GeForce4 MX 420 vs Quadro FX 2500M

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Quadro FX 2500M with GeForce4 MX 420, including specs and performance data.

FX 2500M
2005, $100
512 MB GDDR3, 45 Watt
0.52
+5100%

2500M outperforms MX 420 by a whopping 5100% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.

Place in the ranking12781572
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiency0.89no data
ArchitectureCurie (2003−2013)Celsius (1999−2005)
GPU code nameG71NV17 A3
Market segmentMobile workstationDesktop
Release date29 September 2005 (20 years ago)6 February 2002 (23 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$99.99 no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.

no data

Performance to price scatter graph

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 cores32no data
Core clock speed500 MHz250 MHz
Boost clock speed500 MHzno data
Number of transistors278 million29 million
Manufacturing process technology90 nm150 nm
Power consumption (TDP)45 Wattno data
Texture fill rate12.001.000
ROPs162
TMUs244

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 sizelargeno data
InterfaceMXM-IIIAGP 4x
Widthno data1-slot
Supplementary power connectorsno dataNone

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 typeGDDR3SDR
Maximum RAM amount512 MB64 MB
Memory bus width256 Bit64 Bit
Memory clock speed600 MHz166 MHz
Memory bandwidth38.4 GB/s1.328 GB/s
Shared memory-no data

Connectivity and outputs

This section shows the types and number of video connectors on each GPU. The data applies specifically to desktop reference models (for example, NVIDIA’s Founders Edition). OEM partners often modify both the number and types of ports. On notebook GPUs, video‐output options are determined by the laptop’s design rather than the graphics chip itself.

Display ConnectorsNo outputs1x VGA, 1x S-Video

API and SDK support

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

DirectX9.0c (9_3)8.0
Shader Model3.0no data
OpenGL2.11.3
OpenCLN/AN/A
VulkanN/AN/A

Synthetic benchmarks

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.

FX 2500M 0.52
+5100%
GeForce4 MX 420 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.

FX 2500M 217
+5325%
Samples: 24
GeForce4 MX 420 4
Samples: 41

Gaming performance

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

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low

Cyberpunk 2077 1−2 0−1

Full HD
Medium

Cyberpunk 2077 1−2 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 4−5 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 8−9 0−1
Valorant 27−30 0−1

Full HD
High

Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 16−18 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2 0−1
Dota 2 10−12 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 4−5 0−1
Metro Exodus 0−1 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 8−9 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 6−7 0−1
Valorant 27−30 0−1

Full HD
Ultra

Cyberpunk 2077 1−2 0−1
Dota 2 10−12 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 4−5 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 8−9 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 6−7 0−1
Valorant 27−30 0−1

1440p
High

Counter-Strike 2 3−4 0−1
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 2−3 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 6−7 0−1

1440p
Ultra

Escape from Tarkov 2−3 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 2−3 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 2−3 0−1

1440p
Epic

Fortnite 0−1 0−1

4K
High

Grand Theft Auto V 14−16 0−1
Valorant 3−4 0−1

4K
Ultra

PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 2−3 0−1

4K
Epic

Fortnite 2−3 0−1

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 0.52 0.01
Recency 29 September 2005 6 February 2002
Maximum RAM amount 512 MB 64 MB
Chip lithography 90 nm 150 nm

FX 2500M has a 5100% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 3 years, a 700% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 66.7% more advanced lithography process.

The Quadro FX 2500M is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce4 MX 420 in performance tests.

Be aware that Quadro FX 2500M is a mobile workstation graphics card while GeForce4 MX 420 is a desktop one.

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite graphics card.


NVIDIA Quadro FX 2500M
Quadro FX 2500M
NVIDIA GeForce4 MX 420
GeForce4 MX 420

Other comparisons

We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.

Community ratings

Here you can see the user ratings of the compared graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.


2.6 5 votes

Rate Quadro FX 2500M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.4 27 votes

Rate GeForce4 MX 420 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about Quadro FX 2500M or GeForce4 MX 420, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.