RADEON 9200 vs GeForce4 MX 4000
RADEON 9200
Popular choices:
GeForce4 MX 4000
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. The RADEON 9200 is positioned at rank #748 in our cost-efficiency ranking, representing a Lower cost-benefit for your build. Components placed above yours deliver better value for money.
Avg price is the current average price collected from markets across the web.
Performance Per Dollar RADEON 9200
Performance Per Dollar
Performance Comparison
About G3D Mark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
🚀 Performance Leadership
The GeForce4 MX 4000 is the superior choice for raw performance. It leads with a 25% 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.
| Insight | RADEON 9200 | GeForce4 MX 4000 |
|---|---|---|
| Performance | ❌Lower raw frame rates (-25%) | ✅Leading raw performance (+25%) |
| Longevity | GCN 3.0 (2014−2019) (28nm) | Turing (2018−2022) (12nm) |
| Ecosystem | Supports FSR Upscaling | Supports FSR Upscaling |
| VRAM | ❌ Less VRAM capacity | ✅ More VRAM (+100%) |
| Efficiency | ⚡ Higher Power Consumption | 💡 Excellent Perf/Watt |
| Case Fit | — | 📏 Compact / SFF Friendly |
💎 Value Proposition
The RADEON 9200 offers a compelling cost-to-performance ratio. Priced at $25 versus $49 for the GeForce4 MX 4000, it costs 49% less. While it maintains basic entry-level capabilities, this results in a 56.8% higher cost efficiency score.
| Insight | RADEON 9200 | GeForce4 MX 4000 |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ✅Better overall value (+56.8%) | ❌Lower cost efficiency |
| Upfront Cost | ✅More affordable ($25) | ⚠️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 and GeForce4 MX 4000
RADEON 9200
The RADEON 9200 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in May 13 2019. It features the GCN 3.0 architecture. The core clock ranges from 730 MHz to 1024 MHz. It has 384 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 50W. Manufactured using 28 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 4 points.
GeForce4 MX 4000
The GeForce4 MX 4000 is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in August 1 2020. It features the Turing architecture. The core clock ranges from 1395 MHz to 1575 MHz. It has 896 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 25W. Manufactured using 12 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 5 points.
Graphics Performance
In G3D Mark, the RADEON 9200 scores 4 versus the GeForce4 MX 4000's 5 — the GeForce4 MX 4000 leads by 25%. The RADEON 9200 is built on GCN 3.0 while the GeForce4 MX 4000 uses Turing, both on 28 nm vs 12 nm. Shader units: 384 (RADEON 9200) vs 896 (GeForce4 MX 4000). Raw compute: 0.7864 TFLOPS (RADEON 9200) vs 3.226 TFLOPS (GeForce4 MX 4000). Boost clocks: 1024 MHz vs 1575 MHz.
| Feature | RADEON 9200 | GeForce4 MX 4000 |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 4 | 5+25% |
| Architecture | GCN 3.0 | Turing |
| Process Node | 28 nm | 12 nm |
| Shading Units | 384 | 896+133% |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 0.7864 TFLOPS | 3.226 TFLOPS+310% |
| Boost Clock | 1024 MHz | 1575 MHz+54% |
| ROPs | 8 | 32+300% |
| TMUs | 24 | 64+167% |
Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)
| Feature | RADEON 9200 | GeForce4 MX 4000 |
|---|---|---|
| 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 comes with 256 MB of VRAM, while the GeForce4 MX 4000 has 512 MB. The GeForce4 MX 4000 offers 100% more capacity, crucial for higher resolutions and texture-heavy games. Bus width: 64-bit vs 64-bit.
| Feature | RADEON 9200 | GeForce4 MX 4000 |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 0.25 GB | 0.5 GB+100% |
| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Bus Width | 64-bit | 64-bit |
Power & Dimensions
The RADEON 9200 draws 50W versus the GeForce4 MX 4000's 25W — a 66.7% difference. The GeForce4 MX 4000 is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 350W (RADEON 9200) vs 350W (GeForce4 MX 4000). Power connectors: Legacy vs PCIe-powered.
| Feature | RADEON 9200 | GeForce4 MX 4000 |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 50W | 25W-50% |
| Recommended PSU | 350W | 350W |
| Power Connector | Legacy | PCIe-powered |
| Length | — | 168mm |
| Height | — | 100mm |
| Slots | — | 1 |
| Temp (Load) | — | 60°C |
| Perf/Watt | 0.1 | 0.2+100% |
Value Analysis
The RADEON 9200 launched at $99 MSRP and currently averages $25, while the GeForce4 MX 4000 launched at $0 and now averages $49. The RADEON 9200 costs 49% less ($24 savings) at current market prices. Performance per dollar (G3D Mark / price): 0.2 (RADEON 9200) vs 0.1 (GeForce4 MX 4000) — the RADEON 9200 offers 100% better value. The GeForce4 MX 4000 is the newer GPU (2020 vs 2019).
| Feature | RADEON 9200 | GeForce4 MX 4000 |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $99 | $0-100% |
| Avg Price (30d) | $25-49% | $49 |
| Performance per Dollar | 0.2+100% | 0.1 |
| Codename | Polaris 24 | N17S-G5 / GP107-670-A1 |
| Release | May 13 2019 | August 1 2020 |
| Ranking | #898 | #523 |
Top Performing GPUs
The most powerful gpus ranked by G3D Mark benchmark scores.
You May Also Compare
Similar GPU comparisons based on RADEON 9200 and GeForce4 MX 4000
