
GeForce2 MX vs GeForce3 Ti 200

GeForce2 MX
Popular choices:

GeForce3 Ti 200
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 is positioned at rank 754 and the GeForce3 Ti 200 is on rank 382, so the GeForce3 Ti 200 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
Performance Per Dollar GeForce3 Ti 200
Performance Comparison
About G3D Mark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
🚀 Performance Leadership
The GeForce3 Ti 200 is the superior choice for raw performance. It leads with a 33.3% higher G3D Mark score and 693.7% more VRAM (512 MB vs 65 MB). This advantage makes it significantly better for higher resolutions (1440p/4K) and graphic-intensive titles compared to the GeForce2 MX.
| Insight | GeForce2 MX | GeForce3 Ti 200 |
|---|---|---|
| Performance | ❌Lower raw frame rates (-33.3%) | ✅Leading raw performance (+33.3%) |
| Longevity | Ampere (2020−2025) (8nm) | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2018 / Turing (2018−2022)) |
| Ecosystem | Supports FSR Upscaling | Supports FSR Upscaling |
| VRAM | ❌ Less VRAM capacity | ✅ More VRAM (+693.7%) |
| Efficiency | 💡 Excellent Perf/Watt | ⚡ Higher Power Consumption |
| Case Fit | 📏 Compact / SFF Friendly | 📏 Compact / SFF Friendly |
💎 Value Proposition
The GeForce3 Ti 200 offers a compelling cost-to-performance ratio. Although it costs $49 (vs $49), its significant performance lead justifies the premium, offering 33.3% better value per dollar than the GeForce2 MX.
| Insight | GeForce2 MX | GeForce3 Ti 200 |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ❌Lower cost efficiency | ✅Better overall value (+33.3%) |
| 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 and GeForce3 Ti 200

GeForce2 MX
The GeForce2 MX is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in Maio 2022. It features the Ampere architecture. The core clock ranges from 832 MHz to 1155 MHz. It has 2048 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 25W. Manufactured using 8 nm process technology. It features 16 dedicated ray tracing cores for enhanced lighting effects. G3D Mark benchmark score: 3 points.

GeForce3 Ti 200
The GeForce3 Ti 200 is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in September 20 2018. It features the Turing architecture. The core clock ranges from 1515 MHz to 1710 MHz. It has 2944 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 215W. Manufactured using 12 nm process technology. It features 46 dedicated ray tracing cores for enhanced lighting effects. G3D Mark benchmark score: 4 points. Launch price was $699.
Graphics Performance
In G3D Mark, the GeForce2 MX scores 3 versus the GeForce3 Ti 200's 4 — the GeForce3 Ti 200 leads by 33.3%. The GeForce2 MX is built on Ampere while the GeForce3 Ti 200 uses Turing, both on 8 nm vs 12 nm. Shader units: 2,048 (GeForce2 MX) vs 2,944 (GeForce3 Ti 200). Raw compute: 4.731 TFLOPS (GeForce2 MX) vs 10.07 TFLOPS (GeForce3 Ti 200). Boost clocks: 1155 MHz vs 1710 MHz. Ray tracing: 16 RT cores (GeForce2 MX) vs 46 (GeForce3 Ti 200) with 64 Tensor cores vs 368.
| Feature | GeForce2 MX | GeForce3 Ti 200 |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 3 | 4+33% |
| Architecture | Ampere | Turing |
| Process Node | 8 nm | 12 nm |
| Shading Units | 2048 | 2944+44% |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 4.731 TFLOPS | 10.07 TFLOPS+113% |
| Boost Clock | 1155 MHz | 1710 MHz+48% |
| ROPs | 40 | 64+60% |
| TMUs | 64 | 184+188% |
| L1 Cache | 2 MB | 2.9 MB+45% |
| L2 Cache | 2 MB | 4 MB+100% |
| Ray Tracing Cores | 16 | 46+188% |
| Tensor Cores | 64 | 368+475% |
Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)
| Feature | GeForce2 MX | GeForce3 Ti 200 |
|---|---|---|
| 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 comes with 65 MB of VRAM, while the GeForce3 Ti 200 has 512 MB. The GeForce3 Ti 200 offers 693.7% more capacity, crucial for higher resolutions and texture-heavy games. Bus width: 64-bit vs 64-bit. L2 Cache: 2 MB (GeForce2 MX) vs 4 MB (GeForce3 Ti 200) — the GeForce3 Ti 200 has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.
| Feature | GeForce2 MX | GeForce3 Ti 200 |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 0.063 GB | 0.5 GB+694% |
| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Bus Width | 64-bit | 64-bit |
| L2 Cache | 2 MB | 4 MB+100% |
Display & API Support
DirectX support: 7.0 (GeForce2 MX) vs 8.1 (GeForce3 Ti 200). OpenGL: 1.2 vs 1.3. Maximum simultaneous displays: 2 vs 2.
| Feature | GeForce2 MX | GeForce3 Ti 200 |
|---|---|---|
| DirectX | 7.0 | 8.1+16% |
| OpenGL | 1.2 | 1.3+8% |
| Max Displays | 2 | 2 |
Media & Encoding
Hardware encoder: None (GeForce2 MX) vs None (GeForce3 Ti 200). Decoder: MPEG-2 Decoder vs None. Supported codecs: MPEG-2 (GeForce2 MX) vs MPEG-2 (GeForce3 Ti 200).
| Feature | GeForce2 MX | GeForce3 Ti 200 |
|---|---|---|
| Encoder | None | None |
| Decoder | MPEG-2 Decoder | None |
| Codecs | MPEG-2 | MPEG-2 |
Power & Dimensions
The GeForce2 MX draws 25W versus the GeForce3 Ti 200's 215W — a 158.3% difference. The GeForce2 MX is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 350W (GeForce2 MX) vs 350W (GeForce3 Ti 200). Power connectors: PCIe-powered vs PCIe-powered. Card length: 160mm vs 183mm, occupying 1 vs 1 slots. Typical load temperature: 60°C vs 60.
| Feature | GeForce2 MX | GeForce3 Ti 200 |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 25W-88% | 215W |
| Recommended PSU | 350W | 350W |
| Power Connector | PCIe-powered | PCIe-powered |
| Length | 160mm | 183mm |
| Height | 111mm | 100mm |
| Slots | 1 | 1 |
| Temp (Load) | 60°C | 60 |
| Perf/Watt | 0.1 | 0.0 |
Value Analysis
The GeForce2 MX launched at $129 MSRP and currently averages $49, while the GeForce3 Ti 200 launched at $149 and now averages $49. Performance per dollar (G3D Mark / price): 0.1 (GeForce2 MX) vs 0.1 (GeForce3 Ti 200) — the GeForce3 Ti 200 offers 0% better value. The GeForce2 MX is the newer GPU (2022 vs 2018).
| Feature | GeForce2 MX | GeForce3 Ti 200 |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $129-13% | $149 |
| Avg Price (30d) | $49 | $49 |
| Performance per Dollar | 0.1 | 0.1 |
| Codename | GA107 | TU104 |
| Release | Maio 2022 | September 20 2018 |
| Ranking | #407 | #94 |
Top Performing GPUs
The most powerful gpus ranked by G3D Mark benchmark scores.















