GeForce2 MX/MX 400 vs GeForce 256
GeForce2 MX/MX 400
Popular choices:
GeForce 256
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 GeForce2 MX/MX 400 is positioned at rank 750 and the GeForce 256 is on rank 750, so the GeForce 256 offers better cost-efficiency for playing games.
Avg price is the current average price collected from markets across the web.
Performance Per Dollar GeForce2 MX/MX 400
Performance Per Dollar GeForce 256
Performance Comparison
About G3D Mark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
🚀 Performance Leadership
The GeForce 256 is the superior choice for raw performance. It leads with a 25% higher G3D Mark score. This advantage makes it significantly better for higher resolutions (1440p/4K) and graphic-intensive titles compared to the GeForce2 MX/MX 400.
| Insight | GeForce2 MX/MX 400 | GeForce 256 |
|---|---|---|
| Performance | ❌Lower raw frame rates (-25%) | ✅Leading raw performance (+25%) |
| Longevity | Turing (2018−2022) (12nm) | Pascal (2016−2021) (14nm) |
| Ecosystem | Supports FSR Upscaling | Supports FSR Upscaling |
| VRAM | ❌ Less VRAM capacity | ✅ More VRAM (+0%) |
| Efficiency | ⚡ Higher Power Consumption | 💡 Excellent Perf/Watt |
| Case Fit | — | 📏 Compact / SFF Friendly |
💎 Value Proposition
The GeForce2 MX/MX 400 offers a compelling cost-to-performance ratio. Priced at $15 versus $20 for the GeForce 256, it costs 25% less. While it maintains basic entry-level capabilities, this results in a 6.7% higher cost efficiency score.
| Insight | GeForce2 MX/MX 400 | GeForce 256 |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ✅Better overall value (+6.7%) | ❌Lower cost efficiency |
| Upfront Cost | ✅More affordable ($15) | ⚠️Higher upfront cost ($20) |
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 GeForce2 MX/MX 400 and GeForce 256
GeForce2 MX/MX 400
The GeForce2 MX/MX 400 is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in August 1 2020. It features the Turing architecture. The core clock ranges from 1395 MHz to 1575 MHz. It has 896 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 25W. Manufactured using 12 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 4 points.
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.
Graphics Performance
In G3D Mark, the GeForce2 MX/MX 400 scores 4 versus the GeForce 256's 5 — the GeForce 256 leads by 25%. The GeForce2 MX/MX 400 is built on Turing while the GeForce 256 uses Pascal, both on 12 nm vs 14 nm. Shader units: 896 (GeForce2 MX/MX 400) vs 384 (GeForce 256). Raw compute: 3.226 TFLOPS (GeForce2 MX/MX 400) vs 0.7972 TFLOPS (GeForce 256). Boost clocks: 1575 MHz vs 1038 MHz.
| Feature | GeForce2 MX/MX 400 | GeForce 256 |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 4 | 5+25% |
| Architecture | Turing | Pascal |
| Process Node | 12 nm | 14 nm |
| Shading Units | 896+133% | 384 |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 3.226 TFLOPS+305% | 0.7972 TFLOPS |
| Boost Clock | 1575 MHz+52% | 1038 MHz |
| ROPs | 32+100% | 16 |
| TMUs | 64+167% | 24 |
Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)
| Feature | GeForce2 MX/MX 400 | GeForce 256 |
|---|---|---|
| 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 128-bit.
| Feature | GeForce2 MX/MX 400 | GeForce 256 |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 0.5 GB | 0.5 GB |
| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Bus Width | 64-bit | 128-bit+100% |
Display & API Support
DirectX support: 7.0 (GeForce2 MX/MX 400) vs 7.0 (GeForce 256). OpenGL: 1.2 vs 1.2. Maximum simultaneous displays: 2 vs 1.
| Feature | GeForce2 MX/MX 400 | GeForce 256 |
|---|---|---|
| DirectX | 7.0 | 7.0 |
| OpenGL | 1.2 | 1.2 |
| Max Displays | 2+100% | 1 |
Media & Encoding
Hardware encoder: None (GeForce2 MX/MX 400) vs None (GeForce 256). Decoder: MPEG-2 Decoder vs MPEG-2 Motion Comp. Supported codecs: MPEG-2 (GeForce2 MX/MX 400) vs MPEG-2 (GeForce 256).
| Feature | GeForce2 MX/MX 400 | GeForce 256 |
|---|---|---|
| Encoder | None | None |
| Decoder | MPEG-2 Decoder | MPEG-2 Motion Comp |
| Codecs | MPEG-2 | MPEG-2 |
Power & Dimensions
The GeForce2 MX/MX 400 draws 25W versus the GeForce 256's 10W — a 85.7% difference. The GeForce 256 is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 350W (GeForce2 MX/MX 400) vs 350W (GeForce 256). Power connectors: PCIe-powered vs Legacy. Typical load temperature: 55°C vs 60°C.
| Feature | GeForce2 MX/MX 400 | GeForce 256 |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 25W | 10W-60% |
| Recommended PSU | 350W | 350W |
| Power Connector | PCIe-powered | Legacy |
| Length | — | 165mm |
| Height | 100mm | 100mm |
| Slots | 1 | 1 |
| Temp (Load) | 55°C-8% | 60°C |
| Perf/Watt | 0.2 | 0.5+150% |
Value Analysis
The GeForce2 MX/MX 400 launched at $129 MSRP and currently averages $15, while the GeForce 256 launched at $199 and now averages $20. The GeForce2 MX/MX 400 costs 25% less ($5 savings) at current market prices. Performance per dollar (G3D Mark / price): 0.3 (GeForce2 MX/MX 400) vs 0.3 (GeForce 256) — the GeForce 256 offers 0% better value. The GeForce2 MX/MX 400 is the newer GPU (2020 vs 2019).
| Feature | GeForce2 MX/MX 400 | GeForce 256 |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $129-35% | $199 |
| Avg Price (30d) | $15-25% | $20 |
| Performance per Dollar | 0.3 | 0.3 |
| Codename | N17S-G5 / GP107-670-A1 | GP108B |
| Release | August 1 2020 | February 20 2019 |
| Ranking | #523 | #643 |
Top Performing GPUs
The most powerful gpus ranked by G3D Mark benchmark scores.
You May Also Compare
Similar GPU comparisons based on GeForce2 MX/MX 400 and GeForce 256
