GeForce FX 5950 Ultra vs Radeon 820M
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon 820M with GeForce FX 5950 Ultra, including specs and performance data.
820M outperforms 5950 Ultra by a whopping 3664% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Contents
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 677 | 1505 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 27.18 | 0.15 |
| Architecture | RDNA 3.5 (2025−2026) | Rankine (2003−2005) |
| GPU code name | Krackan Point 2 | NV38 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop |
| Release date | March 2025 (1 year ago) | 23 October 2003 (22 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $499 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
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 cores | 128 | no data |
| Core clock speed | 400 MHz | 475 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 2800 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | no data | 135 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 4 nm | 130 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 15 Watt | 74 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 22.40 | 3.800 |
| ROPs | 4 | 4 |
| TMUs | 8 | 8 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | 2 | no data |
| L0 Cache | 32 KB | no data |
| L1 Cache | 32 KB | no data |
| L2 Cache | 1024 KB | no data |
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 size | medium sized | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 4.0 x8 | AGP 8x |
| Length | no data | 229 mm |
| Width | no data | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | 1x Molex |
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 | 256 MB |
| Memory bus width | System Shared | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | System Shared | 475 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | no data | 30.4 GB/s |
| Shared memory | + | no data |
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 Connectors | Portable Device Dependent | 1x DVI, 1x VGA, 1x S-Video |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 Ultimate (12_2) | 9.0a |
| Shader Model | 6.8 | no data |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 2.1 |
| OpenCL | 2.1 | N/A |
| Vulkan | 1.4 | N/A |
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.
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.
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 | 10 | -0−1 |
Cost per frame, $
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 24−27 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 10−12 | 0−1 |
| Palworld | 12−14 | 0−1 |
| Resident Evil 4 Remake | 8−9 | 0−1 |
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 21−24 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 24−27 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 10−12 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 16−18 | 0−1 |
| Fortnite | 30−35 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 24−27 | 0−1 |
| Palworld | 12−14 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 20−22 | 0−1 |
| Valorant | 60−65
+6200%
|
1−2
−6200%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 21−24 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 24−27 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 90−95
+4400%
|
2−3
−4400%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 10−12 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 16−18 | 0−1 |
| Fortnite | 30−35 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 24−27 | 0−1 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 16 | 0−1 |
| Metro Exodus | 10−11 | 0−1 |
| Palworld | 12−14 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 20−22 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 14−16 | 0−1 |
| Valorant | 60−65
+6200%
|
1−2
−6200%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 21−24 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 10−12 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 16−18 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 24−27 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 20−22 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 14−16 | 0−1 |
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 30−35 | 0−1 |
| Palworld | 12−14 | 0−1 |
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10−11 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 40−45
+4000%
|
1−2
−4000%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 4−5 | 0−1 |
| Metro Exodus | 4−5 | 0−1 |
| Valorant | 50−55
+5300%
|
1−2
−5300%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 6−7 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 10−11 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 12−14 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 7−8 | 0−1 |
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 10−11 | 0−1 |
| Palworld | 7−8 | 0−1 |
4K
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 16−18 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Valorant | 21−24 | 0−1 |
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 3−4 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 4−5 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 8−9 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 5−6 | 0−1 |
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 5−6 | 0−1 |
| Palworld | 1−2 | 0−1 |
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 5.27 | 0.14 |
| Chip lithography | 4 nm | 130 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 15 Watt | 74 Watt |
Radeon 820M has a 3664% higher aggregate performance score, a 3150% more advanced lithography process, and 393% lower power consumption.
The Radeon 820M is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce FX 5950 Ultra in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon 820M is a notebook graphics card while GeForce FX 5950 Ultra 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.
