GeForce4 Ti 4400 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.

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 RADEON 9000 is on rank 742, so the GeForce4 Ti 4400 offers better cost-efficiency for playing games.

MSRP is the manufacturer's suggested retail price.•
Avg price is the current average price collected from markets across the web.

Performance Per Dollar GeForce4 Ti 4400

#1

GeForce RTX 3060 Ti

MSRP: $399|Avg: $280

362700%

#2

GeForce RTX 5060

MSRP: $299|Avg: $299

348450%

#3

Radeon RX 5600 XT

MSRP: $279|Avg: $180

344400%

#4

Radeon RX 9060

MSRP: $249|Avg: $249

343800%

#5

GeForce RTX 5050

MSRP: $249|Avg: $249

343100%

#6

GeForce RTX 3050 OEM

MSRP: $249|Avg: $150

341150%

#7

Arc A580

MSRP: $179|Avg: $179

336850%

#8

Radeon RX 9060 XT

MSRP: $299|Avg: $299

335600%

#9

Radeon RX 9060 XT 8GB

MSRP: $299|Avg: $299

332500%

#10

Radeon RX 7600

MSRP: $269|Avg: $250

331600%

#11

Radeon RX 6600

MSRP: $329|Avg: $180

327600%

#12

GeForce RTX 4060

MSRP: $299|Avg: $299

326900%

#13

Arc B570

MSRP: $219|Avg: $219

321000%

#14

Arc B580

MSRP: $249|Avg: $249

320800%

#365

Radeon R5 430 OEM

MSRP: N/A|Avg: $13

400000%

#380

GeForce4 Ti 4800 SE

MSRP: $299|Avg: $30

100%

#381

GeForce4 Ti 4800

MSRP: $399|Avg: $40

100%

#382

GeForce4 MX 460

MSRP: $179|Avg: $15

100%

#383

GeForce4 Ti 4600

MSRP: $399|Avg: $40

100%

#384

GeForce4 Ti 4400

MSRP: $299|Avg: $49

100%

#385

RADEON 7500

MSRP: $199|Avg: $50

100%

#386

GeForce3 Ti 500

MSRP: $349|Avg: $49

50%

Based on actual market prices and performance benchmarks.

Performance Per Dollar RADEON 9000

#731

Radeon RX 550X (móvel)

MSRP: $35|Avg: $35

108570%

#733

GeForce GTX 1070 with Max-Q Design

MSRP: N/A|Avg: $150

98420%

#734

GeForce GTX 1060 with Max-Q Design

MSRP: N/A|Avg: $100

98160%

#738

GeForce GTX 1050 (Mobile)

MSRP: N/A|Avg: $50

89260%

#739

Radeon RX 6300

MSRP: $60|Avg: $40

88650%

#741

RADEON 9200 SE

MSRP: $30|Avg: $15

100%

#742

RADEON 9000

MSRP: $49|Avg: $20

100%

#743

MOBILITY RADEON 7500

MSRP: $49|Avg: $15

80%

#744

MOBILITY RADEON 9000

MSRP: $50|Avg: $5

60%

#745

MOBILITY RADEON 9200

MSRP: $49|Avg: $15

60%

#746

GeForce4 MX 420

MSRP: $99|Avg: $10

50%

#747

RADEON 9250

MSRP: $79|Avg: $25

40%

#748

RADEON 9200

MSRP: $99|Avg: $25

40%

#749

RADEON 7200

MSRP: $99|Avg: $45

30%

#750

GeForce4 MX 440

MSRP: $149|Avg: $49

30%

#751

GeForce 256

MSRP: $199|Avg: $20

30%

#752

GeForce2 MX/MX 400

MSRP: $129|Avg: $15

30%

#753

GeForce2 MX

MSRP: $129|Avg: $49

20%

#754

GeForce3

MSRP: $499|Avg: $49

10%

#755

GeForce4 440

MSRP: $469|Avg: $49

10%

Based on actual market prices and performance benchmarks.

Performance Comparison

About G3D Mark

🏆 Chipversus Verdict

🚀 Performance Leadership

The GeForce4 Ti 4400 is the superior choice for raw performance. It leads with a 40% higher G3D Mark score and 300% more VRAM (512 MB vs 128 MB). This advantage makes it significantly better for higher resolutions (1440p/4K) and graphic-intensive titles compared to the RADEON 9000.

Insight	GeForce4 Ti 4400	RADEON 9000
Performance	✅Leading raw performance (+40%)	❌Lower raw frame rates (-40%)
Longevity	Ada Lovelace (2022−2024) (5nm)	RDNA 3.5 (2024−2025) (4nm)
Ecosystem	Supports FSR Upscaling	Supports FSR Upscaling
VRAM	✅ More VRAM (+300%)	❌ Less VRAM capacity
Efficiency	⚡ Higher Power Consumption	💡 Excellent Perf/Watt
Case Fit	📏 Compact / SFF Friendly	—

💎 Value Proposition

The RADEON 9000 offers a compelling cost-to-performance ratio. Priced at $20 versus $49 for the GeForce4 Ti 4400, it costs 59% less. While it maintains basic entry-level capabilities, this results in a 75% higher cost efficiency score.

Insight	GeForce4 Ti 4400	RADEON 9000
Cost Efficiency	❌Lower cost efficiency	✅Better overall value (+75%)
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.

GeForce4 Ti 4400 Benchmark Check

RADEON 9000 Benchmark Check

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of GeForce4 Ti 4400 and RADEON 9000

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.

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 Ti 4400 scores 7 versus the RADEON 9000's 5 — the GeForce4 Ti 4400 leads by 40%. The GeForce4 Ti 4400 is built on Ada Lovelace while the RADEON 9000 uses RDNA 3.5, both on 5 nm vs 4 nm. Shader units: 16,384 (GeForce4 Ti 4400) vs 1,024 (RADEON 9000). Raw compute: 82.58 TFLOPS (GeForce4 Ti 4400) vs 5.939 TFLOPS (RADEON 9000). Boost clocks: 2520 MHz vs 2900 MHz. Ray tracing: 128 RT cores (GeForce4 Ti 4400) vs 16 (RADEON 9000) with 512 Tensor cores.

Feature	GeForce4 Ti 4400	RADEON 9000
G3D Mark Score	7+40%	5
Architecture	Ada Lovelace	RDNA 3.5
Process Node	5 nm	4 nm
Shading Units	16384+1500%	1024
Compute (TFLOPS)	82.58 TFLOPS+1290%	5.939 TFLOPS
Boost Clock	2520 MHz	2900 MHz+15%
ROPs	176+450%	32
TMUs	512+700%	64
L1 Cache	16 MB+6300%	0.25 MB
L2 Cache	72 MB+3500%	2 MB
Ray Tracing Cores	128+700%	16

✨

Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)

Feature	GeForce4 Ti 4400	RADEON 9000
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 Ti 4400 comes with 512 MB of VRAM, while the RADEON 9000 has 128 MB. The GeForce4 Ti 4400 offers 300% more capacity, crucial for higher resolutions and texture-heavy games. Bus width: 64-bit vs 64-bit. L2 Cache: 72 MB (GeForce4 Ti 4400) vs 2 MB (RADEON 9000) — the GeForce4 Ti 4400 has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.

Feature	GeForce4 Ti 4400	RADEON 9000
VRAM Capacity	0.5 GB+300%	0.125 GB
Memory Type	GDDR5	GDDR5
Bus Width	64-bit	64-bit
L2 Cache	72 MB+3500%	2 MB

🔌

Power & Dimensions

The GeForce4 Ti 4400 draws 450W versus the RADEON 9000's 15W — a 187.1% difference. The RADEON 9000 is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 350W (GeForce4 Ti 4400) vs 350W (RADEON 9000). Power connectors: PCIe-powered vs Legacy.

Feature	GeForce4 Ti 4400	RADEON 9000
TDP	450W	15W-97%
Recommended PSU	350W	350W
Power Connector	PCIe-powered	Legacy
Length	216mm	—
Height	100mm	—
Slots	1	—
Temp (Load)	65°C	—
Perf/Watt	0.0	0.3

💰

Value Analysis

The GeForce4 Ti 4400 launched at $299 MSRP and currently averages $49, while the RADEON 9000 launched at $49 and now averages $20. The RADEON 9000 costs 59.2% less ($29 savings) at current market prices. Performance per dollar (G3D Mark / price): 0.1 (GeForce4 Ti 4400) vs 0.3 (RADEON 9000) — the RADEON 9000 offers 200% better value. The RADEON 9000 is the newer GPU (2024 vs 2022).