RADEON 9200 SE vs GeForce4 MX 460
RADEON 9200 SE
Popular choices:
GeForce4 MX 460
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 GeForce4 MX 460 is on rank 384, 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 RADEON 9200 SE
Performance Per Dollar GeForce4 MX 460
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 | RADEON 9200 SE | GeForce4 MX 460 |
|---|---|---|
| Performance | ❌Lower raw frame rates (-33.3%) | ✅Leading raw performance (+33.3%) |
| Longevity | RDNA 3.5 (2024−2025) (4nm) | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2010 / Fermi (2010−2014)) |
| Ecosystem | Supports FSR Upscaling | Supports FSR Upscaling |
| VRAM | ✅ More VRAM (+100%) | ❌ Less VRAM capacity |
| Efficiency | 💡 Excellent Perf/Watt | ⚡ Higher Power Consumption |
| 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 | RADEON 9200 SE | GeForce4 MX 460 |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ❌Lower cost efficiency | ✅Better overall value (+33.3%) |
| 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.
Technical Specifications
Side-by-side comparison of RADEON 9200 SE and GeForce4 MX 460
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.
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.
Graphics Performance
In G3D Mark, the RADEON 9200 SE scores 3 versus the GeForce4 MX 460's 4 — the GeForce4 MX 460 leads by 33.3%. The RADEON 9200 SE is built on RDNA 3.5 while the GeForce4 MX 460 uses Fermi, both on 4 nm vs 40 nm. Shader units: 2,560 (RADEON 9200 SE) vs 336 (GeForce4 MX 460). Raw compute: 14.85 TFLOPS (RADEON 9200 SE) vs 0.9072 TFLOPS (GeForce4 MX 460).
| Feature | RADEON 9200 SE | GeForce4 MX 460 |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 3 | 4+33% |
| Architecture | RDNA 3.5 | Fermi |
| Process Node | 4 nm | 40 nm |
| Shading Units | 2560+662% | 336 |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 14.85 TFLOPS+1537% | 0.9072 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 64+100% | 32 |
| TMUs | 160+186% | 56 |
| L2 Cache | 8 MB+1500% | 0.5 MB |
Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)
| Feature | RADEON 9200 SE | GeForce4 MX 460 |
|---|---|---|
| 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 GeForce4 MX 460 has 128 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: 8 MB (RADEON 9200 SE) vs 0.5 MB (GeForce4 MX 460) — the RADEON 9200 SE has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.
| Feature | RADEON 9200 SE | GeForce4 MX 460 |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 0.25 GB+100% | 0.125 GB |
| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Bus Width | 64-bit | 64-bit |
| L2 Cache | 8 MB+1500% | 0.5 MB |
Display & API Support
DirectX support: 8.1 (RADEON 9200 SE) vs 7.0 (GeForce4 MX 460). Vulkan: N/A vs None. OpenGL: 1.3 vs 1.3. Maximum simultaneous displays: 2 vs 1.
| Feature | RADEON 9200 SE | GeForce4 MX 460 |
|---|---|---|
| DirectX | 8.1+16% | 7.0 |
| Vulkan | N/A | None |
| OpenGL | 1.3 | 1.3 |
| Max Displays | 2+100% | 1 |
Media & Encoding
Hardware encoder: None (RADEON 9200 SE) vs No (GeForce4 MX 460). Decoder: None vs No.
| Feature | RADEON 9200 SE | GeForce4 MX 460 |
|---|---|---|
| Encoder | None | No |
| Decoder | None | No |
| Codecs | MPEG-2 |
Power & Dimensions
The RADEON 9200 SE draws 55W versus the GeForce4 MX 460's 160W — a 97.7% difference. The RADEON 9200 SE is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 350W (RADEON 9200 SE) vs 350W (GeForce4 MX 460). Power connectors: Legacy vs PCIe-powered. Card length: 168mm vs 165mm, occupying 1 vs 1 slots. Typical load temperature: 60 vs 60°C.
| Feature | RADEON 9200 SE | GeForce4 MX 460 |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 55W-66% | 160W |
| Recommended PSU | 350W | 350W |
| Power Connector | Legacy | PCIe-powered |
| Length | 168mm | 165mm |
| Height | 111mm | 100mm |
| Slots | 1 | 1 |
| Temp (Load) | 60 | 60°C |
| Perf/Watt | 0.1 | 0.0 |
Value Analysis
The RADEON 9200 SE launched at $30 MSRP and currently averages $15, while the GeForce4 MX 460 launched at $179 and now averages $15. Performance per dollar (G3D Mark / price): 0.2 (RADEON 9200 SE) vs 0.3 (GeForce4 MX 460) — the GeForce4 MX 460 offers 50% better value. The RADEON 9200 SE is the newer GPU (2025 vs 2010).
| Feature | RADEON 9200 SE | GeForce4 MX 460 |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $30-83% | $179 |
| Avg Price (30d) | $15 | $15 |
| Performance per Dollar | 0.2 | 0.3+50% |
| Codename | Strix Halo | GF104 |
| Release | January 6 2025 | July 12 2010 |
| Ranking | #98 | #652 |
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 GeForce4 MX 460
