CPU
GPU
GeForce4 MX 460
Popular choices:
RADEON 9200 SE
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 MX 460 is positioned at rank 384 and the RADEON 9200 SE is on rank 742, so the GeForce4 MX 460 offers better cost-efficiency for playing games.
Avg price is the current average price collected from markets across the web.
Performance Per Dollar GeForce4 MX 460
Performance Per Dollar RADEON 9200 SE
Performance Comparison
About G3D Mark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
⚠️ Generational Difference
The RADEON 9200 SE is significantly newer (2025 vs 2010). The RADEON 9200 SE 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 RADEON 9200 SE offers more VRAM, which may be beneficial for texture-heavy scenarios at higher resolutions.
| Insight | GeForce4 MX 460 | RADEON 9200 SE |
|---|---|---|
| Performance | ✅Leading raw performance (+33.3%) | ❌Lower raw frame rates (-33.3%) |
| Longevity | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2010 / Fermi (2010−2014)) | RDNA 3.5 (2024−2025) (4nm) |
| Ecosystem | Supports FSR Upscaling | Supports FSR Upscaling |
| VRAM | ❌ Less VRAM capacity | ✅ More VRAM (+100%) |
| 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. Although it costs $15 (vs $15), its significant performance lead justifies the premium, offering 33.3% better value per dollar than the RADEON 9200 SE.
| Insight | GeForce4 MX 460 | RADEON 9200 SE |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ✅Better overall value (+33.3%) | ❌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.
Path of Exile 2
Counter-Strike 2
League of Legends
Technical Specifications
Side-by-side comparison of GeForce4 MX 460 and RADEON 9200 SE
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 9200 SE
The RADEON 9200 SE is manufactured by AMD. It was released in January 6 2025. It features the RDNA 3.5 architecture. The core clock ranges from 1295 MHz to 2900 MHz. It has 2560 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 55W. Manufactured using 4 nm process technology. It features 40 dedicated ray tracing cores for enhanced lighting effects. G3D Mark benchmark score: 3 points.
Graphics Performance
In G3D Mark, the GeForce4 MX 460 scores 4 versus the RADEON 9200 SE's 3 — the GeForce4 MX 460 leads by 33.3%. The GeForce4 MX 460 is built on Fermi while the RADEON 9200 SE uses RDNA 3.5, both on 40 nm vs 4 nm. Shader units: 336 (GeForce4 MX 460) vs 2,560 (RADEON 9200 SE). Raw compute: 0.9072 TFLOPS (GeForce4 MX 460) vs 14.85 TFLOPS (RADEON 9200 SE).
| Feature | GeForce4 MX 460 | RADEON 9200 SE |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 4+33% | 3 |
| Architecture | Fermi | RDNA 3.5 |
| Process Node | 40 nm | 4 nm |
| Shading Units | 336 | 2560+662% |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 0.9072 TFLOPS | 14.85 TFLOPS+1537% |
| ROPs | 32 | 64+100% |
| TMUs | 56 | 160+186% |
| L2 Cache | 0.5 MB | 8 MB+1500% |
Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)
| Feature | GeForce4 MX 460 | RADEON 9200 SE |
|---|---|---|
| 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)
The GeForce4 MX 460 comes with 128 MB of VRAM, while the RADEON 9200 SE has 256 MB. The RADEON 9200 SE offers 100% more capacity, crucial for higher resolutions and texture-heavy games. Bus width: 64-bit vs 64-bit. L2 Cache: 0.5 MB (GeForce4 MX 460) vs 8 MB (RADEON 9200 SE) — the RADEON 9200 SE has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.
| Feature | GeForce4 MX 460 | RADEON 9200 SE |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 0.125 GB | 0.25 GB+100% |
| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Bus Width | 64-bit | 64-bit |
| L2 Cache | 0.5 MB | 8 MB+1500% |
Display & API Support
DirectX support: 7.0 (GeForce4 MX 460) vs 8.1 (RADEON 9200 SE). Vulkan: None vs N/A. OpenGL: 1.3 vs 1.3. Maximum simultaneous displays: 1 vs 2.
| Feature | GeForce4 MX 460 | RADEON 9200 SE |
|---|---|---|
| DirectX | 7.0 | 8.1+16% |
| Vulkan | None | N/A |
| OpenGL | 1.3 | 1.3 |
| Max Displays | 1 | 2+100% |
Media & Encoding
Hardware encoder: No (GeForce4 MX 460) vs None (RADEON 9200 SE). Decoder: No vs None.
| Feature | GeForce4 MX 460 | RADEON 9200 SE |
|---|---|---|
| Encoder | No | None |
| Decoder | No | None |
| Codecs | MPEG-2 |
Power & Dimensions
The GeForce4 MX 460 draws 160W versus the RADEON 9200 SE's 55W — a 97.7% difference. The RADEON 9200 SE is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 350W (GeForce4 MX 460) vs 350W (RADEON 9200 SE). Power connectors: PCIe-powered vs Legacy. Card length: 165mm vs 168mm, occupying 1 vs 1 slots. Typical load temperature: 60°C vs 60.
| Feature | GeForce4 MX 460 | RADEON 9200 SE |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 160W | 55W-66% |
| Recommended PSU | 350W | 350W |
| Power Connector | PCIe-powered | Legacy |
| Length | 165mm | 168mm |
| Height | 100mm | 111mm |
| Slots | 1 | 1 |
| Temp (Load) | 60°C | 60 |
| Perf/Watt | 0.0 | 0.1 |
Value Analysis
The GeForce4 MX 460 launched at $179 MSRP and currently averages $15, while the RADEON 9200 SE launched at $30 and now averages $15. Performance per dollar (G3D Mark / price): 0.3 (GeForce4 MX 460) vs 0.2 (RADEON 9200 SE) — the GeForce4 MX 460 offers 50% better value. The RADEON 9200 SE is the newer GPU (2025 vs 2010).
| Feature | GeForce4 MX 460 | RADEON 9200 SE |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $179 | $30-83% |
| Avg Price (30d) | $15 | $15 |
| Performance per Dollar | 0.3+50% | 0.2 |
| Codename | GF104 | Strix Halo |
| Release | July 12 2010 | January 6 2025 |
| Ranking | #652 | #98 |
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 RADEON 9200 SE
