GeForce3 Ti 200 vs GeForce4 Ti 4800
GeForce3 Ti 200
Popular choices:
GeForce4 Ti 4800
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 Ti 4800 is on rank 384, 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 Ti 4800
Performance Comparison
About G3D Mark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
⚠️ Generational Difference
The GeForce3 Ti 200 is significantly newer (2018 vs 2010). 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 Ti 4800 lacks this hardware feature set, limiting its longevity in modern titles despite any raw power similarities.
🚀 Performance Leadership
The GeForce4 Ti 4800 is the superior choice for raw performance. It leads with a 50% 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 Ti 4800 |
|---|---|---|
| Performance | ❌Lower raw frame rates (-50%) | ✅Leading raw performance (+50%) |
| Longevity | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2018 / Turing (2018−2022)) | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2010 / Fermi (2010−2014)) |
| 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 Ti 4800 offers a compelling cost-to-performance ratio. Priced at $40 versus $49 for the GeForce3 Ti 200, it costs 18% less. While it maintains basic entry-level capabilities, this results in a 83.8% higher cost efficiency score.
| Insight | GeForce3 Ti 200 | GeForce4 Ti 4800 |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ❌Lower cost efficiency | ✅Better overall value (+83.8%) |
| Upfront Cost | ⚠️Higher upfront cost ($49) | ✅More affordable ($40) |
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 Ti 4800
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 Ti 4800
The GeForce4 Ti 4800 is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in March 26 2010. It features the Fermi architecture. The core clock speed is 700 MHz. It has 480 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 250W. Manufactured using 40 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 6 points. Launch price was $499.
Graphics Performance
In G3D Mark, the GeForce3 Ti 200 scores 4 versus the GeForce4 Ti 4800's 6 — the GeForce4 Ti 4800 leads by 50%. The GeForce3 Ti 200 is built on Turing while the GeForce4 Ti 4800 uses Fermi, both on 12 nm vs 40 nm. Shader units: 2,944 (GeForce3 Ti 200) vs 480 (GeForce4 Ti 4800). Raw compute: 10.07 TFLOPS (GeForce3 Ti 200) vs 1.345 TFLOPS (GeForce4 Ti 4800).
| Feature | GeForce3 Ti 200 | GeForce4 Ti 4800 |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 4 | 6+50% |
| Architecture | Turing | Fermi |
| Process Node | 12 nm | 40 nm |
| Shading Units | 2944+513% | 480 |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 10.07 TFLOPS+649% | 1.345 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 64+33% | 48 |
| TMUs | 184+207% | 60 |
| L1 Cache | 2.9 MB+209% | 0.94 MB |
| L2 Cache | 4 MB+433% | 0.75 MB |
Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)
| Feature | GeForce3 Ti 200 | GeForce4 Ti 4800 |
|---|---|---|
| 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 0.75 MB (GeForce4 Ti 4800) — the GeForce3 Ti 200 has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.
| Feature | GeForce3 Ti 200 | GeForce4 Ti 4800 |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 0.5 GB | 0.5 GB |
| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Bus Width | 64-bit | 64-bit |
| L2 Cache | 4 MB+433% | 0.75 MB |
Display & API Support
DirectX support: 8.1 (GeForce3 Ti 200) vs 8.1 (GeForce4 Ti 4800). Vulkan: N/A vs None. OpenGL: 1.3 vs 1.3. Maximum simultaneous displays: 2 vs 2.
| Feature | GeForce3 Ti 200 | GeForce4 Ti 4800 |
|---|---|---|
| DirectX | 8.1 | 8.1 |
| Vulkan | N/A | None |
| OpenGL | 1.3 | 1.3 |
| Max Displays | 2 | 2 |
Media & Encoding
Hardware encoder: None (GeForce3 Ti 200) vs No (GeForce4 Ti 4800). Decoder: None vs No.
| Feature | GeForce3 Ti 200 | GeForce4 Ti 4800 |
|---|---|---|
| Encoder | None | No |
| Decoder | None | No |
| Codecs | MPEG-2 |
Power & Dimensions
The GeForce3 Ti 200 draws 215W versus the GeForce4 Ti 4800's 250W — a 15.1% difference. The GeForce3 Ti 200 is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 350W (GeForce3 Ti 200) vs 350W (GeForce4 Ti 4800). Power connectors: PCIe-powered vs PCIe-powered. Card length: 183mm vs 216mm, occupying 1 vs 1 slots. Typical load temperature: 60 vs 65°C.
| Feature | GeForce3 Ti 200 | GeForce4 Ti 4800 |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 215W-14% | 250W |
| Recommended PSU | 350W | 350W |
| Power Connector | PCIe-powered | PCIe-powered |
| Length | 183mm | 216mm |
| Height | 100mm | 111mm |
| Slots | 1 | 1 |
| Temp (Load) | 60-8% | 65°C |
| Perf/Watt | 0.0 | 0.0 |
Value Analysis
The GeForce3 Ti 200 launched at $149 MSRP and currently averages $49, while the GeForce4 Ti 4800 launched at $399 and now averages $40. The GeForce4 Ti 4800 costs 18.4% less ($9 savings) at current market prices. Performance per dollar (G3D Mark / price): 0.1 (GeForce3 Ti 200) vs 0.1 (GeForce4 Ti 4800) — the GeForce4 Ti 4800 offers 0% better value. The GeForce3 Ti 200 is the newer GPU (2018 vs 2010).
| Feature | GeForce3 Ti 200 | GeForce4 Ti 4800 |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $149-63% | $399 |
| Avg Price (30d) | $49 | $40-18% |
| Performance per Dollar | 0.1 | 0.1 |
| Codename | TU104 | GF100 |
| Release | September 20 2018 | March 26 2010 |
| Ranking | #94 | #488 |
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 Ti 4800
