GeForce2 MX 400 vs Graphics Media Accelerator (GMA) 900

Primary details

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

Place in the rankingnot ratednot rated
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
ArchitectureGen. 3 (2005)Celsius (1999−2005)
GPU code nameGMA 900NV11 B2
Market segmentLaptopDesktop
Release date1 March 2005 (19 years ago)3 March 2001 (23 years 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 cores4no data
Core clock speedno data200 MHz
Boost clock speed400 MHzno data
Number of transistorsno data20 million
Manufacturing process technology130 nm180 nm
Texture fill rateno data0.8
ROPsno data2
TMUsno data4

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).

Interfaceno dataAGP 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 typeno dataSDR
Maximum RAM amountno data32 MB
Memory bus widthno data128 Bit
Memory clock speedno data166 MHz
Memory bandwidthno data2.656 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 data1x DVI, 1x VGA

API compatibility

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

DirectXno data7.0
OpenGLno data1.2
OpenCLno dataN/A
Vulkan-N/A

Pros & cons summary


Recency 1 March 2005 3 March 2001
Chip lithography 130 nm 180 nm

Graphics Media Accelerator (GMA) 900 has an age advantage of 3 years, and a 38.5% more advanced lithography process.

We couldn't decide between Graphics Media Accelerator (GMA) 900 and GeForce2 MX 400. We've got no test results to judge.

Be aware that Graphics Media Accelerator (GMA) 900 is a notebook card while GeForce2 MX 400 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.


Intel Graphics Media Accelerator (GMA) 900
Graphics Media Accelerator (GMA) 900
NVIDIA GeForce2 MX 400
GeForce2 MX 400

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.


3.1 18 votes

Rate Graphics Media Accelerator (GMA) 900 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.8 116 votes

Rate GeForce2 MX 400 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.