GeForce3 Ti 200 vs GeForce4 MX 4000
GeForce3 Ti 200
Popular choices:
GeForce4 MX 4000
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. The GeForce3 Ti 200 is positioned at rank #382 in our cost-efficiency ranking, representing a Lower cost-benefit for your build. Components placed above yours deliver better value for money.
Avg price is the current average price collected from markets across the web.
Performance Per Dollar GeForce3 Ti 200
Performance Per Dollar
Performance Comparison
About G3D Mark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
🚀 Performance Leadership
The GeForce4 MX 4000 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 MX 4000 |
|---|---|---|
| Performance | ❌Lower raw frame rates (-25%) | ✅Leading raw performance (+25%) |
| Longevity | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2018 / Turing (2018−2022)) | Turing (2018−2022) (12nm) |
| 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 MX 4000 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 MX 4000 |
|---|---|---|
| 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 MX 4000
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 MX 4000
The GeForce4 MX 4000 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: 5 points.
Graphics Performance
In G3D Mark, the GeForce3 Ti 200 scores 4 versus the GeForce4 MX 4000's 5 — the GeForce4 MX 4000 leads by 25%. The GeForce3 Ti 200 is built on Turing while the GeForce4 MX 4000 uses Turing, both on a 12 nm process. Shader units: 2,944 (GeForce3 Ti 200) vs 896 (GeForce4 MX 4000). Raw compute: 10.07 TFLOPS (GeForce3 Ti 200) vs 3.226 TFLOPS (GeForce4 MX 4000). Boost clocks: 1710 MHz vs 1575 MHz.
| Feature | GeForce3 Ti 200 | GeForce4 MX 4000 |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 4 | 5+25% |
| Architecture | Turing | Turing |
| Process Node | 12 nm | 12 nm |
| Shading Units | 2944+229% | 896 |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 10.07 TFLOPS+212% | 3.226 TFLOPS |
| Boost Clock | 1710 MHz+9% | 1575 MHz |
| ROPs | 64+100% | 32 |
| TMUs | 184+188% | 64 |
Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)
| Feature | GeForce3 Ti 200 | GeForce4 MX 4000 |
|---|---|---|
| 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.
| Feature | GeForce3 Ti 200 | GeForce4 MX 4000 |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 0.5 GB | 0.5 GB |
| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Bus Width | 64-bit | 64-bit |
Display & API Support
DirectX support: 8.1 (GeForce3 Ti 200) vs 7.0 (GeForce4 MX 4000). OpenGL: 1.3 vs 1.5. Maximum simultaneous displays: 2 vs 2.
| Feature | GeForce3 Ti 200 | GeForce4 MX 4000 |
|---|---|---|
| DirectX | 8.1+16% | 7.0 |
| OpenGL | 1.3 | 1.5+15% |
| Max Displays | 2 | 2 |
Media & Encoding
Hardware encoder: None (GeForce3 Ti 200) vs None (GeForce4 MX 4000). Decoder: None vs MPEG-2 Decoder. Supported codecs: MPEG-2 (GeForce3 Ti 200) vs MPEG-2 (GeForce4 MX 4000).
| Feature | GeForce3 Ti 200 | GeForce4 MX 4000 |
|---|---|---|
| Encoder | None | None |
| Decoder | None | MPEG-2 Decoder |
| Codecs | MPEG-2 | MPEG-2 |
Power & Dimensions
The GeForce3 Ti 200 draws 215W versus the GeForce4 MX 4000's 25W — a 158.3% difference. The GeForce4 MX 4000 is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 350W (GeForce3 Ti 200) vs 350W (GeForce4 MX 4000). Power connectors: PCIe-powered vs PCIe-powered. Card length: 183mm vs 168mm, occupying 1 vs 1 slots. Typical load temperature: 60 vs 60°C.
| Feature | GeForce3 Ti 200 | GeForce4 MX 4000 |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 215W | 25W-88% |
| Recommended PSU | 350W | 350W |
| Power Connector | PCIe-powered | PCIe-powered |
| Length | 183mm | 168mm |
| Height | 100mm | 100mm |
| Slots | 1 | 1 |
| Temp (Load) | 60 | 60°C |
| Perf/Watt | 0.0 | 0.2 |
Value Analysis
The GeForce3 Ti 200 launched at $149 MSRP and currently averages $49, while the GeForce4 MX 4000 launched at $0 and now averages $49. Performance per dollar (G3D Mark / price): 0.1 (GeForce3 Ti 200) vs 0.1 (GeForce4 MX 4000) — the GeForce4 MX 4000 offers 0% better value. The GeForce4 MX 4000 is the newer GPU (2020 vs 2018).
| Feature | GeForce3 Ti 200 | GeForce4 MX 4000 |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $149 | $0-100% |
| Avg Price (30d) | $49 | $49 |
| Performance per Dollar | 0.1 | 0.1 |
| Codename | TU104 | N17S-G5 / GP107-670-A1 |
| Release | September 20 2018 | August 1 2020 |
| Ranking | #94 | #523 |
Top Performing GPUs
The most powerful gpus ranked by G3D Mark benchmark scores.
You May Also Compare
Similar GPU comparisons based on GeForce3 Ti 200 and GeForce4 MX 4000
