GeForce4 MX 4000 vs RADEON IGP 320
GeForce4 MX 4000
Popular choices:
RADEON IGP 320
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.
Avg price is the current average price collected from markets across the web.
Performance Per Dollar
Performance Per Dollar RADEON IGP 320
Performance Comparison
About G3D Mark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
🚀 Performance Leadership
The GeForce4 MX 4000 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 RADEON IGP 320.
| Insight | GeForce4 MX 4000 | RADEON IGP 320 |
|---|---|---|
| Performance | ✅Leading raw performance (+25%) | ❌Lower raw frame rates (-25%) |
| Longevity | Turing (2018−2022) (12nm) | RDNA 2.0 (2020−2025) (7nm) |
| 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 | — |
💎 Value Proposition
The RADEON IGP 320 offers a compelling cost-to-performance ratio. Priced at $20 versus $49 for the GeForce4 MX 4000, it costs 59% less. While it maintains basic entry-level capabilities, this results in a 96% higher cost efficiency score.
| Insight | GeForce4 MX 4000 | RADEON IGP 320 |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ❌Lower cost efficiency | ✅Better overall value (+96%) |
| Upfront Cost | ⚠️Higher upfront cost ($49) | ✅More affordable ($20) |
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 MX 4000 and RADEON IGP 320
GeForce4 MX 4000
The GeForce4 MX 4000 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: 5 points.
RADEON IGP 320
The RADEON IGP 320 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in November 4 2021. It features the RDNA 2.0 architecture. The core clock ranges from 1825 MHz to 2200 MHz. It has 4608 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 300W. Manufactured using 7 nm process technology. It features 72 dedicated ray tracing cores for enhanced lighting effects. G3D Mark benchmark score: 4 points.
Graphics Performance
In G3D Mark, the GeForce4 MX 4000 scores 5 versus the RADEON IGP 320's 4 — the GeForce4 MX 4000 leads by 25%. The GeForce4 MX 4000 is built on Turing while the RADEON IGP 320 uses RDNA 2.0, both on 12 nm vs 7 nm. Shader units: 896 (GeForce4 MX 4000) vs 4,608 (RADEON IGP 320). Raw compute: 3.226 TFLOPS (GeForce4 MX 4000) vs 20.28 TFLOPS (RADEON IGP 320). Boost clocks: 1575 MHz vs 2200 MHz.
| Feature | GeForce4 MX 4000 | RADEON IGP 320 |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 5+25% | 4 |
| Architecture | Turing | RDNA 2.0 |
| Process Node | 12 nm | 7 nm |
| Shading Units | 896 | 4608+414% |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 3.226 TFLOPS | 20.28 TFLOPS+529% |
| Boost Clock | 1575 MHz | 2200 MHz+40% |
| ROPs | 32 | 128+300% |
| TMUs | 64 | 288+350% |
Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)
| Feature | GeForce4 MX 4000 | RADEON IGP 320 |
|---|---|---|
| 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)
Both cards feature 512 MB of GDDR5. Bus width: 64-bit vs 64-bit.
| Feature | GeForce4 MX 4000 | RADEON IGP 320 |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 0.5 GB | 0.5 GB |
| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Bus Width | 64-bit | 64-bit |
Power & Dimensions
The GeForce4 MX 4000 draws 25W versus the RADEON IGP 320's 300W — a 169.2% difference. The GeForce4 MX 4000 is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 350W (GeForce4 MX 4000) vs 350W (RADEON IGP 320). Power connectors: PCIe-powered vs Legacy.
| Feature | GeForce4 MX 4000 | RADEON IGP 320 |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 25W-92% | 300W |
| Recommended PSU | 350W | 350W |
| Power Connector | PCIe-powered | Legacy |
| Length | 168mm | — |
| Height | 100mm | — |
| Slots | 1 | — |
| Temp (Load) | 60°C | — |
| Perf/Watt | 0.2 | 0.0 |
Value Analysis
The GeForce4 MX 4000 launched at $0 MSRP and currently averages $49, while the RADEON IGP 320 launched at $100 and now averages $20. The RADEON IGP 320 costs 59.2% less ($29 savings) at current market prices. Performance per dollar (G3D Mark / price): 0.1 (GeForce4 MX 4000) vs 0.2 (RADEON IGP 320) — the RADEON IGP 320 offers 100% better value. The RADEON IGP 320 is the newer GPU (2021 vs 2020).
| Feature | GeForce4 MX 4000 | RADEON IGP 320 |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $0-100% | $100 |
| Avg Price (30d) | $49 | $20-59% |
| Performance per Dollar | 0.1 | 0.2+100% |
| Codename | N17S-G5 / GP107-670-A1 | Navi 21 |
| Release | August 1 2020 | November 4 2021 |
| Ranking | #523 | #136 |
Top Performing GPUs
The most powerful gpus ranked by G3D Mark benchmark scores.
You May Also Compare
Similar GPU comparisons based on GeForce4 MX 4000 and RADEON IGP 320
