RADEON IGP 320 vs GeForce4 MX 4000
RADEON IGP 320
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 IGP 320 is positioned at rank #424 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 IGP 320
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. This advantage makes it significantly better for higher resolutions (1440p/4K) and graphic-intensive titles compared to the RADEON IGP 320.
| Insight | RADEON IGP 320 | GeForce4 MX 4000 |
|---|---|---|
| Performance | ❌Lower raw frame rates (-25%) | ✅Leading raw performance (+25%) |
| Longevity | RDNA 2.0 (2020−2025) (7nm) | Turing (2018−2022) (12nm) |
| Ecosystem | Supports FSR Upscaling | Supports FSR Upscaling |
| VRAM | ❌ Less VRAM capacity | ✅ More VRAM (+0%) |
| Efficiency | ⚡ Higher Power Consumption | 💡 Excellent Perf/Watt |
| Case Fit | — | 📏 Compact / SFF Friendly |
💎 Value Proposition
The RADEON IGP 320 offers a compelling cost-to-performance ratio. Priced at $20 versus $49 for the GeForce4 MX 4000, it costs 59% less. While it maintains basic entry-level capabilities, this results in a 96% higher cost efficiency score.
| Insight | RADEON IGP 320 | GeForce4 MX 4000 |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ✅Better overall value (+96%) | ❌Lower cost efficiency |
| Upfront Cost | ✅More affordable ($20) | ⚠️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.
Path of Exile 2
Valorant
Technical Specifications
Side-by-side comparison of RADEON IGP 320 and GeForce4 MX 4000
RADEON IGP 320
The RADEON IGP 320 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in November 4 2021. It features the RDNA 2.0 architecture. The core clock ranges from 1825 MHz to 2200 MHz. It has 4608 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 300W. Manufactured using 7 nm process technology. It features 72 dedicated ray tracing cores for enhanced lighting effects. 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 IGP 320 scores 4 versus the GeForce4 MX 4000's 5 — the GeForce4 MX 4000 leads by 25%. The RADEON IGP 320 is built on RDNA 2.0 while the GeForce4 MX 4000 uses Turing, both on 7 nm vs 12 nm. Shader units: 4,608 (RADEON IGP 320) vs 896 (GeForce4 MX 4000). Raw compute: 20.28 TFLOPS (RADEON IGP 320) vs 3.226 TFLOPS (GeForce4 MX 4000). Boost clocks: 2200 MHz vs 1575 MHz.
| Feature | RADEON IGP 320 | GeForce4 MX 4000 |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 4 | 5+25% |
| Architecture | RDNA 2.0 | Turing |
| Process Node | 7 nm | 12 nm |
| Shading Units | 4608+414% | 896 |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 20.28 TFLOPS+529% | 3.226 TFLOPS |
| Boost Clock | 2200 MHz+40% | 1575 MHz |
| ROPs | 128+300% | 32 |
| TMUs | 288+350% | 64 |
Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)
| Feature | RADEON IGP 320 | 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)
Both cards feature 512 MB of GDDR5. Bus width: 64-bit vs 64-bit.
| Feature | RADEON IGP 320 | GeForce4 MX 4000 |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 0.5 GB | 0.5 GB |
| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Bus Width | 64-bit | 64-bit |
Power & Dimensions
The RADEON IGP 320 draws 300W versus the GeForce4 MX 4000's 25W — a 169.2% difference. The GeForce4 MX 4000 is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 350W (RADEON IGP 320) vs 350W (GeForce4 MX 4000). Power connectors: Legacy vs PCIe-powered.
| Feature | RADEON IGP 320 | GeForce4 MX 4000 |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 300W | 25W-92% |
| Recommended PSU | 350W | 350W |
| Power Connector | Legacy | PCIe-powered |
| Length | — | 168mm |
| Height | — | 100mm |
| Slots | — | 1 |
| Temp (Load) | — | 60°C |
| Perf/Watt | 0.0 | 0.2 |
Value Analysis
The RADEON IGP 320 launched at $100 MSRP and currently averages $20, while the GeForce4 MX 4000 launched at $0 and now averages $49. The RADEON IGP 320 costs 59.2% less ($29 savings) at current market prices. Performance per dollar (G3D Mark / price): 0.2 (RADEON IGP 320) vs 0.1 (GeForce4 MX 4000) — the RADEON IGP 320 offers 100% better value. The RADEON IGP 320 is the newer GPU (2021 vs 2020).
| Feature | RADEON IGP 320 | GeForce4 MX 4000 |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $100 | $0-100% |
| Avg Price (30d) | $20-59% | $49 |
| Performance per Dollar | 0.2+100% | 0.1 |
| Codename | Navi 21 | N17S-G5 / GP107-670-A1 |
| Release | November 4 2021 | August 1 2020 |
| Ranking | #136 | #523 |
Top Performing GPUs
The most powerful gpus ranked by G3D Mark benchmark scores.
You May Also Compare
Similar GPU comparisons based on RADEON IGP 320 and GeForce4 MX 4000
