GeForce2 MX/MX 400 vs RADEON 9200 SE
GeForce2 MX/MX 400
Popular choices:
RADEON 9200 SE
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 9200 SE is on rank 742, so the RADEON 9200 SE 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 9200 SE
Performance Comparison
About G3D Mark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
🚀 Performance Leadership
The GeForce2 MX/MX 400 is the superior choice for raw performance. It leads with a 33.3% higher G3D Mark score and 100% more VRAM (512 MB vs 256 MB). This advantage makes it significantly better for higher resolutions (1440p/4K) and graphic-intensive titles compared to the RADEON 9200 SE.
| Insight | GeForce2 MX/MX 400 | RADEON 9200 SE |
|---|---|---|
| Performance | ✅Leading raw performance (+33.3%) | ❌Lower raw frame rates (-33.3%) |
| Longevity | Turing (2018−2022) (12nm) | RDNA 3.5 (2024−2025) (4nm) |
| Ecosystem | Supports FSR Upscaling | Supports FSR Upscaling |
| VRAM | ✅ More VRAM (+100%) | ❌ Less VRAM capacity |
| Efficiency | 💡 Excellent Perf/Watt | ⚡ Higher Power Consumption |
| Case Fit | — | 📏 Compact / SFF Friendly |
💎 Value Proposition
The GeForce2 MX/MX 400 offers a compelling cost-to-performance ratio. Although it costs $15 (vs $15), its significant performance lead justifies the premium, offering 33.3% better value per dollar than the RADEON 9200 SE.
| Insight | GeForce2 MX/MX 400 | RADEON 9200 SE |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ✅Better overall value (+33.3%) | ❌Lower cost efficiency |
| 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.
Technical Specifications
Side-by-side comparison of GeForce2 MX/MX 400 and RADEON 9200 SE
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 9200 SE
The RADEON 9200 SE is manufactured by AMD. It was released in January 6 2025. It features the RDNA 3.5 architecture. The core clock ranges from 1295 MHz to 2900 MHz. It has 2560 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 55W. Manufactured using 4 nm process technology. It features 40 dedicated ray tracing cores for enhanced lighting effects. G3D Mark benchmark score: 3 points.
Graphics Performance
In G3D Mark, the GeForce2 MX/MX 400 scores 4 versus the RADEON 9200 SE's 3 — the GeForce2 MX/MX 400 leads by 33.3%. The GeForce2 MX/MX 400 is built on Turing while the RADEON 9200 SE uses RDNA 3.5, both on 12 nm vs 4 nm. Shader units: 896 (GeForce2 MX/MX 400) vs 2,560 (RADEON 9200 SE). Raw compute: 3.226 TFLOPS (GeForce2 MX/MX 400) vs 14.85 TFLOPS (RADEON 9200 SE). Boost clocks: 1575 MHz vs 2900 MHz.
| Feature | GeForce2 MX/MX 400 | RADEON 9200 SE |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 4+33% | 3 |
| Architecture | Turing | RDNA 3.5 |
| Process Node | 12 nm | 4 nm |
| Shading Units | 896 | 2560+186% |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 3.226 TFLOPS | 14.85 TFLOPS+360% |
| Boost Clock | 1575 MHz | 2900 MHz+84% |
| ROPs | 32 | 64+100% |
| TMUs | 64 | 160+150% |
Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)
| Feature | GeForce2 MX/MX 400 | RADEON 9200 SE |
|---|---|---|
| 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 9200 SE has 256 MB. The GeForce2 MX/MX 400 offers 100% more capacity, crucial for higher resolutions and texture-heavy games. Bus width: 64-bit vs 64-bit.
| Feature | GeForce2 MX/MX 400 | RADEON 9200 SE |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 0.5 GB+100% | 0.25 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 (RADEON 9200 SE). OpenGL: 1.2 vs 1.3. Maximum simultaneous displays: 2 vs 2.
| Feature | GeForce2 MX/MX 400 | RADEON 9200 SE |
|---|---|---|
| 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 (RADEON 9200 SE). Decoder: MPEG-2 Decoder vs None. Supported codecs: MPEG-2 (GeForce2 MX/MX 400) vs MPEG-2 (RADEON 9200 SE).
| Feature | GeForce2 MX/MX 400 | RADEON 9200 SE |
|---|---|---|
| Encoder | None | None |
| Decoder | MPEG-2 Decoder | None |
| Codecs | MPEG-2 | MPEG-2 |
Power & Dimensions
The GeForce2 MX/MX 400 draws 25W versus the RADEON 9200 SE's 55W — a 75% difference. The GeForce2 MX/MX 400 is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 350W (GeForce2 MX/MX 400) vs 350W (RADEON 9200 SE). Power connectors: PCIe-powered vs Legacy. Typical load temperature: 55°C vs 60.
| Feature | GeForce2 MX/MX 400 | RADEON 9200 SE |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 25W-55% | 55W |
| Recommended PSU | 350W | 350W |
| Power Connector | PCIe-powered | Legacy |
| Length | — | 168mm |
| Height | 100mm | 111mm |
| Slots | 1 | 1 |
| Temp (Load) | 55°C-8% | 60 |
| Perf/Watt | 0.2+100% | 0.1 |
Value Analysis
The GeForce2 MX/MX 400 launched at $129 MSRP and currently averages $15, while the RADEON 9200 SE launched at $30 and now averages $15. Performance per dollar (G3D Mark / price): 0.3 (GeForce2 MX/MX 400) vs 0.2 (RADEON 9200 SE) — the GeForce2 MX/MX 400 offers 50% better value. The RADEON 9200 SE is the newer GPU (2025 vs 2020).
| Feature | GeForce2 MX/MX 400 | RADEON 9200 SE |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $129 | $30-77% |
| Avg Price (30d) | $15 | $15 |
| Performance per Dollar | 0.3+50% | 0.2 |
| Codename | N17S-G5 / GP107-670-A1 | Strix Halo |
| Release | August 1 2020 | January 6 2025 |
| Ranking | #523 | #98 |
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 9200 SE
