GeForce2 MX/MX 400 vs RADEON 9000
GeForce2 MX/MX 400
Popular choices:
RADEON 9000
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 RADEON 9000 is on rank 742, so the RADEON 9000 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 RADEON 9000
Performance Comparison
About G3D Mark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
🚀 Performance Leadership
The RADEON 9000 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 | RADEON 9000 |
|---|---|---|
| Performance | ❌Lower raw frame rates (-25%) | ✅Leading raw performance (+25%) |
| Longevity | Turing (2018−2022) (12nm) | RDNA 3.5 (2024−2025) (4nm) |
| Ecosystem | Supports FSR Upscaling | Supports FSR Upscaling |
| VRAM | ✅ More VRAM (+300%) | ❌ Less VRAM capacity |
| Efficiency | ⚡ Higher Power Consumption | 💡 Excellent Perf/Watt |
| Case Fit | — | — |
💎 Value Proposition
The GeForce2 MX/MX 400 offers a compelling cost-to-performance ratio. Priced at $15 versus $20 for the RADEON 9000, 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 | RADEON 9000 |
|---|---|---|
| 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 RADEON 9000
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.
RADEON 9000
The RADEON 9000 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in July 15 2024. It features the RDNA 3.5 architecture. The core clock ranges from 400 MHz to 2900 MHz. It has 1024 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 15W. Manufactured using 4 nm process technology. It features 16 dedicated ray tracing cores for enhanced lighting effects. G3D Mark benchmark score: 5 points.
Graphics Performance
In G3D Mark, the GeForce2 MX/MX 400 scores 4 versus the RADEON 9000's 5 — the RADEON 9000 leads by 25%. The GeForce2 MX/MX 400 is built on Turing while the RADEON 9000 uses RDNA 3.5, both on 12 nm vs 4 nm. Shader units: 896 (GeForce2 MX/MX 400) vs 1,024 (RADEON 9000). Raw compute: 3.226 TFLOPS (GeForce2 MX/MX 400) vs 5.939 TFLOPS (RADEON 9000). Boost clocks: 1575 MHz vs 2900 MHz.
| Feature | GeForce2 MX/MX 400 | RADEON 9000 |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 4 | 5+25% |
| Architecture | Turing | RDNA 3.5 |
| Process Node | 12 nm | 4 nm |
| Shading Units | 896 | 1024+14% |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 3.226 TFLOPS | 5.939 TFLOPS+84% |
| Boost Clock | 1575 MHz | 2900 MHz+84% |
| ROPs | 32 | 32 |
| TMUs | 64 | 64 |
Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)
| Feature | GeForce2 MX/MX 400 | RADEON 9000 |
|---|---|---|
| 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)
The GeForce2 MX/MX 400 comes with 512 MB of VRAM, while the RADEON 9000 has 128 MB. The GeForce2 MX/MX 400 offers 300% more capacity, crucial for higher resolutions and texture-heavy games. Bus width: 64-bit vs 64-bit.
| Feature | GeForce2 MX/MX 400 | RADEON 9000 |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 0.5 GB+300% | 0.125 GB |
| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Bus Width | 64-bit | 64-bit |
Power & Dimensions
The GeForce2 MX/MX 400 draws 25W versus the RADEON 9000's 15W — a 50% difference. The RADEON 9000 is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 350W (GeForce2 MX/MX 400) vs 350W (RADEON 9000). Power connectors: PCIe-powered vs Legacy.
| Feature | GeForce2 MX/MX 400 | RADEON 9000 |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 25W | 15W-40% |
| Recommended PSU | 350W | 350W |
| Power Connector | PCIe-powered | Legacy |
| Height | 100mm | — |
| Slots | 1 | — |
| Temp (Load) | 55°C | — |
| Perf/Watt | 0.2 | 0.3+50% |
Value Analysis
The GeForce2 MX/MX 400 launched at $129 MSRP and currently averages $15, while the RADEON 9000 launched at $49 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 (RADEON 9000) — the RADEON 9000 offers 0% better value. The RADEON 9000 is the newer GPU (2024 vs 2020).
| Feature | GeForce2 MX/MX 400 | RADEON 9000 |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $129 | $49-62% |
| Avg Price (30d) | $15-25% | $20 |
| Performance per Dollar | 0.3 | 0.3 |
| Codename | N17S-G5 / GP107-670-A1 | Strix Point |
| Release | August 1 2020 | July 15 2024 |
| Ranking | #523 | #312 |
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 RADEON 9000
