GeForce4 MX 4000 vs ION 2
Aggregate performance score
We've compared ION 2 with GeForce4 MX 4000, including specs and performance data.
ION 2 outperforms GeForce4 MX 4000 by a whopping 3200% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 1317 | 1521 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 1.15 | no data |
| Architecture | Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013) | Celsius (1999−2005) |
| GPU code name | GT218 | NV18 A4 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop |
| Release date | 3 June 2008 (16 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 cores | 16 | no data |
| Core clock speed | 500 MHz | 250 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 260 million | 29 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 150 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 20 Watt | no data |
| Texture fill rate | 4.000 | 1.000 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.03424 TFLOPS | no data |
| ROPs | 4 | 2 |
| TMUs | 8 | 4 |
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).
| Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | AGP 8x |
| Length | no data | 168 mm |
| Width | no data | 1-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | None |
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 | System Shared | DDR |
| Maximum RAM amount | System Shared | 128 MB |
| Memory bus width | System Shared | 64 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | System Shared | 166 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | no data | 2.656 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 Connectors | No outputs | 1x VGA |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 11.1 (10_1) | 8.0 |
| Shader Model | 4.1 | no data |
| OpenGL | 3.3 | 1.3 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | N/A |
| Vulkan | N/A | N/A |
| CUDA | 1.2 | - |
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 Preset
| Atomic Heart | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Atomic Heart | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 3−4 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 7−8 | 0−1 |
| Valorant | 24−27 | 0−1 |
Full HD
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 12−14 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 10−11 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 3−4 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 7−8 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 4−5 | 0−1 |
| Valorant | 24−27 | 0−1 |
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 10−11 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 3−4 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 7−8 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 4−5 | 0−1 |
| Valorant | 24−27 | 0−1 |
1440p
High Preset
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 2−3 | 0−1 |
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 1−2 | 0−1 |
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 0−1 | 0−1 |
4K
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16 | 0−1 |
| Valorant | 2−3 | 0−1 |
4K
Ultra Preset
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 2−3 | 0−1 |
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 2−3 | 0−1 |
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.33 | 0.01 |
| Recency | 3 June 2008 | 14 December 2003 |
| Chip lithography | 40 nm | 150 nm |
ION 2 has a 3200% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 4 years, and a 275% more advanced lithography process.
The ION 2 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce4 MX 4000 in performance tests.
Be aware that ION 2 is a notebook card while GeForce4 MX 4000 is a desktop one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
