
GeForce3 Ti 200 vs GeForce4 440

GeForce3 Ti 200
Popular choices:

GeForce4 440
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 GeForce3 Ti 200 is positioned at rank 382 and the GeForce4 440 is on rank 755, 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 GeForce3 Ti 200
Performance Per Dollar GeForce4 440
Performance Comparison
About G3D Mark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
⚠️ Generational Difference
The GeForce3 Ti 200 uses modern memory architecture. The GeForce3 Ti 200 likely supports modern features like Ray Tracing, Tensor Cores, and DLSS/FSR upscaling, which act as force multipliers for performance. The GeForce4 440 lacks this hardware feature set, limiting its longevity in modern titles despite any raw power similarities.
🚀 Performance Leadership
The GeForce4 440 is the superior choice for raw performance. It leads with a 25% higher G3D Mark score. This advantage makes it significantly better for higher resolutions (1440p/4K) and graphic-intensive titles compared to the GeForce3 Ti 200.
| Insight | GeForce3 Ti 200 | GeForce4 440 |
|---|---|---|
| Performance | ❌Lower raw frame rates (-25%) | ✅Leading raw performance (+25%) |
| Longevity | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2018 / Turing (2018−2022)) | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2015 / Maxwell (2014−2017)) |
| Ecosystem | Supports FSR Upscaling | Supports FSR Upscaling |
| VRAM | ❌ Less VRAM capacity | ✅ More VRAM (+0%) |
| Efficiency | ⚡ Higher Power Consumption | 💡 Excellent Perf/Watt |
| Case Fit | 📏 Compact / SFF Friendly | 📏 Compact / SFF Friendly |
💎 Value Proposition
The GeForce4 440 offers a compelling cost-to-performance ratio. Although it costs $49 (vs $49), its significant performance lead justifies the premium, offering 25% better value per dollar than the GeForce3 Ti 200.
| Insight | GeForce3 Ti 200 | GeForce4 440 |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ❌Lower cost efficiency | ✅Better overall value (+25%) |
| 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 GeForce3 Ti 200 and GeForce4 440

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.

GeForce4 440
The GeForce4 440 is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in March 13 2015. It features the Maxwell architecture. The core clock ranges from 1072 MHz to 1176 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 GeForce3 Ti 200 scores 4 versus the GeForce4 440's 5 — the GeForce4 440 leads by 25%. The GeForce3 Ti 200 is built on Turing while the GeForce4 440 uses Maxwell, both on 12 nm vs 28 nm. Shader units: 2,944 (GeForce3 Ti 200) vs 384 (GeForce4 440). Raw compute: 10.07 TFLOPS (GeForce3 Ti 200) vs 0.9032 TFLOPS (GeForce4 440). Boost clocks: 1710 MHz vs 1176 MHz.
| Feature | GeForce3 Ti 200 | GeForce4 440 |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 4 | 5+25% |
| Architecture | Turing | Maxwell |
| Process Node | 12 nm | 28 nm |
| Shading Units | 2944+667% | 384 |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 10.07 TFLOPS+1015% | 0.9032 TFLOPS |
| Boost Clock | 1710 MHz+45% | 1176 MHz |
| ROPs | 64+700% | 8 |
| TMUs | 184+667% | 24 |
| L1 Cache | 2.9 MB+1426% | 0.19 MB |
| L2 Cache | 4 MB+300% | 1 MB |
Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)
| Feature | GeForce3 Ti 200 | GeForce4 440 |
|---|---|---|
| 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)
Both cards feature 512 MB of GDDR5. Bus width: 64-bit vs 64-bit. L2 Cache: 4 MB (GeForce3 Ti 200) vs 1 MB (GeForce4 440) — the GeForce3 Ti 200 has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.
| Feature | GeForce3 Ti 200 | GeForce4 440 |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 0.5 GB | 0.5 GB |
| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Bus Width | 64-bit | 64-bit |
| L2 Cache | 4 MB+300% | 1 MB |
Display & API Support
DirectX support: 8.1 (GeForce3 Ti 200) vs 7.0 (GeForce4 440). Vulkan: N/A vs N/A. OpenGL: 1.3 vs 1.5. Maximum simultaneous displays: 2 vs 2.
| Feature | GeForce3 Ti 200 | GeForce4 440 |
|---|---|---|
| DirectX | 8.1+16% | 7.0 |
| Vulkan | N/A | N/A |
| OpenGL | 1.3 | 1.5+15% |
| Max Displays | 2 | 2 |
Media & Encoding
Hardware encoder: None (GeForce3 Ti 200) vs None (GeForce4 440). Decoder: None vs None. Supported codecs: MPEG-2 (GeForce3 Ti 200) vs MPEG-2 (GeForce4 440).
| Feature | GeForce3 Ti 200 | GeForce4 440 |
|---|---|---|
| Encoder | None | None |
| Decoder | None | None |
| Codecs | MPEG-2 | MPEG-2 |
Power & Dimensions
The GeForce3 Ti 200 draws 215W versus the GeForce4 440's 33W — a 146.8% difference. The GeForce4 440 is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 350W (GeForce3 Ti 200) vs 350W (GeForce4 440). Power connectors: PCIe-powered vs PCIe-powered. Card length: 183mm vs 170mm, occupying 1 vs 1 slots. Typical load temperature: 60 vs 70.
| Feature | GeForce3 Ti 200 | GeForce4 440 |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 215W | 33W-85% |
| Recommended PSU | 350W | 350W |
| Power Connector | PCIe-powered | PCIe-powered |
| Length | 183mm | 170mm |
| Height | 100mm | 100mm |
| Slots | 1 | 1 |
| Temp (Load) | 60-14% | 70 |
| Perf/Watt | 0.0 | 0.2 |
Value Analysis
The GeForce3 Ti 200 launched at $149 MSRP and currently averages $49, while the GeForce4 440 launched at $469 and now averages $49. Performance per dollar (G3D Mark / price): 0.1 (GeForce3 Ti 200) vs 0.1 (GeForce4 440) — the GeForce4 440 offers 0% better value. The GeForce3 Ti 200 is the newer GPU (2018 vs 2015).
| Feature | GeForce3 Ti 200 | GeForce4 440 |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $149-68% | $469 |
| Avg Price (30d) | $49 | $49 |
| Performance per Dollar | 0.1 | 0.1 |
| Codename | TU104 | GM108 |
| Release | September 20 2018 | March 13 2015 |
| Ranking | #94 | #847 |
Top Performing GPUs
The most powerful gpus ranked by G3D Mark benchmark scores.















