GeForce3 Ti 500 vs GeForce4 MX 460
GeForce3 Ti 500
Popular choices:
GeForce4 MX 460
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 500 is positioned at rank 390 and the GeForce4 MX 460 is on rank 384, so the GeForce4 MX 460 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 500
Performance Per Dollar GeForce4 MX 460
Performance Comparison
About G3D Mark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
⚠️ Generational Difference
The GeForce3 Ti 500 is significantly newer (2025 vs 2010). The GeForce3 Ti 500 likely supports modern features like Ray Tracing, Tensor Cores, and DLSS/FSR upscaling, which act as force multipliers for performance. The GeForce4 MX 460 lacks this hardware feature set, limiting its longevity in modern titles despite any raw power similarities.
🚀 Performance Leadership
The GeForce4 MX 460 is the superior choice for raw performance. It leads with a 33.3% higher G3D Mark score. However, the GeForce3 Ti 500 offers more VRAM, which may be beneficial for texture-heavy scenarios at higher resolutions.
| Insight | GeForce3 Ti 500 | GeForce4 MX 460 |
|---|---|---|
| Performance | ❌Lower raw frame rates (-33.3%) | ✅Leading raw performance (+33.3%) |
| Longevity | Blackwell 2.0 (2025−2026) (5nm) | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2010 / Fermi (2010−2014)) |
| Ecosystem | Supports FSR Upscaling | Supports FSR Upscaling |
| VRAM | ✅ More VRAM (+300%) | ❌ Less VRAM capacity |
| Efficiency | ⚡ Higher Power Consumption | 💡 Excellent Perf/Watt |
| Case Fit | 📏 Compact / SFF Friendly | 📏 Compact / SFF Friendly |
💎 Value Proposition
The GeForce4 MX 460 offers a compelling cost-to-performance ratio. Priced at $15 versus $49 for the GeForce3 Ti 500, it costs 69% less. While it maintains basic entry-level capabilities, this results in a 335.6% higher cost efficiency score.
| Insight | GeForce3 Ti 500 | GeForce4 MX 460 |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ❌Lower cost efficiency | ✅Better overall value (+335.6%) |
| 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 500 and GeForce4 MX 460
GeForce3 Ti 500
The GeForce3 Ti 500 is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in January 30 2025. It features the Blackwell 2.0 architecture. The core clock ranges from 2017 MHz to 2407 MHz. It has 21760 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 575W. Manufactured using 5 nm process technology. It features 170 dedicated ray tracing cores for enhanced lighting effects. G3D Mark benchmark score: 3 points. Launch price was $1,999.
GeForce4 MX 460
The GeForce4 MX 460 is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in July 12 2010. It features the Fermi architecture. The core clock speed is 675 MHz. It has 336 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 160W. Manufactured using 40 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 4 points. Launch price was $229.
Graphics Performance
In G3D Mark, the GeForce3 Ti 500 scores 3 versus the GeForce4 MX 460's 4 — the GeForce4 MX 460 leads by 33.3%. The GeForce3 Ti 500 is built on Blackwell 2.0 while the GeForce4 MX 460 uses Fermi, both on 5 nm vs 40 nm. Shader units: 21,760 (GeForce3 Ti 500) vs 336 (GeForce4 MX 460). Raw compute: 104.8 TFLOPS (GeForce3 Ti 500) vs 0.9072 TFLOPS (GeForce4 MX 460).
| Feature | GeForce3 Ti 500 | GeForce4 MX 460 |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 3 | 4+33% |
| Architecture | Blackwell 2.0 | Fermi |
| Process Node | 5 nm | 40 nm |
| Shading Units | 21760+6376% | 336 |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 104.8 TFLOPS+11452% | 0.9072 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 176+450% | 32 |
| TMUs | 680+1114% | 56 |
| L1 Cache | 21.3 MB+4741% | 0.44 MB |
| L2 Cache | 96 MB+19100% | 0.5 MB |
Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)
| Feature | GeForce3 Ti 500 | GeForce4 MX 460 |
|---|---|---|
| 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 GeForce3 Ti 500 comes with 512 MB of VRAM, while the GeForce4 MX 460 has 128 MB. The GeForce3 Ti 500 offers 300% more capacity, crucial for higher resolutions and texture-heavy games. Bus width: 64-bit vs 64-bit. L2 Cache: 96 MB (GeForce3 Ti 500) vs 0.5 MB (GeForce4 MX 460) — the GeForce3 Ti 500 has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.
| Feature | GeForce3 Ti 500 | GeForce4 MX 460 |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 0.5 GB+300% | 0.125 GB |
| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Bus Width | 64-bit | 64-bit |
| L2 Cache | 96 MB+19100% | 0.5 MB |
Display & API Support
DirectX support: 8.1 (GeForce3 Ti 500) vs 7.0 (GeForce4 MX 460). Vulkan: N/A vs None. OpenGL: 1.5 vs 1.3. Maximum simultaneous displays: 2 vs 1.
| Feature | GeForce3 Ti 500 | GeForce4 MX 460 |
|---|---|---|
| DirectX | 8.1+16% | 7.0 |
| Vulkan | N/A | None |
| OpenGL | 1.5+15% | 1.3 |
| Max Displays | 2+100% | 1 |
Media & Encoding
Hardware encoder: None (GeForce3 Ti 500) vs No (GeForce4 MX 460). Decoder: MPEG-2 vs No.
| Feature | GeForce3 Ti 500 | GeForce4 MX 460 |
|---|---|---|
| Encoder | None | No |
| Decoder | MPEG-2 | No |
| Codecs | MPEG-2 |
Power & Dimensions
The GeForce3 Ti 500 draws 575W versus the GeForce4 MX 460's 160W — a 112.9% difference. The GeForce4 MX 460 is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 350W (GeForce3 Ti 500) vs 350W (GeForce4 MX 460). Power connectors: PCIe-powered vs PCIe-powered. Card length: 183mm vs 165mm, occupying 1 vs 1 slots. Typical load temperature: 80 vs 60°C.
| Feature | GeForce3 Ti 500 | GeForce4 MX 460 |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 575W | 160W-72% |
| Recommended PSU | 350W | 350W |
| Power Connector | PCIe-powered | PCIe-powered |
| Length | 183mm | 165mm |
| Height | 0mm | 100mm |
| Slots | 1 | 1 |
| Temp (Load) | 80 | 60°C-25% |
| Perf/Watt | 0.0 | 0.0 |
Value Analysis
The GeForce3 Ti 500 launched at $349 MSRP and currently averages $49, while the GeForce4 MX 460 launched at $179 and now averages $15. The GeForce4 MX 460 costs 69.4% less ($34 savings) at current market prices. Performance per dollar (G3D Mark / price): 0.1 (GeForce3 Ti 500) vs 0.3 (GeForce4 MX 460) — the GeForce4 MX 460 offers 200% better value. The GeForce3 Ti 500 is the newer GPU (2025 vs 2010).
| Feature | GeForce3 Ti 500 | GeForce4 MX 460 |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $349 | $179-49% |
| Avg Price (30d) | $49 | $15-69% |
| Performance per Dollar | 0.1 | 0.3+200% |
| Codename | GB202 | GF104 |
| Release | January 30 2025 | July 12 2010 |
| Ranking | #3 | #652 |
Top Performing GPUs
The most powerful gpus ranked by G3D Mark benchmark scores.
You May Also Compare
Similar GPU comparisons based on GeForce3 Ti 500 and GeForce4 MX 460
