RTX A2000 vs GeForce FX 5950 Ultra

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared GeForce FX 5950 Ultra with RTX A2000, including specs and performance data.

FX 5950 Ultra
2003, $499
256 MB DDR, 74 Watt
0.14

RTX A2000 outperforms 5950 Ultra by a whopping 22914% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking1505193
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluationno data30.39
Power efficiency0.1535.61
ArchitectureRankine (2003−2005)Ampere (2020−2025)
GPU code nameNV38GA106
Market segmentDesktopWorkstation
Release date23 October 2003 (22 years ago)10 August 2021 (5 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$499 $449

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.

FX 5950 Ultra and RTX A2000 have a nearly equal value for money.

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 data3328
Core clock speed475 MHz562 MHz
Boost clock speedno data1200 MHz
Number of transistors135 million12,000 million
Manufacturing process technology130 nm8 nm
Power consumption (TDP)74 Watt70 Watt
Texture fill rate3.800124.8
Floating-point processing powerno data7.987 TFLOPS
ROPs448
TMUs8104
Tensor Coresno data104
Ray Tracing Coresno data26
L1 Cacheno data3.3 MB
L2 Cacheno data3 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).

InterfaceAGP 8xPCIe 4.0 x16
Length229 mm167 mm
Width2-slot2-slot
Supplementary power connectors1x MolexNone

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 typeDDRGDDR6
Maximum RAM amount256 MB6 GB
Memory bus width256 Bit192 Bit
Memory clock speed475 MHz1500 MHz
Memory bandwidth30.4 GB/s288.0 GB/s
Shared memoryno data-
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-Video4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a

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
OpenGL2.14.6
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 5950 Ultra 0.14
RTX A2000 32.22
+22914%

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 5950 Ultra 59
Samples: 3
RTX A2000 13423
+22651%
Samples: 1110

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-0−190
1440p-0−143
4K-0−127

Cost per frame, $

1080pno data4.99
1440pno data10.44
4Kno data16.63

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low

Counter-Strike 2 180−190
+0%
180−190
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 70−75
+0%
70−75
+0%
Palworld 85−90
+0%
85−90
+0%
Resident Evil 4 Remake 80−85
+0%
80−85
+0%

Full HD
Medium

Battlefield 5 110−120
+0%
110−120
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 180−190
+0%
180−190
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 70−75
+0%
70−75
+0%
Far Cry 5 108
+0%
108
+0%
Fortnite 140−150
+0%
140−150
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 120−130
+0%
120−130
+0%
Palworld 85−90
+0%
85−90
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 130−140
+0%
130−140
+0%
Valorant 200−210
+0%
200−210
+0%

Full HD
High

Battlefield 5 110−120
+0%
110−120
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 180−190
+0%
180−190
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 270−280
+0%
270−280
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 70−75
+0%
70−75
+0%
Far Cry 5 98
+0%
98
+0%
Fortnite 140−150
+0%
140−150
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 120−130
+0%
120−130
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 129
+0%
129
+0%
Metro Exodus 60
+0%
60
+0%
Palworld 85−90
+0%
85−90
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 130−140
+0%
130−140
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 117
+0%
117
+0%
Valorant 200−210
+0%
200−210
+0%

Full HD
Ultra

Battlefield 5 110−120
+0%
110−120
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 70−75
+0%
70−75
+0%
Far Cry 5 91
+0%
91
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 120−130
+0%
120−130
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 130−140
+0%
130−140
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 64
+0%
64
+0%
Valorant 200−210
+0%
200−210
+0%

Full HD
Epic

Fortnite 140−150
+0%
140−150
+0%
Palworld 85−90
+0%
85−90
+0%

1440p
High

Counter-Strike 2 75−80
+0%
75−80
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 220−230
+0%
220−230
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 58
+0%
58
+0%
Metro Exodus 34
+0%
34
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 170−180
+0%
170−180
+0%
Valorant 230−240
+0%
230−240
+0%

1440p
Ultra

Battlefield 5 85−90
+0%
85−90
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Far Cry 5 61
+0%
61
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 85−90
+0%
85−90
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 47
+0%
47
+0%

1440p
Epic

Fortnite 80−85
+0%
80−85
+0%
Palworld 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%

4K
High

Counter-Strike 2 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 56
+0%
56
+0%
Metro Exodus 20
+0%
20
+0%
Palworld 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 40
+0%
40
+0%
Valorant 190−200
+0%
190−200
+0%

4K
Ultra

Battlefield 5 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Far Cry 5 30
+0%
30
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%

4K
Epic

Fortnite 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
Palworld 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 62 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 0.14 32.22
Recency 23 October 2003 10 August 2021
Maximum RAM amount 256 MB 6 GB
Chip lithography 130 nm 8 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 74 Watt 70 Watt

RTX A2000 has a 22914% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 17 years, a 2300% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 1525% more advanced lithography process, and 6% lower power consumption.

The RTX A2000 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce FX 5950 Ultra in performance tests.

Be aware that GeForce FX 5950 Ultra is a desktop graphics card while RTX A2000 is a 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.


3.5 81 votes

Rate GeForce FX 5950 Ultra on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.9 634 votes

Rate RTX A2000 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about GeForce FX 5950 Ultra or RTX A2000, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.