | 1 | 0-100% |
| Temp (Load) | 55 | — |
| Perf/Watt | 0.3 | 0.0 |
Value Analysis
The Radeon IGP 320M is the newer GPU (2019 vs 2017).
| Feature | GeForce2 MX 100/200 | Radeon IGP 320M |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $0 | — |
| Avg Price (30d) | $49 | — |
| Codename | GP108 | Navi 14 |
| Release | May 17 2017 | November 13 2019 |
| Ranking | #657 | #403 |
Top Performing GPUs
The most powerful gpus ranked by G3D Mark benchmark scores.












