GeForce4 MX 420 vs Quadro FX 2500M

VS

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking1209not rated
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiency0.86no data
ArchitectureCurie (2003−2013)Celsius (1999−2005)
GPU code nameG71NV17 A3
Market segmentMobile workstationDesktop
Release date29 September 2005 (19 years ago)6 February 2002 (22 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$99.99 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 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

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, 1x S-Video

API compatibility

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 benchmark performance

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



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%
GeForce4 MX 420 4

Pros & cons summary


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

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

We couldn't decide between Quadro FX 2500M and GeForce4 MX 420. We've got no test results to judge.

Be aware that Quadro FX 2500M is a mobile workstation card while GeForce4 MX 420 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 Quadro FX 2500M
Quadro FX 2500M
NVIDIA GeForce4 MX 420
GeForce4 MX 420

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 4 votes

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.4 23 votes

Rate GeForce4 MX 420 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.