GeForce2 MX/MX 400 vs GeForce3
GeForce2 MX/MX 400
Popular choices:
GeForce3
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 GeForce3 is on rank 755, so the GeForce2 MX/MX 400 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 GeForce3
Performance Comparison
About G3D Mark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
⚠️ Generational Difference
The GeForce2 MX/MX 400 uses modern memory architecture. The GeForce2 MX/MX 400 likely supports modern features like Ray Tracing, Tensor Cores, and DLSS/FSR upscaling, which act as force multipliers for performance. The GeForce3 lacks this hardware feature set, limiting its longevity in modern titles despite any raw power similarities.
🚀 Performance Leadership
The GeForce3 is the superior choice for raw performance. It leads with a 25% higher G3D Mark score. However, the GeForce2 MX/MX 400 offers more VRAM, which may be beneficial for texture-heavy scenarios at higher resolutions.
| Insight | GeForce2 MX/MX 400 | GeForce3 |
|---|---|---|
| Performance | ❌Lower raw frame rates (-25%) | ✅Leading raw performance (+25%) |
| Longevity | Turing (2018−2022) (12nm) | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2015 / Maxwell (2014−2017)) |
| Ecosystem | Supports FSR Upscaling | Supports FSR Upscaling |
| VRAM | ✅ More VRAM (+693.7%) | ❌ Less VRAM capacity |
| Efficiency | Normal Efficiency | Normal Efficiency |
| Case Fit | — | 📏 Compact / SFF Friendly |
💎 Value Proposition
The GeForce2 MX/MX 400 offers a compelling cost-to-performance ratio. Priced at $15 versus $49 for the GeForce3, it costs 69% less. While it maintains basic entry-level capabilities, this results in a 161.3% higher cost efficiency score.
| Insight | GeForce2 MX/MX 400 | GeForce3 |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ✅Better overall value (+161.3%) | ❌Lower cost efficiency |
| Upfront Cost | ✅More affordable ($15) | ⚠️Higher upfront cost ($49) |
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 GeForce3
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.
GeForce3
The GeForce3 is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in March 13 2015. It features the Maxwell architecture. The core clock ranges from 928 MHz to 941 MHz. It has 384 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 33W. Manufactured using 28 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 5 points.
Graphics Performance
In G3D Mark, the GeForce2 MX/MX 400 scores 4 versus the GeForce3's 5 — the GeForce3 leads by 25%. The GeForce2 MX/MX 400 is built on Turing while the GeForce3 uses Maxwell, both on 12 nm vs 28 nm. Shader units: 896 (GeForce2 MX/MX 400) vs 384 (GeForce3). Raw compute: 3.226 TFLOPS (GeForce2 MX/MX 400) vs 0.7227 TFLOPS (GeForce3). Boost clocks: 1575 MHz vs 941 MHz.
| Feature | GeForce2 MX/MX 400 | GeForce3 |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 4 | 5+25% |
| Architecture | Turing | Maxwell |
| Process Node | 12 nm | 28 nm |
| Shading Units | 896+133% | 384 |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 3.226 TFLOPS+346% | 0.7227 TFLOPS |
| Boost Clock | 1575 MHz+67% | 941 MHz |
| ROPs | 32+300% | 8 |
| TMUs | 64+167% | 24 |
Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)
| Feature | GeForce2 MX/MX 400 | GeForce3 |
|---|---|---|
| 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 GeForce2 MX/MX 400 comes with 512 MB of VRAM, while the GeForce3 has 65 MB. The GeForce2 MX/MX 400 offers 693.7% more capacity, crucial for higher resolutions and texture-heavy games. Bus width: 64-bit vs 64-bit.
| Feature | GeForce2 MX/MX 400 | GeForce3 |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 0.5 GB+694% | 0.063 GB |
| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Bus Width | 64-bit | 64-bit |
Display & API Support
DirectX support: 7.0 (GeForce2 MX/MX 400) vs 8.1 (GeForce3). OpenGL: 1.2 vs 1.3. Maximum simultaneous displays: 2 vs 2.
| Feature | GeForce2 MX/MX 400 | GeForce3 |
|---|---|---|
| DirectX | 7.0 | 8.1+16% |
| OpenGL | 1.2 | 1.3+8% |
| Max Displays | 2 | 2 |
Media & Encoding
Hardware encoder: None (GeForce2 MX/MX 400) vs None (GeForce3). Decoder: MPEG-2 Decoder vs None. Supported codecs: MPEG-2 (GeForce2 MX/MX 400) vs MPEG-1,MPEG-2 (GeForce3).
| Feature | GeForce2 MX/MX 400 | GeForce3 |
|---|---|---|
| Encoder | None | None |
| Decoder | MPEG-2 Decoder | None |
| Codecs | MPEG-2 | MPEG-1,MPEG-2 |
Power & Dimensions
The GeForce2 MX/MX 400 draws 25W versus the GeForce3's 33W — a 27.6% difference. The GeForce2 MX/MX 400 is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 350W (GeForce2 MX/MX 400) vs 350W (GeForce3). Power connectors: PCIe-powered vs PCIe-powered. Typical load temperature: 55°C vs 85.
| Feature | GeForce2 MX/MX 400 | GeForce3 |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 25W-24% | 33W |
| Recommended PSU | 350W | 350W |
| Power Connector | PCIe-powered | PCIe-powered |
| Length | — | 165mm |
| Height | 100mm | 100mm |
| Slots | 1 | 1 |
| Temp (Load) | 55°C-35% | 85 |
| Perf/Watt | 0.2 | 0.2 |
Value Analysis
The GeForce2 MX/MX 400 launched at $129 MSRP and currently averages $15, while the GeForce3 launched at $499 and now averages $49. The GeForce2 MX/MX 400 costs 69.4% less ($34 savings) at current market prices. Performance per dollar (G3D Mark / price): 0.3 (GeForce2 MX/MX 400) vs 0.1 (GeForce3) — the GeForce2 MX/MX 400 offers 200% better value. The GeForce2 MX/MX 400 is the newer GPU (2020 vs 2015).
| Feature | GeForce2 MX/MX 400 | GeForce3 |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $129-74% | $499 |
| Avg Price (30d) | $15-69% | $49 |
| Performance per Dollar | 0.3+200% | 0.1 |
| Codename | N17S-G5 / GP107-670-A1 | GM108 |
| Release | August 1 2020 | March 13 2015 |
| Ranking | #523 | #810 |
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 GeForce3
