GeForce3 Ti 200 vs RADEON 9200 SE
GeForce3 Ti 200
Popular choices:
RADEON 9200 SE
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 RADEON 9200 SE is on rank 742, 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 RADEON 9200 SE
Performance Comparison
About G3D Mark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
⚠️ Generational Difference
The RADEON 9200 SE is significantly newer (2025 vs 2018). The RADEON 9200 SE likely supports modern features like Ray Tracing, Tensor Cores, and DLSS/FSR upscaling, which act as force multipliers for performance. The GeForce3 Ti 200 lacks this hardware feature set, limiting its longevity in modern titles despite any raw power similarities.
🚀 Performance Leadership
The GeForce3 Ti 200 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 9200 SE.
| Insight | GeForce3 Ti 200 | RADEON 9200 SE |
|---|---|---|
| Performance | ✅Leading raw performance (+33.3%) | ❌Lower raw frame rates (-33.3%) |
| Longevity | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2018 / Turing (2018−2022)) | RDNA 3.5 (2024−2025) (4nm) |
| Ecosystem | Supports FSR Upscaling | Supports FSR Upscaling |
| VRAM | ✅ More VRAM (+100%) | ❌ Less VRAM capacity |
| Efficiency | ⚡ Higher Power Consumption | 💡 Excellent Perf/Watt |
| Case Fit | 📏 Compact / SFF Friendly | 📏 Compact / SFF Friendly |
💎 Value Proposition
The RADEON 9200 SE offers a compelling cost-to-performance ratio. Priced at $15 versus $49 for the GeForce3 Ti 200, it costs 69% less. While it maintains basic entry-level capabilities, this results in a 145% higher cost efficiency score.
| Insight | GeForce3 Ti 200 | RADEON 9200 SE |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ❌Lower cost efficiency | ✅Better overall value (+145%) |
| Upfront Cost | ⚠️Higher upfront cost ($49) | ✅More affordable ($15) |
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 RADEON 9200 SE
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.
RADEON 9200 SE
The RADEON 9200 SE is manufactured by AMD. It was released in January 6 2025. It features the RDNA 3.5 architecture. The core clock ranges from 1295 MHz to 2900 MHz. It has 2560 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 55W. Manufactured using 4 nm process technology. It features 40 dedicated ray tracing cores for enhanced lighting effects. G3D Mark benchmark score: 3 points.
Graphics Performance
In G3D Mark, the GeForce3 Ti 200 scores 4 versus the RADEON 9200 SE's 3 — the GeForce3 Ti 200 leads by 33.3%. The GeForce3 Ti 200 is built on Turing while the RADEON 9200 SE uses RDNA 3.5, both on 12 nm vs 4 nm. Shader units: 2,944 (GeForce3 Ti 200) vs 2,560 (RADEON 9200 SE). Raw compute: 10.07 TFLOPS (GeForce3 Ti 200) vs 14.85 TFLOPS (RADEON 9200 SE). Boost clocks: 1710 MHz vs 2900 MHz. Ray tracing: 46 RT cores (GeForce3 Ti 200) vs 40 (RADEON 9200 SE) with 368 Tensor cores.
| Feature | GeForce3 Ti 200 | RADEON 9200 SE |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 4+33% | 3 |
| Architecture | Turing | RDNA 3.5 |
| Process Node | 12 nm | 4 nm |
| Shading Units | 2944+15% | 2560 |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 10.07 TFLOPS | 14.85 TFLOPS+47% |
| Boost Clock | 1710 MHz | 2900 MHz+70% |
| ROPs | 64 | 64 |
| TMUs | 184+15% | 160 |
| L2 Cache | 4 MB | 8 MB+100% |
| Ray Tracing Cores | 46+15% | 40 |
Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)
| Feature | GeForce3 Ti 200 | RADEON 9200 SE |
|---|---|---|
| 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 GeForce3 Ti 200 comes with 512 MB of VRAM, while the RADEON 9200 SE has 256 MB. The GeForce3 Ti 200 offers 100% more capacity, crucial for higher resolutions and texture-heavy games. Bus width: 64-bit vs 64-bit. L2 Cache: 4 MB (GeForce3 Ti 200) vs 8 MB (RADEON 9200 SE) — the RADEON 9200 SE has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.
| Feature | GeForce3 Ti 200 | RADEON 9200 SE |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 0.5 GB+100% | 0.25 GB |
| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Bus Width | 64-bit | 64-bit |
| L2 Cache | 4 MB | 8 MB+100% |
Display & API Support
DirectX support: 8.1 (GeForce3 Ti 200) vs 8.1 (RADEON 9200 SE). Vulkan: N/A vs N/A. OpenGL: 1.3 vs 1.3. Maximum simultaneous displays: 2 vs 2.
| Feature | GeForce3 Ti 200 | RADEON 9200 SE |
|---|---|---|
| DirectX | 8.1 | 8.1 |
| Vulkan | N/A | N/A |
| OpenGL | 1.3 | 1.3 |
| Max Displays | 2 | 2 |
Media & Encoding
Hardware encoder: None (GeForce3 Ti 200) vs None (RADEON 9200 SE). Decoder: None vs None. Supported codecs: MPEG-2 (GeForce3 Ti 200) vs MPEG-2 (RADEON 9200 SE).
| Feature | GeForce3 Ti 200 | RADEON 9200 SE |
|---|---|---|
| Encoder | None | None |
| Decoder | None | None |
| Codecs | MPEG-2 | MPEG-2 |
Power & Dimensions
The GeForce3 Ti 200 draws 215W versus the RADEON 9200 SE's 55W — a 118.5% difference. The RADEON 9200 SE is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 350W (GeForce3 Ti 200) vs 350W (RADEON 9200 SE). Power connectors: PCIe-powered vs Legacy. Card length: 183mm vs 168mm, occupying 1 vs 1 slots. Typical load temperature: 60 vs 60.
| Feature | GeForce3 Ti 200 | RADEON 9200 SE |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 215W | 55W-74% |
| Recommended PSU | 350W | 350W |
| Power Connector | PCIe-powered | Legacy |
| Length | 183mm | 168mm |
| Height | 100mm | 111mm |
| Slots | 1 | 1 |
| Temp (Load) | 60 | 60 |
| Perf/Watt | 0.0 | 0.1 |
Value Analysis
The GeForce3 Ti 200 launched at $149 MSRP and currently averages $49, while the RADEON 9200 SE launched at $30 and now averages $15. The RADEON 9200 SE costs 69.4% less ($34 savings) at current market prices. Performance per dollar (G3D Mark / price): 0.1 (GeForce3 Ti 200) vs 0.2 (RADEON 9200 SE) — the RADEON 9200 SE offers 100% better value. The RADEON 9200 SE is the newer GPU (2025 vs 2018).
| Feature | GeForce3 Ti 200 | RADEON 9200 SE |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $149 | $30-80% |
| Avg Price (30d) | $49 | $15-69% |
| Performance per Dollar | 0.1 | 0.2+100% |
| Codename | TU104 | Strix Halo |
| Release | September 20 2018 | January 6 2025 |
| Ranking | #94 | #98 |
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 RADEON 9200 SE
