RTX A2000 Mobile vs GeForce FX 5700 Ultra

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared GeForce FX 5700 Ultra with RTX A2000 Mobile, including specs and performance data.

FX 5700 Ultra
2003, $199
128 MB GDDR2, 46 Watt
0.08
RTX A2000 Mobile
2021
4 GB GDDR6, 95 Watt
22.65
+28213%

RTX A2000 Mobile outperforms 5700 Ultra by a whopping 28213% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking1546282
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiency0.1318.45
ArchitectureRankine (2003−2005)Ampere (2020−2025)
GPU code nameNV36GA107
Market segmentDesktopMobile workstation
Release date23 October 2003 (22 years ago)12 April 2021 (5 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$199 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

Currently popular graphics cards are shown for comparison.

Detailed specifications

General parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. Real power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially if overclocked.

Pipelines / CUDA coresno data2560
Core clock speed475 MHz1215 MHz
Boost clock speedno data1687 MHz
Number of transistors82 million8,700 million
Manufacturing process technology130 nm8 nm
Power consumption (TDP)46 Watt95 Watt
Texture fill rate1.900135.0
Floating-point processing powerno data8.637 TFLOPS
ROPs448
TMUs480
Tensor Coresno data80
Ray Tracing Coresno data20
L1 Cacheno data2.5 MB
L2 Cacheno data2 MB

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 sizeno datalarge
InterfaceAGP 8xPCIe 4.0 x16
Length229 mmno data
Width1-slotno data
Supplementary power connectors1x Molexno data

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 typeGDDR2GDDR6
Maximum RAM amount128 MB4 GB
Memory bus width128 Bit128 Bit
Memory clock speed453 MHz1500 MHz
Memory bandwidth14.5 GB/s192.0 GB/s
Shared memory--
Resizable BAR-+

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 Connectors1x DVI, 1x VGA, 1x S-VideoPortable Device Dependent

API and SDK support

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

DirectX9.0a12 Ultimate (12_2)
Shader Modelno data6.8
OpenGL1.5 (2.1)4.6
OpenCLN/A3.0
VulkanN/A1.3
CUDA-8.6
DLSS-+

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 5700 Ultra 0.08
RTX A2000 Mobile 22.65
+28213%

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 5700 Ultra 34
Samples: 5
RTX A2000 Mobile 9435
+27650%
Samples: 2091

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:

Full HD-0−179
1440p-0−142
4K-0−138

Cost per frame, $

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low

Counter-Strike 2 130−140
+0%
130−140
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 74
+0%
74
+0%
Resident Evil 4 Remake 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%

Full HD
Medium

Battlefield 5 90−95
+0%
90−95
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 130−140
+0%
130−140
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 62
+0%
62
+0%
Escape from Tarkov 90−95
+0%
90−95
+0%
Far Cry 5 96
+0%
96
+0%
Fortnite 110−120
+0%
110−120
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 90−95
+0%
90−95
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 90−95
+0%
90−95
+0%
Valorant 160−170
+0%
160−170
+0%

Full HD
High

Battlefield 5 90−95
+0%
90−95
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 130−140
+0%
130−140
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 250−260
+0%
250−260
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 50
+0%
50
+0%
Dota 2 145
+0%
145
+0%
Escape from Tarkov 90−95
+0%
90−95
+0%
Far Cry 5 88
+0%
88
+0%
Fortnite 110−120
+0%
110−120
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 90−95
+0%
90−95
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 106
+0%
106
+0%
Metro Exodus 44
+0%
44
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 90−95
+0%
90−95
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 96
+0%
96
+0%
Valorant 160−170
+0%
160−170
+0%

Full HD
Ultra

Battlefield 5 90−95
+0%
90−95
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 41
+0%
41
+0%
Dota 2 129
+0%
129
+0%
Escape from Tarkov 90−95
+0%
90−95
+0%
Far Cry 5 83
+0%
83
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 90−95
+0%
90−95
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 90−95
+0%
90−95
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 50
+0%
50
+0%
Valorant 160−170
+0%
160−170
+0%

Full HD
Epic

Fortnite 110−120
+0%
110−120
+0%

1440p
High

Counter-Strike 2 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 160−170
+0%
160−170
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 50
+0%
50
+0%
Metro Exodus 27
+0%
27
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 170−180
+0%
170−180
+0%
Valorant 180−190
+0%
180−190
+0%

1440p
Ultra

Battlefield 5 65−70
+0%
65−70
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 25
+0%
25
+0%
Escape from Tarkov 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%
Far Cry 5 53
+0%
53
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%

1440p
Epic

Fortnite 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%

4K
High

Counter-Strike 2 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 44
+0%
44
+0%
Metro Exodus 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 33
+0%
33
+0%
Valorant 120−130
+0%
120−130
+0%

4K
Ultra

Battlefield 5 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Dota 2 72
+0%
72
+0%
Escape from Tarkov 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Far Cry 5 26
+0%
26
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%

4K
Epic

Fortnite 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 63 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 0.08 22.65
Recency 23 October 2003 12 April 2021
Maximum RAM amount 128 MB 4 GB
Chip lithography 130 nm 8 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 46 Watt 95 Watt

FX 5700 Ultra has 107% lower power consumption.

RTX A2000 Mobile, on the other hand, has a 28213% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 17 years, a 3100% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 1525% more advanced lithography process.

The RTX A2000 Mobile is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce FX 5700 Ultra in performance tests.

Be aware that GeForce FX 5700 Ultra is a desktop graphics card while RTX A2000 Mobile is a mobile workstation one.

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.


3 6 votes

Rate GeForce FX 5700 Ultra on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.9 144 votes

Rate RTX A2000 Mobile on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about GeForce FX 5700 Ultra or RTX A2000 Mobile, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.