GeForce4 440 vs GeForce3 Ti 200
GeForce4 440
Popular choices:
GeForce3 Ti 200
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 GeForce4 440 is positioned at rank 755 and the GeForce3 Ti 200 is on rank 382, 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 GeForce4 440
Performance Per Dollar GeForce3 Ti 200
Performance Comparison
About G3D Mark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
⚠️ Generational Difference
The GeForce3 Ti 200 uses modern memory architecture. 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 440 lacks this hardware feature set, limiting its longevity in modern titles despite any raw power similarities.
🚀 Performance Leadership
The GeForce4 440 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 | GeForce4 440 | GeForce3 Ti 200 |
|---|---|---|
| Performance | ✅Leading raw performance (+25%) | ❌Lower raw frame rates (-25%) |
| Longevity | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2015 / Maxwell (2014−2017)) | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2018 / Turing (2018−2022)) |
| Ecosystem | Supports FSR Upscaling | Supports FSR Upscaling |
| VRAM | ❌ Less VRAM capacity | ✅ More VRAM (+0%) |
| Efficiency | 💡 Excellent Perf/Watt | ⚡ Higher Power Consumption |
| Case Fit | 📏 Compact / SFF Friendly | 📏 Compact / SFF Friendly |
💎 Value Proposition
The GeForce4 440 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 | GeForce4 440 | GeForce3 Ti 200 |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ✅Better overall value (+25%) | ❌Lower cost efficiency |
| 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 GeForce4 440 and GeForce3 Ti 200
GeForce4 440
The GeForce4 440 is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in March 13 2015. It features the Maxwell architecture. The core clock ranges from 1072 MHz to 1176 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.
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.
Graphics Performance
In G3D Mark, the GeForce4 440 scores 5 versus the GeForce3 Ti 200's 4 — the GeForce4 440 leads by 25%. The GeForce4 440 is built on Maxwell while the GeForce3 Ti 200 uses Turing, both on 28 nm vs 12 nm. Shader units: 384 (GeForce4 440) vs 2,944 (GeForce3 Ti 200). Raw compute: 0.9032 TFLOPS (GeForce4 440) vs 10.07 TFLOPS (GeForce3 Ti 200). Boost clocks: 1176 MHz vs 1710 MHz.
| Feature | GeForce4 440 | GeForce3 Ti 200 |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 5+25% | 4 |
| Architecture | Maxwell | Turing |
| Process Node | 28 nm | 12 nm |
| Shading Units | 384 | 2944+667% |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 0.9032 TFLOPS | 10.07 TFLOPS+1015% |
| Boost Clock | 1176 MHz | 1710 MHz+45% |
| ROPs | 8 | 64+700% |
| TMUs | 24 | 184+667% |
| L1 Cache | 0.19 MB | 2.9 MB+1426% |
| L2 Cache | 1 MB | 4 MB+300% |
Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)
| Feature | GeForce4 440 | GeForce3 Ti 200 |
|---|---|---|
| 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: 1 MB (GeForce4 440) vs 4 MB (GeForce3 Ti 200) — the GeForce3 Ti 200 has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.
| Feature | GeForce4 440 | GeForce3 Ti 200 |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 0.5 GB | 0.5 GB |
| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Bus Width | 64-bit | 64-bit |
| L2 Cache | 1 MB | 4 MB+300% |
Display & API Support
DirectX support: 7.0 (GeForce4 440) vs 8.1 (GeForce3 Ti 200). Vulkan: N/A vs N/A. OpenGL: 1.5 vs 1.3. Maximum simultaneous displays: 2 vs 2.
| Feature | GeForce4 440 | GeForce3 Ti 200 |
|---|---|---|
| DirectX | 7.0 | 8.1+16% |
| Vulkan | N/A | N/A |
| OpenGL | 1.5+15% | 1.3 |
| Max Displays | 2 | 2 |
Media & Encoding
Hardware encoder: None (GeForce4 440) vs None (GeForce3 Ti 200). Decoder: None vs None. Supported codecs: MPEG-2 (GeForce4 440) vs MPEG-2 (GeForce3 Ti 200).
| Feature | GeForce4 440 | GeForce3 Ti 200 |
|---|---|---|
| Encoder | None | None |
| Decoder | None | None |
| Codecs | MPEG-2 | MPEG-2 |
Power & Dimensions
The GeForce4 440 draws 33W versus the GeForce3 Ti 200's 215W — a 146.8% difference. The GeForce4 440 is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 350W (GeForce4 440) vs 350W (GeForce3 Ti 200). Power connectors: PCIe-powered vs PCIe-powered. Card length: 170mm vs 183mm, occupying 1 vs 1 slots. Typical load temperature: 70 vs 60.
| Feature | GeForce4 440 | GeForce3 Ti 200 |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 33W-85% | 215W |
| Recommended PSU | 350W | 350W |
| Power Connector | PCIe-powered | PCIe-powered |
| Length | 170mm | 183mm |
| Height | 100mm | 100mm |
| Slots | 1 | 1 |
| Temp (Load) | 70 | 60-14% |
| Perf/Watt | 0.2 | 0.0 |
Value Analysis
The GeForce4 440 launched at $469 MSRP and currently averages $49, while the GeForce3 Ti 200 launched at $149 and now averages $49. Performance per dollar (G3D Mark / price): 0.1 (GeForce4 440) vs 0.1 (GeForce3 Ti 200) — the GeForce3 Ti 200 offers 0% better value. The GeForce3 Ti 200 is the newer GPU (2018 vs 2015).
| Feature | GeForce4 440 | GeForce3 Ti 200 |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $469 | $149-68% |
| Avg Price (30d) | $49 | $49 |
| Performance per Dollar | 0.1 | 0.1 |
| Codename | GM108 | TU104 |
| Release | March 13 2015 | September 20 2018 |
| Ranking | #847 | #94 |
Top Performing GPUs
The most powerful gpus ranked by G3D Mark benchmark scores.
You May Also Compare
Similar GPU comparisons based on GeForce4 440 and GeForce3 Ti 200
