CPU
GPU
GeForce3
Popular choices:
GeForce2 MX/MX 400
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 is positioned at rank 755 and the GeForce2 MX/MX 400 is on rank 750, so the GeForce2 MX/MX 400 offers better cost-efficiency for playing games.
Avg price is the current average price collected from markets across the web.
Performance Per Dollar GeForce3
Performance Per Dollar GeForce2 MX/MX 400
Performance Comparison
About G3D Mark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
⚠️ Generational Difference
The GeForce2 MX/MX 400 uses modern memory architecture. The GeForce2 MX/MX 400 likely supports modern features like Ray Tracing, Tensor Cores, and DLSS/FSR upscaling, which act as force multipliers for performance. The GeForce3 lacks this hardware feature set, limiting its longevity in modern titles despite any raw power similarities.
🚀 Performance Leadership
The GeForce3 is the superior choice for raw performance. It leads with a 25% higher G3D Mark score. However, the GeForce2 MX/MX 400 offers more VRAM, which may be beneficial for texture-heavy scenarios at higher resolutions.
| Insight | GeForce3 | GeForce2 MX/MX 400 |
|---|---|---|
| Performance | ✅Leading raw performance (+25%) | ❌Lower raw frame rates (-25%) |
| Longevity | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2015 / Maxwell (2014−2017)) | Turing (2018−2022) (12nm) |
| Ecosystem | Supports FSR Upscaling | Supports FSR Upscaling |
| VRAM | ❌ Less VRAM capacity | ✅ More VRAM (+693.7%) |
| Efficiency | Normal Efficiency | Normal Efficiency |
| Case Fit | 📏 Compact / SFF Friendly | — |
💎 Value Proposition
The GeForce2 MX/MX 400 offers a compelling cost-to-performance ratio. Priced at $15 versus $49 for the GeForce3, it costs 69% less. While it maintains basic entry-level capabilities, this results in a 161.3% higher cost efficiency score.
| Insight | GeForce3 | GeForce2 MX/MX 400 |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ❌Lower cost efficiency | ✅Better overall value (+161.3%) |
| 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 and GeForce2 MX/MX 400
GeForce3
The GeForce3 is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in March 13 2015. It features the Maxwell architecture. The core clock ranges from 928 MHz to 941 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.
GeForce2 MX/MX 400
The GeForce2 MX/MX 400 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: 4 points.
Graphics Performance
In G3D Mark, the GeForce3 scores 5 versus the GeForce2 MX/MX 400's 4 — the GeForce3 leads by 25%. The GeForce3 is built on Maxwell while the GeForce2 MX/MX 400 uses Turing, both on 28 nm vs 12 nm. Shader units: 384 (GeForce3) vs 896 (GeForce2 MX/MX 400). Raw compute: 0.7227 TFLOPS (GeForce3) vs 3.226 TFLOPS (GeForce2 MX/MX 400). Boost clocks: 941 MHz vs 1575 MHz.
| Feature | GeForce3 | GeForce2 MX/MX 400 |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 5+25% | 4 |
| Architecture | Maxwell | Turing |
| Process Node | 28 nm | 12 nm |
| Shading Units | 384 | 896+133% |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 0.7227 TFLOPS | 3.226 TFLOPS+346% |
| Boost Clock | 941 MHz | 1575 MHz+67% |
| ROPs | 8 | 32+300% |
| TMUs | 24 | 64+167% |
Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)
| Feature | GeForce3 | GeForce2 MX/MX 400 |
|---|---|---|
| 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 comes with 65 MB of VRAM, while the GeForce2 MX/MX 400 has 512 MB. The GeForce2 MX/MX 400 offers 693.7% more capacity, crucial for higher resolutions and texture-heavy games. Bus width: 64-bit vs 64-bit.
| Feature | GeForce3 | GeForce2 MX/MX 400 |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 0.063 GB | 0.5 GB+694% |
| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Bus Width | 64-bit | 64-bit |
Display & API Support
DirectX support: 8.1 (GeForce3) vs 7.0 (GeForce2 MX/MX 400). OpenGL: 1.3 vs 1.2. Maximum simultaneous displays: 2 vs 2.
| Feature | GeForce3 | GeForce2 MX/MX 400 |
|---|---|---|
| DirectX | 8.1+16% | 7.0 |
| OpenGL | 1.3+8% | 1.2 |
| Max Displays | 2 | 2 |
Media & Encoding
Hardware encoder: None (GeForce3) vs None (GeForce2 MX/MX 400). Decoder: None vs MPEG-2 Decoder. Supported codecs: MPEG-1,MPEG-2 (GeForce3) vs MPEG-2 (GeForce2 MX/MX 400).
| Feature | GeForce3 | GeForce2 MX/MX 400 |
|---|---|---|
| Encoder | None | None |
| Decoder | None | MPEG-2 Decoder |
| Codecs | MPEG-1,MPEG-2 | MPEG-2 |
Power & Dimensions
The GeForce3 draws 33W versus the GeForce2 MX/MX 400's 25W — a 27.6% difference. The GeForce2 MX/MX 400 is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 350W (GeForce3) vs 350W (GeForce2 MX/MX 400). Power connectors: PCIe-powered vs PCIe-powered. Typical load temperature: 85 vs 55°C.
| Feature | GeForce3 | GeForce2 MX/MX 400 |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 33W | 25W-24% |
| Recommended PSU | 350W | 350W |
| Power Connector | PCIe-powered | PCIe-powered |
| Length | 165mm | — |
| Height | 100mm | 100mm |
| Slots | 1 | 1 |
| Temp (Load) | 85 | 55°C-35% |
| Perf/Watt | 0.2 | 0.2 |
Value Analysis
The GeForce3 launched at $499 MSRP and currently averages $49, while the GeForce2 MX/MX 400 launched at $129 and now averages $15. The GeForce2 MX/MX 400 costs 69.4% less ($34 savings) at current market prices. Performance per dollar (G3D Mark / price): 0.1 (GeForce3) vs 0.3 (GeForce2 MX/MX 400) — the GeForce2 MX/MX 400 offers 200% better value. The GeForce2 MX/MX 400 is the newer GPU (2020 vs 2015).
| Feature | GeForce3 | GeForce2 MX/MX 400 |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $499 | $129-74% |
| Avg Price (30d) | $49 | $15-69% |
| Performance per Dollar | 0.1 | 0.3+200% |
| Codename | GM108 | N17S-G5 / GP107-670-A1 |
| Release | March 13 2015 | August 1 2020 |
| Ranking | #810 | #523 |
Top Performing GPUs
The most powerful gpus ranked by G3D Mark benchmark scores.
You May Also Compare
Similar GPU comparisons based on GeForce3 and GeForce2 MX/MX 400
