GeForce4 MX 4000 vs GeForce GTX 960M

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared GeForce GTX 960M with GeForce4 MX 4000, including specs and performance data.

GTX 960M
2015
4 GB GDDR5, 75 Watt
8.76
+87500%

GTX 960M outperforms GeForce4 MX 4000 by a whopping 87500% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking4921513
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiency8.01no data
ArchitectureMaxwell (2014−2017)Celsius (1999−2005)
GPU code nameGM107NV18 A4
Market segmentLaptopDesktop
Release date13 March 2015 (9 years ago)14 December 2003 (21 year ago)

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 cores640no data
Core clock speed1096 MHz250 MHz
Boost clock speed1176 MHzno data
Number of transistors1,870 million29 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm150 nm
Power consumption (TDP)75 Wattno data
Texture fill rate47.041.000
Floating-point processing power1.505 TFLOPSno data
ROPs162
TMUs404

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 sizemedium sizedno data
Bus supportPCI Express 3.0no data
InterfaceMXM-B (3.0)AGP 8x
Lengthno data168 mm
Widthno data1-slot
Supplementary power connectorsno dataNone
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 typeGDDR5DDR
Maximum RAM amount4 GB128 MB
Memory bus width128 Bit64 Bit
Memory clock speed2500 MHz166 MHz
Memory bandwidth80 GB/s2.656 GB/s
Shared memory-no data

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 ConnectorsNo outputs1x VGA
VGA аnalog display support+no data
DisplayPort Multimode (DP++) support+no data
HDMI+-

Supported technologies

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

GameStream+-
GeForce ShadowPlay+-
GPU Boost2.0no data
GameWorks+-
H.264, VC1, MPEG2 1080p video decoder+-
Optimus+-
BatteryBoost+-
Ansel+no data

API compatibility

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

DirectX12 (11_0)8.0
Shader Model5.1no data
OpenGL4.51.3
OpenCL1.2N/A
Vulkan1.1.126N/A
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 960M 8.76
+87500%
GeForce4 MX 4000 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 960M 3375
+84275%
GeForce4 MX 4000 4

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:

900p95-0−1
Full HD34-0−1
1440p15-0−1
4K14-0−1

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 14−16 0−1

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 25 0−1
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 12−14 0−1
Battlefield 5 30 0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 18−20 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 14−16 0−1
Far Cry 5 28 0−1
Far Cry New Dawn 31 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 84 0−1
Hitman 3 16−18 0−1
Horizon Zero Dawn 50−55 0−1
Metro Exodus 31 0−1
Red Dead Redemption 2 24−27 0−1
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 48 0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion 55−60 0−1

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 31 0−1
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 12−14 0−1
Battlefield 5 23 0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 18−20 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 14−16 0−1
Far Cry 5 24 0−1
Far Cry New Dawn 23 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 71 0−1
Hitman 3 16−18 0−1
Horizon Zero Dawn 50−55 0−1
Metro Exodus 26 0−1
Red Dead Redemption 2 24−27 0−1
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 27−30 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 73 0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion 55−60 0−1

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 11 0−1
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 12−14 0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 18−20 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 14−16 0−1
Far Cry 5 18 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 25 0−1
Hitman 3 16−18 0−1
Horizon Zero Dawn 50−55 0−1
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 27−30 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 14 0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion 55−60 0−1

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 24−27 0−1

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 14 0−1
Far Cry New Dawn 15 0−1

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 8 0−1
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 4−5 0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 9−10 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5 0−1
Far Cry 5 10 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 45 0−1
Hitman 3 12−14 0−1
Horizon Zero Dawn 18−20 0−1
Metro Exodus 15 0−1
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 10−11 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 8−9 0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion 55−60 0−1

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 14−16 0−1

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5 6 0−1
Far Cry New Dawn 7 0−1
Hitman 3 5−6 0−1
Horizon Zero Dawn 35−40 0−1
Metro Exodus 8 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 10 0−1

4K
Ultra Preset

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

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 9−10 0−1

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 8.76 0.01
Recency 13 March 2015 14 December 2003
Maximum RAM amount 4 GB 128 MB
Chip lithography 28 nm 150 nm

GTX 960M has a 87500% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 11 years, a 3100% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 435.7% more advanced lithography process.

The GeForce GTX 960M is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce4 MX 4000 in performance tests.

Be aware that GeForce GTX 960M is a notebook card while GeForce4 MX 4000 is a desktop one.


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

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 GeForce GTX 960M
GeForce GTX 960M
NVIDIA GeForce4 MX 4000
GeForce4 MX 4000

Comparisons with similar GPUs

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.


3.7 1058 votes

Rate GeForce GTX 960M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
5 939 votes

Rate GeForce4 MX 4000 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about this comparison, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.