CPU
GPU
GeForce4 Ti 4400
Popular choices:
GeForce FX 5200
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 Ti 4400 is positioned at rank 384 and the GeForce FX 5200 is on rank 374, so the GeForce FX 5200 offers better cost-efficiency for playing games.
Avg price is the current average price collected from markets across the web.
Performance Per Dollar GeForce4 Ti 4400
Performance Per Dollar GeForce FX 5200
Performance Comparison
About G3D Mark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
🚀 Performance Leadership
The GeForce FX 5200 is the superior choice for raw performance. It leads with a 14.3% higher G3D Mark score. However, the GeForce4 Ti 4400 offers more VRAM, which may be beneficial for texture-heavy scenarios at higher resolutions.
| Insight | GeForce4 Ti 4400 | GeForce FX 5200 |
|---|---|---|
| Performance | ❌Lower raw frame rates (-14.3%) | ✅Leading raw performance (+14.3%) |
| Longevity | Ada Lovelace (2022−2024) (5nm) | Blackwell 2.0 (2025−2026) (5nm) |
| Ecosystem | Supports FSR Upscaling | Supports FSR Upscaling |
| VRAM | ✅ More VRAM (+300%) | ❌ Less VRAM capacity |
| Efficiency | Normal Efficiency | Normal Efficiency |
| Case Fit | 📏 Compact / SFF Friendly | 📏 Compact / SFF Friendly |
💎 Value Proposition
The GeForce FX 5200 offers a compelling cost-to-performance ratio. Priced at $25 versus $49 for the GeForce4 Ti 4400, it costs 49% less. While it maintains basic entry-level capabilities, this results in a 124% higher cost efficiency score.
| Insight | GeForce4 Ti 4400 | GeForce FX 5200 |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ❌Lower cost efficiency | ✅Better overall value (+124%) |
| Upfront Cost | ⚠️Higher upfront cost ($49) | ✅More affordable ($25) |
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 Ti 4400 and GeForce FX 5200
GeForce4 Ti 4400
The GeForce4 Ti 4400 is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in September 20 2022. It features the Ada Lovelace architecture. The core clock ranges from 2235 MHz to 2520 MHz. It has 16384 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 450W. Manufactured using 5 nm process technology. It features 128 dedicated ray tracing cores for enhanced lighting effects. G3D Mark benchmark score: 7 points. Launch price was $1,599.
GeForce FX 5200
The GeForce FX 5200 is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in January 30 2025. It features the Rankine architecture. The core clock ranges from 2017 MHz to 2407 MHz. It has 21760 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 575W. Manufactured using 5 nm process technology. It features 170 dedicated ray tracing cores for enhanced lighting effects. G3D Mark benchmark score: 8 points. Launch price was $1,999.
Graphics Performance
In G3D Mark, the GeForce4 Ti 4400 scores 7 versus the GeForce FX 5200's 8 — the GeForce FX 5200 leads by 14.3%. The GeForce4 Ti 4400 is built on Ada Lovelace while the GeForce FX 5200 uses Rankine, both on a 5 nm process. Shader units: 16,384 (GeForce4 Ti 4400) vs 21,760 (GeForce FX 5200). Raw compute: 82.58 TFLOPS (GeForce4 Ti 4400) vs 104.8 TFLOPS (GeForce FX 5200). Boost clocks: 2520 MHz vs 2407 MHz. Ray tracing: 128 RT cores (GeForce4 Ti 4400) vs 170 (GeForce FX 5200) with 512 Tensor cores vs 680.
| Feature | GeForce4 Ti 4400 | GeForce FX 5200 |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 7 | 8+14% |
| Architecture | Ada Lovelace | Rankine |
| Process Node | 5 nm | 5 nm |
| Shading Units | 16384 | 21760+33% |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 82.58 TFLOPS | 104.8 TFLOPS+27% |
| Boost Clock | 2520 MHz+5% | 2407 MHz |
| ROPs | 176 | 176 |
| TMUs | 512 | 680+33% |
| L1 Cache | 16 MB | 21.3 MB+33% |
| L2 Cache | 72 MB | 96 MB+33% |
| Ray Tracing Cores | 128 | 170+33% |
| Tensor Cores | 512 | 680+33% |
Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)
| Feature | GeForce4 Ti 4400 | GeForce FX 5200 |
|---|---|---|
| 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 Ti 4400 comes with 512 MB of VRAM, while the GeForce FX 5200 has 128 MB. The GeForce4 Ti 4400 offers 300% more capacity, crucial for higher resolutions and texture-heavy games. Bus width: 64-bit vs 128-bit. L2 Cache: 72 MB (GeForce4 Ti 4400) vs 96 MB (GeForce FX 5200) — the GeForce FX 5200 has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.
| Feature | GeForce4 Ti 4400 | GeForce FX 5200 |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 0.5 GB+300% | 0.125 GB |
| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Bus Width | 64-bit | 128-bit+100% |
| L2 Cache | 72 MB | 96 MB+33% |
Display & API Support
DirectX support: 8.1 (GeForce4 Ti 4400) vs 9.0a (GeForce FX 5200). OpenGL: 1.3 vs 1.5. Maximum simultaneous displays: 2 vs 2.
| Feature | GeForce4 Ti 4400 | GeForce FX 5200 |
|---|---|---|
| DirectX | 8.1 | 9.0a+11% |
| OpenGL | 1.3 | 1.5+15% |
| Max Displays | 2 | 2 |
Media & Encoding
Hardware encoder: None (GeForce4 Ti 4400) vs None (GeForce FX 5200). Decoder: MPEG-2 Decoder vs MPEG-2 Motion Compensation. Supported codecs: MPEG-2 (GeForce4 Ti 4400) vs MPEG-2 (GeForce FX 5200).
| Feature | GeForce4 Ti 4400 | GeForce FX 5200 |
|---|---|---|
| Encoder | None | None |
| Decoder | MPEG-2 Decoder | MPEG-2 Motion Compensation |
| Codecs | MPEG-2 | MPEG-2 |
Power & Dimensions
The GeForce4 Ti 4400 draws 450W versus the GeForce FX 5200's 575W — a 24.4% difference. The GeForce4 Ti 4400 is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 350W (GeForce4 Ti 4400) vs 350W (GeForce FX 5200). Power connectors: PCIe-powered vs Legacy. Card length: 216mm vs 152mm, occupying 1 vs 1 slots. Typical load temperature: 65°C vs 70.
| Feature | GeForce4 Ti 4400 | GeForce FX 5200 |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 450W-22% | 575W |
| Recommended PSU | 350W | 350W |
| Power Connector | PCIe-powered | Legacy |
| Length | 216mm | 152mm |
| Height | 100mm | 100mm |
| Slots | 1 | 1 |
| Temp (Load) | 65°C-7% | 70 |
| Perf/Watt | 0.0 | 0.0 |
Value Analysis
The GeForce4 Ti 4400 launched at $299 MSRP and currently averages $49, while the GeForce FX 5200 launched at $70 and now averages $25. The GeForce FX 5200 costs 49% less ($24 savings) at current market prices. Performance per dollar (G3D Mark / price): 0.1 (GeForce4 Ti 4400) vs 0.3 (GeForce FX 5200) — the GeForce FX 5200 offers 200% better value. The GeForce FX 5200 is the newer GPU (2025 vs 2022).
| Feature | GeForce4 Ti 4400 | GeForce FX 5200 |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $299 | $70-77% |
| Avg Price (30d) | $49 | $25-49% |
| Performance per Dollar | 0.1 | 0.3+200% |
| Codename | AD102 | GB202 |
| Release | September 20 2022 | January 30 2025 |
| Ranking | #4 | #3 |
Top Performing GPUs
The most powerful gpus ranked by G3D Mark benchmark scores.
You May Also Compare
Similar GPU comparisons based on GeForce4 Ti 4400 and GeForce FX 5200
