CPU
GPU
GeForce2 MX/MX 400
Popular choices:
RADEON 9250
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 9250 is on rank 748, so the RADEON 9250 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 9250
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 RADEON 9250 lacks this hardware feature set, limiting its longevity in modern titles despite any raw power similarities.
🚀 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 9250.
| Insight | GeForce2 MX/MX 400 | RADEON 9250 |
|---|---|---|
| Performance | ✅Leading raw performance (+33.3%) | ❌Lower raw frame rates (-33.3%) |
| Longevity | Turing (2018−2022) (12nm) | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2015 / GCN 3.0 (2014−2019)) |
| Ecosystem | Supports FSR Upscaling | Supports FSR Upscaling |
| VRAM | ✅ More VRAM (+100%) | ❌ Less VRAM capacity |
| Efficiency | 💡 Excellent Perf/Watt | ⚡ Higher Power Consumption |
| Case Fit | — | — |
💎 Value Proposition
The GeForce2 MX/MX 400 offers a compelling cost-to-performance ratio. Priced at $15 versus $25 for the RADEON 9250, it costs 40% less. While it maintains basic entry-level capabilities, this results in a 122.2% higher cost efficiency score.
| Insight | GeForce2 MX/MX 400 | RADEON 9250 |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ✅Better overall value (+122.2%) | ❌Lower cost efficiency |
| Upfront Cost | ✅More affordable ($15) | ⚠️Higher upfront cost ($25) |
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 9250
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 9250
The RADEON 9250 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in September 29 2015. It features the GCN 3.0 architecture. The core clock ranges from 735 MHz to 1000 MHz. It has 2048 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 95W. Manufactured using 28 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 3 points.
Graphics Performance
In G3D Mark, the GeForce2 MX/MX 400 scores 4 versus the RADEON 9250's 3 — the GeForce2 MX/MX 400 leads by 33.3%. The GeForce2 MX/MX 400 is built on Turing while the RADEON 9250 uses GCN 3.0, both on 12 nm vs 28 nm. Shader units: 896 (GeForce2 MX/MX 400) vs 2,048 (RADEON 9250). Raw compute: 3.226 TFLOPS (GeForce2 MX/MX 400) vs 4.096 TFLOPS (RADEON 9250). Boost clocks: 1575 MHz vs 1000 MHz.
| Feature | GeForce2 MX/MX 400 | RADEON 9250 |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 4+33% | 3 |
| Architecture | Turing | GCN 3.0 |
| Process Node | 12 nm | 28 nm |
| Shading Units | 896 | 2048+129% |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 3.226 TFLOPS | 4.096 TFLOPS+27% |
| Boost Clock | 1575 MHz+57% | 1000 MHz |
| ROPs | 32 | 32 |
| TMUs | 64 | 128+100% |
Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)
| Feature | GeForce2 MX/MX 400 | RADEON 9250 |
|---|---|---|
| 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 9250 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 9250 |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 0.5 GB+100% | 0.25 GB |
| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Bus Width | 64-bit | 64-bit |
Power & Dimensions
The GeForce2 MX/MX 400 draws 25W versus the RADEON 9250's 95W — a 116.7% difference. The GeForce2 MX/MX 400 is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 350W (GeForce2 MX/MX 400) vs 350W (RADEON 9250). Power connectors: PCIe-powered vs Legacy.
| Feature | GeForce2 MX/MX 400 | RADEON 9250 |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 25W-74% | 95W |
| Recommended PSU | 350W | 350W |
| Power Connector | PCIe-powered | Legacy |
| Height | 100mm | — |
| Slots | 1 | — |
| Temp (Load) | 55°C | — |
| Perf/Watt | 0.2 | 0.0 |
Value Analysis
The GeForce2 MX/MX 400 launched at $129 MSRP and currently averages $15, while the RADEON 9250 launched at $79 and now averages $25. The GeForce2 MX/MX 400 costs 40% less ($10 savings) at current market prices. Performance per dollar (G3D Mark / price): 0.3 (GeForce2 MX/MX 400) vs 0.1 (RADEON 9250) — 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 | RADEON 9250 |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $129 | $79-39% |
| Avg Price (30d) | $15-40% | $25 |
| Performance per Dollar | 0.3+200% | 0.1 |
| Codename | N17S-G5 / GP107-670-A1 | Amethyst |
| Release | August 1 2020 | September 29 2015 |
| Ranking | #523 | #420 |
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 9250
