GeForce4 4200 Go vs GeForce GTX 760

Place in the ranking	397	1515
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	4.49	no data
Power efficiency	5.09	no data
Architecture	Kepler (2012−2018)	no data
GPU code name	GK104	NV28M
Market segment	Desktop	Laptop
Release date	25 June 2013 (11 years ago)	15 November 2002 (22 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	$249	no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

no data

Detailed specifications

General parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.

Pipelines / CUDA cores	1152	6
Core clock speed	980 MHz	2 MHz
Boost clock speed	1033 MHz	200 MHz
Number of transistors	3,540 million	no data
Manufacturing process technology	28 nm	150 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	170 Watt	no data
Maximum GPU temperature	97 °C	no data
Texture fill rate	99.07	no data
Floating-point processing power	2.378 TFLOPS	no data
ROPs	32	no data
TMUs	96	no data

Form factor & compatibility

Information on compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For desktop graphics cards it's interface and bus (motherboard compatibility), additional power connectors (power supply compatibility).

Laptop size	no data	medium sized
Bus support	PCI Express 3.0	no data
Interface	PCIe 3.0 x16	no data
Length	241 mm	no data
Height	4.376" (11.1 cm)	no data
Width	2-slot	no data
Minimum recommended system power	500 Watt	no data
Supplementary power connectors	2x 6-pin	no data
SLI options	+	-

VRAM capacity and type

Parameters of VRAM installed: its type, size, bus, clock and resulting bandwidth. Integrated GPUs have no dedicated video RAM and use a shared part of system RAM.

Memory type	GDDR5	DDR
Maximum RAM amount	2 GB	128 MB
Memory bus width	256 Bit	128 Bit
Memory clock speed	1502 MHz	200 MHz
Memory bandwidth	192.2 GB/s	no data
Shared memory	-	-

Connectivity and outputs

Types and number of video connectors present on the reviewed GPUs. As a rule, data in this section is precise only for desktop reference ones (so-called Founders Edition for NVIDIA chips). OEM manufacturers may change the number and type of output ports, while for notebook cards availability of certain video outputs ports depends on the laptop model rather than on the card itself.

Display Connectors	One Dual Link DVI-I, One Dual Link DVI-D, One HDMI, One DisplayPort	no data
Multi monitor support	4 displays	no data
HDMI	+	-
HDCP	+	-
Maximum VGA resolution	2048x1536	no data
Audio input for HDMI	Internal	no data

Supported technologies

Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.

Blu Ray 3D	+	-
3D Gaming	+	-
3D Vision	+	-
PhysX	+	-
3D Vision Live	+	-

API compatibility

List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.

DirectX	12 (11_0)	DDR
Shader Model	5.1	no data
OpenGL	4.3	no data
OpenCL	1.2	no data
Vulkan	1.1.126	-
CUDA	+	-

Synthetic benchmark performance

Non-gaming benchmark results comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.

Combined synthetic benchmark score

This is our combined benchmark score. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.

GTX 760 12.42
+124100%

GeForce4 4200 Go 0.01

Passmark

This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark. It gives the graphics card a thorough evaluation under various types of load, providing four separate benchmarks for Direct3D versions 9, 10, 11 and 12 (the last being done in 4K resolution if possible), and few more tests engaging DirectCompute capabilities.

GTX 760 4792
+159633%

GeForce4 4200 Go 3

Gaming performance

Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.

Average FPS across all PC games

Here are the average frames per second in a large set of popular games across different resolutions:

Full HD

-0−1

Cost per frame, $

1080p

3.61

no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

18−20
+850%

2−3

−850%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	27−30 +867%	3−4 −867%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	18−20	0−1
Battlefield 5	40−45	0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	24−27 +1150%	2−3 −1150%
Cyberpunk 2077	18−20 +850%	2−3 −850%
Far Cry 5	27−30	0−1
Far Cry New Dawn	30−35	0−1
Forza Horizon 4	80−85	0−1
Hitman 3	21−24 +475%	4−5 −475%
Horizon Zero Dawn	65−70 +713%	8−9 −713%
Metro Exodus	40−45	0−1
Red Dead Redemption 2	30−35	0−1
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	40−45 +900%	4−5 −900%
Watch Dogs: Legion	70−75 +154%	27−30 −154%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	27−30 +867%	3−4 −867%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	18−20	0−1
Battlefield 5	40−45	0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	24−27 +1150%	2−3 −1150%
Cyberpunk 2077	18−20 +850%	2−3 −850%
Far Cry 5	27−30	0−1
Far Cry New Dawn	30−35	0−1
Forza Horizon 4	80−85	0−1
Hitman 3	21−24 +475%	4−5 −475%
Horizon Zero Dawn	65−70 +713%	8−9 −713%
Metro Exodus	40−45	0−1
Red Dead Redemption 2	30−35	0−1
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	40−45 +900%	4−5 −900%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	30−35 +244%	9−10 −244%
Watch Dogs: Legion	70−75 +154%	27−30 −154%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	27−30 +867%	3−4 −867%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	18−20	0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	24−27 +1150%	2−3 −1150%
Cyberpunk 2077	18−20 +850%	2−3 −850%
Far Cry 5	27−30	0−1
Forza Horizon 4	80−85	0−1
Hitman 3	21−24 +475%	4−5 −475%
Horizon Zero Dawn	65−70 +713%	8−9 −713%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	40−45 +900%	4−5 −900%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	30−35 +244%	9−10 −244%
Watch Dogs: Legion	70−75 +154%	27−30 −154%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

30−35

0−1

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5	24−27	0−1
Far Cry New Dawn	18−20	0−1

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	12−14	0−1
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	9−10	0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	12−14	0−1
Cyberpunk 2077	6−7	0−1
Far Cry 5	14−16	0−1
Forza Horizon 4	60−65	0−1
Hitman 3	14−16 +150%	6−7 −150%
Horizon Zero Dawn	24−27 +1150%	2−3 −1150%
Metro Exodus	20−22	0−1
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	20−22	0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	12−14	0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion	75−80	0−1

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

20−22
+900%

2−3

−900%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5	12−14	0−1
Far Cry New Dawn	9−10	0−1
Hitman 3	8−9	0−1
Horizon Zero Dawn	55−60	0−1
Metro Exodus	10−12	0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	10−12	0−1

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	7−8 +600%	1−2 −600%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	6−7	0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	6−7	0−1
Cyberpunk 2077	2−3	0−1
Far Cry 5	7−8	0−1
Forza Horizon 4	16−18	0−1
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	10−12	0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion	5−6	0−1

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

10−12
+450%

2−3

−450%

Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:

in Call of Duty: Modern Warfare, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the GTX 760 is 1150% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

Without exception, GTX 760 surpassed GeForce4 4200 Go in all 29 of our tests.

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	12.42	0.01
Recency	25 June 2013	15 November 2002
Maximum RAM amount	2 GB	128 MB
Chip lithography	28 nm	150 nm

GTX 760 has a 124100% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 10 years, a 1500% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 435.7% more advanced lithography process.

The GeForce GTX 760 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce4 4200 Go in performance tests.

Be aware that GeForce GTX 760 is a desktop card while GeForce4 4200 Go is a notebook one.

Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.