Radeon IGP 340M vs GeForce3 Ti 200
Radeon IGP 340M
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 IGP 340M is positioned at rank 414 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 IGP 340M
Performance Per Dollar GeForce3 Ti 200
Performance Comparison
About G3D Mark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
🚀 Performance Leadership
The GeForce3 Ti 200 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 Radeon IGP 340M.
| Insight | Radeon IGP 340M | GeForce3 Ti 200 |
|---|---|---|
| Performance | ❌Lower raw frame rates (-33.3%) | ✅Leading raw performance (+33.3%) |
| Longevity | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2018 / GCN 5.0 (2017−2020)) | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2018 / Turing (2018−2022)) |
| 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
While current pricing data is unavailable, the GeForce3 Ti 200 remains the clear technical winner. Check real-time availability to determine if the performance gap justifies the market price.
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 IGP 340M and GeForce3 Ti 200
Radeon IGP 340M
The Radeon IGP 340M is manufactured by AMD. It was released in August 26 2018. It features the GCN 5.0 architecture. The core clock ranges from 852 MHz to 1500 MHz. It has 3584 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 230W. Manufactured using 14 nm process technology. 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 IGP 340M scores 3 versus the GeForce3 Ti 200's 4 — the GeForce3 Ti 200 leads by 33.3%. The Radeon IGP 340M is built on GCN 5.0 while the GeForce3 Ti 200 uses Turing, both on 14 nm vs 12 nm. Shader units: 3,584 (Radeon IGP 340M) vs 2,944 (GeForce3 Ti 200). Raw compute: 10.75 TFLOPS (Radeon IGP 340M) vs 10.07 TFLOPS (GeForce3 Ti 200). Boost clocks: 1500 MHz vs 1710 MHz.
| Feature | Radeon IGP 340M | GeForce3 Ti 200 |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 3 | 4+33% |
| Architecture | GCN 5.0 | Turing |
| Process Node | 14 nm | 12 nm |
| Shading Units | 3584+22% | 2944 |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 10.75 TFLOPS+7% | 10.07 TFLOPS |
| Boost Clock | 1500 MHz | 1710 MHz+14% |
| ROPs | 64 | 64 |
| TMUs | 224+22% | 184 |
| L1 Cache | 0.88 MB | 2.9 MB+230% |
| L2 Cache | 4 MB | 4 MB |
Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)
| Feature | Radeon IGP 340M | 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)
Both cards feature 512 MB of GDDR5. Bus width: 64-bit vs 64-bit.
| Feature | Radeon IGP 340M | GeForce3 Ti 200 |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 0.5 GB | 0.5 GB |
| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Bus Width | 64-bit | 64-bit |
| L2 Cache | 4 MB | 4 MB |
Power & Dimensions
The Radeon IGP 340M draws 230W versus the GeForce3 Ti 200's 215W — a 6.7% difference. The GeForce3 Ti 200 is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 350W (Radeon IGP 340M) vs 350W (GeForce3 Ti 200). Power connectors: PCIe-powered vs PCIe-powered.
| Feature | Radeon IGP 340M | GeForce3 Ti 200 |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 230W | 215W-7% |
| Recommended PSU | 350W | 350W |
| Power Connector | PCIe-powered | PCIe-powered |
| Length | — | 183mm |
| Height | — | 100mm |
| Slots | — | 1 |
| Temp (Load) | — | 60 |
| Perf/Watt | 0.0 | 0.0 |
Top Performing GPUs
The most powerful gpus ranked by G3D Mark benchmark scores.
You May Also Compare
Similar GPU comparisons based on Radeon IGP 340M and GeForce3 Ti 200
