GeForce4 MX 460 vs GeForce2 MX 100/200
GeForce4 MX 460
Popular choices:
GeForce2 MX 100/200
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. The GeForce4 MX 460 is positioned at rank #384 in our cost-efficiency ranking, representing a Lower cost-benefit for your build. 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 GeForce4 MX 460
Performance Per Dollar
Performance Comparison
About G3D Mark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
⚠️ Generational Difference
The GeForce2 MX 100/200 is significantly newer (2017 vs 2010). The GeForce2 MX 100/200 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 GeForce2 MX 100/200 offers more VRAM, which may be beneficial for texture-heavy scenarios at higher resolutions.
| Insight | GeForce4 MX 460 | GeForce2 MX 100/200 |
|---|---|---|
| Performance | ✅Leading raw performance (+33.3%) | ❌Lower raw frame rates (-33.3%) |
| Longevity | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2010 / Fermi (2010−2014)) | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2017 / Pascal (2016−2021)) |
| Ecosystem | Supports FSR Upscaling | Supports FSR Upscaling |
| VRAM | ❌ Less VRAM capacity | ✅ More VRAM (+300%) |
| 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. While both GPUs are considered legacy components by modern standards, the GeForce4 MX 460 holds the technical lead. Priced at $15 (vs $49), it costs 69% less, resulting in a 335.6% higher cost efficiency score.
| Insight | GeForce4 MX 460 | GeForce2 MX 100/200 |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ✅Better overall value (+335.6%) | ❌Lower cost efficiency |
| Upfront Cost | ✅More affordable ($15) | ⚠️Higher upfront cost ($49) |
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 460 and GeForce2 MX 100/200
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.
GeForce2 MX 100/200
The GeForce2 MX 100/200 is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in May 17 2017. It features the Pascal architecture. The core clock ranges from 937 MHz to 1038 MHz. It has 384 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 10W. Manufactured using 14 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 3 points.
Graphics Performance
In G3D Mark, the GeForce4 MX 460 scores 4 versus the GeForce2 MX 100/200's 3 — the GeForce4 MX 460 leads by 33.3%. The GeForce4 MX 460 is built on Fermi while the GeForce2 MX 100/200 uses Pascal, both on 40 nm vs 14 nm. Shader units: 336 (GeForce4 MX 460) vs 384 (GeForce2 MX 100/200). Raw compute: 0.9072 TFLOPS (GeForce4 MX 460) vs 0.7972 TFLOPS (GeForce2 MX 100/200).
| Feature | GeForce4 MX 460 | GeForce2 MX 100/200 |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 4+33% | 3 |
| Architecture | Fermi | Pascal |
| Process Node | 40 nm | 14 nm |
| Shading Units | 336 | 384+14% |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 0.9072 TFLOPS+14% | 0.7972 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 32+100% | 16 |
| TMUs | 56+133% | 24 |
| L1 Cache | 448 KB+211% | 144 KB |
| L2 Cache | 512 KB | 512 KB |
Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)
| Feature | GeForce4 MX 460 | GeForce2 MX 100/200 |
|---|---|---|
| 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)
The GeForce4 MX 460 comes with 128 MB of VRAM, while the GeForce2 MX 100/200 has 512 MB. The GeForce2 MX 100/200 offers 300% more capacity, crucial for higher resolutions and texture-heavy games. Bus width: 64-bit vs 64-bit.
| Feature | GeForce4 MX 460 | GeForce2 MX 100/200 |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 0.125 GB | 0.5 GB+300% |
| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Bus Width | 64-bit | 64-bit |
| L2 Cache | 512 KB | 512 KB |
Display & API Support
DirectX support: 7.0 (GeForce4 MX 460) vs 7.0 (GeForce2 MX 100/200). Vulkan: None vs N/A. OpenGL: 1.3 vs 1.2. Maximum simultaneous displays: 1 vs 2.
| Feature | GeForce4 MX 460 | GeForce2 MX 100/200 |
|---|---|---|
| DirectX | 7.0 | 7.0 |
| Vulkan | None | N/A |
| OpenGL | 1.3+8% | 1.2 |
| Max Displays | 1 | 2+100% |
Media & Encoding
Hardware encoder: No (GeForce4 MX 460) vs None (GeForce2 MX 100/200). Decoder: No vs None.
| Feature | GeForce4 MX 460 | GeForce2 MX 100/200 |
|---|---|---|
| Encoder | No | None |
| Decoder | No | None |
| Codecs | MPEG-2 |
Power & Dimensions
The GeForce4 MX 460 draws 160W versus the GeForce2 MX 100/200's 10W — a 176.5% difference. The GeForce2 MX 100/200 is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 350W (GeForce4 MX 460) vs 350W (GeForce2 MX 100/200). Power connectors: PCIe-powered vs PCIe-powered. Card length: 165mm vs 165mm, occupying 1 vs 1 slots. Typical load temperature: 60°C vs 55.
| Feature | GeForce4 MX 460 | GeForce2 MX 100/200 |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 160W | 10W-94% |
| Recommended PSU | 350W | 350W |
| Power Connector | PCIe-powered | PCIe-powered |
| Length | 165mm | 165mm |
| Height | 100mm | 64mm |
| Slots | 1 | 1 |
| Temp (Load) | 60°C | 55-8% |
| Perf/Watt | 0.0 | 0.3 |
Value Analysis
The GeForce4 MX 460 launched at $179 MSRP and currently averages $15, while the GeForce2 MX 100/200 launched at $0 and now averages $49. The GeForce4 MX 460 costs 69.4% less ($34 savings) at current market prices. Performance per dollar (G3D Mark / price): 0.3 (GeForce4 MX 460) vs 0.1 (GeForce2 MX 100/200) — the GeForce4 MX 460 offers 200% better value. The GeForce2 MX 100/200 is the newer GPU (2017 vs 2010).
| Feature | GeForce4 MX 460 | GeForce2 MX 100/200 |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $179 | $0-100% |
| Avg Price (30d) | $15-69% | $49 |
| Performance per Dollar | 0.3+200% | 0.1 |
| Codename | GF104 | GP108 |
| Release | July 12 2010 | May 17 2017 |
| Ranking | #652 | #657 |
Top Performing GPUs
The most powerful gpus ranked by G3D Mark benchmark scores.
You May Also Compare
Similar GPU comparisons based on GeForce4 MX 460 and GeForce2 MX 100/200
