GeForce4 MX 460 vs RADEON 9000

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.

GeForce4 MX 460 vs RADEON 9000 FPS Benchmarks

Predicted gaming performance across popular games. Tested paired with Ryzen 7 9800X3D to isolate GPU performance.

Search any supported game below to compare 1080p FPS for both components.

GeForce4 MX 460 vs RADEON 9000: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

See where each GPU makes more sense in practice: raw FPS, VRAM, features, power draw, pricing, and long-term headroom.

GeForce4 MX 460

2010

Why buy it

✅Competitive enough if your priority is price, power, or specific feature preference.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark G3D performance (4 vs 5).
❌2010 hardware with 128 MB of VRAM is already well past its comfortable zone for modern gaming, so it is hard to recommend now.
❌
265.3% HIGHER MSRP
$179 MSRPvs$49 MSRP
❌Lower G3D Mark per dollar, at 0.0 vs 0.1 G3D/$ ($179 MSRP vs $49 MSRP).
❌966.7% higher power demand at 160W vs 15W.

RADEON 9000

2024

Why buy it

✅+25% higher PassMark G3D performance.
✅Costs $130 less on MSRP ($49 MSRP vs $179 MSRP).
✅Delivers 356.6% more G3D Mark for each dollar spent, at 0.1 vs 0.0 G3D/$ ($49 MSRP vs $179 MSRP).
✅Better long-term bet: RDNA 3.5 (2024−2025) on 4nm gives it a newer hardware base for upcoming games.
✅Draws 15W instead of 160W, a 145W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌Fewer clear downsides in this head-to-head, aside from the usual pricing and availability swings.

Quick Answers

Which GPU is faster for gaming right now?

RADEON 9000 is the faster gaming card right now based on the synthetic data we have. It leads by 25% in PassMark G3D (5 vs 4), which is the best performance signal available in this matchup.

Which GPU is the safer long-term pick for 2026 and beyond?

RADEON 9000 is the safer long-term pick for 2026 and beyond. The case is simple: the newer upscaling stack, FSR Upscaling / FSR 4 (2025) instead of no meaningful modern upscaling stack, a 4nm process instead of 40nm, 16 vs 0 ray-tracing units, and a newer 2024 generation instead of 2010. That gives it the more rounded hardware package for newer games.

Which GPU is the better buy today?

RADEON 9000 makes the most sense to buy today. It is $130 cheaper on MSRP at $49 vs $179, and it leads G3D-per-dollar by 356.6% (0.1 vs 0.0), so the value case lines up with the gaming result.

GeForce4 MX 460 vs RADEON 9000 Technical Specifications

Side-by-side specs, architecture details, clocks, memory, power, and platform differences.

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.

RADEON 9000

The RADEON 9000 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in July 15 2024. It features the RDNA 3.5 architecture. The core clock ranges from 400 MHz to 2900 MHz. It has 1024 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 15W. Manufactured using 4 nm process technology. It features 16 dedicated ray tracing cores for enhanced lighting effects. G3D Mark benchmark score: 5 points.

⚡

Graphics Performance

In G3D Mark, the GeForce4 MX 460 scores 4 versus the RADEON 9000's 5 — the RADEON 9000 leads by 25%. The GeForce4 MX 460 is built on Fermi while the RADEON 9000 uses RDNA 3.5, both on 40 nm vs 4 nm. Shader units: 336 (GeForce4 MX 460) vs 1,024 (RADEON 9000). Raw compute: 0.9072 TFLOPS (GeForce4 MX 460) vs 5.939 TFLOPS (RADEON 9000).

Feature	GeForce4 MX 460	RADEON 9000
G3D Mark Score	4	5+25%
Architecture	Fermi	RDNA 3.5
Process Node	40 nm	4 nm
Shading Units	336	1024+205%
Compute (TFLOPS)	0.9072 TFLOPS	5.939 TFLOPS+555%
ROPs	32	32
TMUs	56	64+14%
L1 Cache	448 KB+75%	256 KB
L2 Cache	0.5 MB	2 MB+300%

✨

Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)

The GeForce4 MX 460 gets NVIDIA DLSS, which still tends to look cleaner in motion. The RADEON 9000 leans on FSR, which is flexible and widely supported, but usually a bit rougher at the same settings.

Feature	GeForce4 MX 460	RADEON 9000
Upscaling Tech	Upscaling support	FSR Upscaling / FSR 4
Frame Generation	Not Supported	Not Supported
Ray Reconstruction	No	No
Low Latency	NVIDIA Reflex	AMD Anti-Lag

💾

Video Memory (VRAM)

Both cards ship with 128 MB of GDDR5. Memory bus width is 64-bit on the GeForce4 MX 460 and 64-bit on the RADEON 9000. L2 Cache: 0.5 MB (GeForce4 MX 460) vs 2 MB (RADEON 9000) — the RADEON 9000 has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.

Feature	GeForce4 MX 460	RADEON 9000
VRAM Capacity	0.125 GB	0.125 GB
Memory Type	GDDR5	GDDR5
Bus Width	64-bit	64-bit
L2 Cache	0.5 MB	2 MB+300%

🔌

Power & Dimensions

The GeForce4 MX 460 draws 160W versus the RADEON 9000's 15W — a 165.7% difference. The RADEON 9000 is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 350W (GeForce4 MX 460) vs 350W (RADEON 9000). Power connectors: PCIe-powered vs Legacy.

Feature	GeForce4 MX 460	RADEON 9000
TDP	160W	15W-91%
Recommended PSU	350W	350W
Power Connector	PCIe-powered	Legacy
Length	165mm	—
Height	100mm	—
Slots	1	—
Temp (Load)	60°C	—
Perf/Watt	0.0	0.3

💰

Value Analysis

At launch, the GeForce4 MX 460 came in at $179, while the RADEON 9000 launched at $49. On MSRP, RADEON 9000 was 72.6% cheaper ($130 less). Performance per dollar on MSRP (G3D Mark / MSRP): 0.0 (GeForce4 MX 460) vs 0.1 (RADEON 9000) — the RADEON 9000 offers 100+% better value. The newer card here is RADEON 9000 (2024 vs 2010).

Feature	GeForce4 MX 460	RADEON 9000
MSRP	$179	$49-73%
Performance per Dollar	0.0	0.1
Codename	GF104	Strix Point
Release	July 12 2010	July 15 2024
Ranking	#652	#312

Search GeForce4 MX 460 on Amazon

Search RADEON 9000 on Amazon

Affiliate Disclosure

ChipVERSUS is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to Amazon.com. We may earn a commission on qualifying purchases made through our links. This comes at no additional cost to you and helps support our work in providing comprehensive PC building guides and tools.

Amazon and the Amazon logo are trademarks of Amazon.com, Inc. or its affiliates.