GeForce4 Ti 4600 vs GeForce FX 5200
GeForce4 Ti 4600
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 4600 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 4600
Performance Per Dollar GeForce FX 5200
Performance Comparison
About G3D Mark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
⚠️ Generational Difference
The GeForce FX 5200 is significantly newer (2025 vs 2010). The GeForce FX 5200 likely supports modern features like Ray Tracing, Tensor Cores, and DLSS/FSR upscaling, which act as force multipliers for performance. The GeForce4 Ti 4600 lacks this hardware feature set, limiting its longevity in modern titles despite any raw power similarities.
🚀 Performance Leadership
The GeForce FX 5200 is the superior choice for raw performance. It leads with a 33.3% higher G3D Mark score. This advantage makes it significantly better for higher resolutions (1440p/4K) and graphic-intensive titles compared to the GeForce4 Ti 4600.
| Insight | GeForce4 Ti 4600 | GeForce FX 5200 |
|---|---|---|
| Performance | ❌Lower raw frame rates (-33.3%) | ✅Leading raw performance (+33.3%) |
| Longevity | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2010 / Fermi (2010−2014)) | Blackwell 2.0 (2025−2026) (5nm) |
| Ecosystem | Supports FSR Upscaling | Supports FSR Upscaling |
| VRAM | ❌ Less VRAM capacity | ✅ More VRAM (+0%) |
| Efficiency | 💡 Excellent Perf/Watt | ⚡ Higher Power Consumption |
| 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 $40 for the GeForce4 Ti 4600, it costs 38% less. While it maintains basic entry-level capabilities, this results in a 113.3% higher cost efficiency score.
| Insight | GeForce4 Ti 4600 | GeForce FX 5200 |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ❌Lower cost efficiency | ✅Better overall value (+113.3%) |
| Upfront Cost | ⚠️Higher upfront cost ($40) | ✅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.
Path of Exile 2
Counter-Strike 2
Technical Specifications
Side-by-side comparison of GeForce4 Ti 4600 and GeForce FX 5200
GeForce4 Ti 4600
The GeForce4 Ti 4600 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: 6 points. Launch price was $229.
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 4600 scores 6 versus the GeForce FX 5200's 8 — the GeForce FX 5200 leads by 33.3%. The GeForce4 Ti 4600 is built on Fermi while the GeForce FX 5200 uses Rankine, both on 40 nm vs 5 nm. Shader units: 336 (GeForce4 Ti 4600) vs 21,760 (GeForce FX 5200). Raw compute: 0.9072 TFLOPS (GeForce4 Ti 4600) vs 104.8 TFLOPS (GeForce FX 5200).
| Feature | GeForce4 Ti 4600 | GeForce FX 5200 |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 6 | 8+33% |
| Architecture | Fermi | Rankine |
| Process Node | 40 nm | 5 nm |
| Shading Units | 336 | 21760+6376% |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 0.9072 TFLOPS | 104.8 TFLOPS+11452% |
| ROPs | 32 | 176+450% |
| TMUs | 56 | 680+1114% |
| L1 Cache | 0.44 MB | 21.3 MB+4741% |
| L2 Cache | 0.5 MB | 96 MB+19100% |
Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)
| Feature | GeForce4 Ti 4600 | 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)
Both cards feature 128 MB of GDDR5. Bus width: 64-bit vs 128-bit. L2 Cache: 0.5 MB (GeForce4 Ti 4600) vs 96 MB (GeForce FX 5200) — the GeForce FX 5200 has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.
| Feature | GeForce4 Ti 4600 | GeForce FX 5200 |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 0.125 GB | 0.125 GB |
| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Bus Width | 64-bit | 128-bit+100% |
| L2 Cache | 0.5 MB | 96 MB+19100% |
Display & API Support
DirectX support: 8.1 (GeForce4 Ti 4600) vs 9.0a (GeForce FX 5200). Vulkan: None vs N/A. OpenGL: 1.3 vs 1.5. Maximum simultaneous displays: 2 vs 2.
| Feature | GeForce4 Ti 4600 | GeForce FX 5200 |
|---|---|---|
| DirectX | 8.1 | 9.0a+11% |
| Vulkan | None | N/A |
| OpenGL | 1.3 | 1.5+15% |
| Max Displays | 2 | 2 |
Media & Encoding
Hardware encoder: No (GeForce4 Ti 4600) vs None (GeForce FX 5200). Decoder: No vs MPEG-2 Motion Compensation.
| Feature | GeForce4 Ti 4600 | GeForce FX 5200 |
|---|---|---|
| Encoder | No | None |
| Decoder | No | MPEG-2 Motion Compensation |
| Codecs | MPEG-2 |
Power & Dimensions
The GeForce4 Ti 4600 draws 160W versus the GeForce FX 5200's 575W — a 112.9% difference. The GeForce4 Ti 4600 is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 350W (GeForce4 Ti 4600) 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 4600 | GeForce FX 5200 |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 160W-72% | 575W |
| Recommended PSU | 350W | 350W |
| Power Connector | PCIe-powered | Legacy |
| Length | 216mm | 152mm |
| Height | 111mm | 100mm |
| Slots | 1 | 1 |
| Temp (Load) | 65°C-7% | 70 |
| Perf/Watt | 0.0 | 0.0 |
Value Analysis
The GeForce4 Ti 4600 launched at $399 MSRP and currently averages $40, while the GeForce FX 5200 launched at $70 and now averages $25. The GeForce FX 5200 costs 37.5% less ($15 savings) at current market prices. Performance per dollar (G3D Mark / price): 0.1 (GeForce4 Ti 4600) vs 0.3 (GeForce FX 5200) — the GeForce FX 5200 offers 200% better value. The GeForce FX 5200 is the newer GPU (2025 vs 2010).
| Feature | GeForce4 Ti 4600 | GeForce FX 5200 |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $399 | $70-82% |
| Avg Price (30d) | $40 | $25-38% |
| Performance per Dollar | 0.1 | 0.3+200% |
| Codename | GF104 | GB202 |
| Release | July 12 2010 | January 30 2025 |
| Ranking | #652 | #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 4600 and GeForce FX 5200
