RADEON 9200 SE vs GeForce3 Ti 200
RADEON 9200 SE
Popular choices:
GeForce3 Ti 200
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 RADEON 9200 SE is positioned at rank 742 and the GeForce3 Ti 200 is on rank 382, so the GeForce3 Ti 200 offers better cost-efficiency for playing games.
Avg price is the current average price collected from markets across the web.
Performance Per Dollar RADEON 9200 SE
Performance Per Dollar GeForce3 Ti 200
Performance Comparison
About G3D Mark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
⚠️ Generational Difference
The RADEON 9200 SE is significantly newer (2025 vs 2018). 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 GeForce3 Ti 200 lacks this hardware feature set, limiting its longevity in modern titles despite any raw power similarities.
🚀 Performance Leadership
The GeForce3 Ti 200 is the superior choice for raw performance. It leads with a 33.3% higher G3D Mark score and 100% more VRAM (512 MB vs 256 MB). This advantage makes it significantly better for higher resolutions (1440p/4K) and graphic-intensive titles compared to the RADEON 9200 SE.
| Insight | RADEON 9200 SE | GeForce3 Ti 200 |
|---|---|---|
| Performance | ❌Lower raw frame rates (-33.3%) | ✅Leading raw performance (+33.3%) |
| Longevity | RDNA 3.5 (2024−2025) (4nm) | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2018 / Turing (2018−2022)) |
| Ecosystem | Supports FSR Upscaling | Supports FSR Upscaling |
| VRAM | ❌ Less VRAM capacity | ✅ More VRAM (+100%) |
| Efficiency | 💡 Excellent Perf/Watt | ⚡ Higher Power Consumption |
| Case Fit | 📏 Compact / SFF Friendly | 📏 Compact / SFF Friendly |
💎 Value Proposition
The RADEON 9200 SE offers a compelling cost-to-performance ratio. Priced at $15 versus $49 for the GeForce3 Ti 200, it costs 69% less. While it maintains basic entry-level capabilities, this results in a 145% higher cost efficiency score.
| Insight | RADEON 9200 SE | GeForce3 Ti 200 |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ✅Better overall value (+145%) | ❌Lower cost efficiency |
| Upfront Cost | ✅More affordable ($15) | ⚠️Higher upfront cost ($49) |
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 RADEON 9200 SE and GeForce3 Ti 200
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.
GeForce3 Ti 200
The GeForce3 Ti 200 is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in September 20 2018. It features the Turing architecture. The core clock ranges from 1515 MHz to 1710 MHz. It has 2944 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 215W. Manufactured using 12 nm process technology. It features 46 dedicated ray tracing cores for enhanced lighting effects. G3D Mark benchmark score: 4 points. Launch price was $699.
Graphics Performance
In G3D Mark, the RADEON 9200 SE scores 3 versus the GeForce3 Ti 200's 4 — the GeForce3 Ti 200 leads by 33.3%. The RADEON 9200 SE is built on RDNA 3.5 while the GeForce3 Ti 200 uses Turing, both on 4 nm vs 12 nm. Shader units: 2,560 (RADEON 9200 SE) vs 2,944 (GeForce3 Ti 200). Raw compute: 14.85 TFLOPS (RADEON 9200 SE) vs 10.07 TFLOPS (GeForce3 Ti 200). Boost clocks: 2900 MHz vs 1710 MHz. Ray tracing: 40 RT cores (RADEON 9200 SE) vs 46 (GeForce3 Ti 200) vs 368.
| Feature | RADEON 9200 SE | GeForce3 Ti 200 |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 3 | 4+33% |
| Architecture | RDNA 3.5 | Turing |
| Process Node | 4 nm | 12 nm |
| Shading Units | 2560 | 2944+15% |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 14.85 TFLOPS+47% | 10.07 TFLOPS |
| Boost Clock | 2900 MHz+70% | 1710 MHz |
| ROPs | 64 | 64 |
| TMUs | 160 | 184+15% |
| L2 Cache | 8 MB+100% | 4 MB |
| Ray Tracing Cores | 40 | 46+15% |
Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)
| Feature | RADEON 9200 SE | GeForce3 Ti 200 |
|---|---|---|
| Upscaling Tech | FSR 1.0 (Software) | FSR 1.0 (Software) |
| Frame Generation | Not Supported | Not Supported |
| Ray Reconstruction | No | No |
| Low Latency | AMD Anti-Lag | Standard |
Video Memory (VRAM)
The RADEON 9200 SE comes with 256 MB of VRAM, while the GeForce3 Ti 200 has 512 MB. The GeForce3 Ti 200 offers 100% more capacity, crucial for higher resolutions and texture-heavy games. Bus width: 64-bit vs 64-bit. L2 Cache: 8 MB (RADEON 9200 SE) vs 4 MB (GeForce3 Ti 200) — the RADEON 9200 SE has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.
| Feature | RADEON 9200 SE | GeForce3 Ti 200 |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 0.25 GB | 0.5 GB+100% |
| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Bus Width | 64-bit | 64-bit |
| L2 Cache | 8 MB+100% | 4 MB |
Display & API Support
DirectX support: 8.1 (RADEON 9200 SE) vs 8.1 (GeForce3 Ti 200). Vulkan: N/A vs N/A. OpenGL: 1.3 vs 1.3. Maximum simultaneous displays: 2 vs 2.
| Feature | RADEON 9200 SE | GeForce3 Ti 200 |
|---|---|---|
| DirectX | 8.1 | 8.1 |
| Vulkan | N/A | N/A |
| OpenGL | 1.3 | 1.3 |
| Max Displays | 2 | 2 |
Media & Encoding
Hardware encoder: None (RADEON 9200 SE) vs None (GeForce3 Ti 200). Decoder: None vs None. Supported codecs: MPEG-2 (RADEON 9200 SE) vs MPEG-2 (GeForce3 Ti 200).
| Feature | RADEON 9200 SE | GeForce3 Ti 200 |
|---|---|---|
| Encoder | None | None |
| Decoder | None | None |
| Codecs | MPEG-2 | MPEG-2 |
Power & Dimensions
The RADEON 9200 SE draws 55W versus the GeForce3 Ti 200's 215W — a 118.5% difference. The RADEON 9200 SE is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 350W (RADEON 9200 SE) vs 350W (GeForce3 Ti 200). Power connectors: Legacy vs PCIe-powered. Card length: 168mm vs 183mm, occupying 1 vs 1 slots. Typical load temperature: 60 vs 60.
| Feature | RADEON 9200 SE | GeForce3 Ti 200 |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 55W-74% | 215W |
| Recommended PSU | 350W | 350W |
| Power Connector | Legacy | PCIe-powered |
| Length | 168mm | 183mm |
| Height | 111mm | 100mm |
| Slots | 1 | 1 |
| Temp (Load) | 60 | 60 |
| Perf/Watt | 0.1 | 0.0 |
Value Analysis
The RADEON 9200 SE launched at $30 MSRP and currently averages $15, while the GeForce3 Ti 200 launched at $149 and now averages $49. The RADEON 9200 SE costs 69.4% less ($34 savings) at current market prices. Performance per dollar (G3D Mark / price): 0.2 (RADEON 9200 SE) vs 0.1 (GeForce3 Ti 200) — the RADEON 9200 SE offers 100% better value. The RADEON 9200 SE is the newer GPU (2025 vs 2018).
| Feature | RADEON 9200 SE | GeForce3 Ti 200 |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $30-80% | $149 |
| Avg Price (30d) | $15-69% | $49 |
| Performance per Dollar | 0.2+100% | 0.1 |
| Codename | Strix Halo | TU104 |
| Release | January 6 2025 | September 20 2018 |
| Ranking | #98 | #94 |
Top Performing GPUs
The most powerful gpus ranked by G3D Mark benchmark scores.
You May Also Compare
Similar GPU comparisons based on RADEON 9200 SE and GeForce3 Ti 200
