GeForce FX 5900 vs Radeon R5 (Carrizo)

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon R5 (Carrizo) with GeForce FX 5900, including specs and performance data.

R5 (Carrizo)
2015
12 Watt
1.70
+2025%

R5 (Carrizo) outperforms FX 5900 by a whopping 2025% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking10051552
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiency3.78no data
ArchitectureGCN 1.2/2.0 (2015−2016)Rankine (2003−2005)
GPU code nameCarrizoNV35
Market segmentLaptopDesktop
Release date4 June 2015 (11 years ago)12 May 2003 (23 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)no data$399

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 cores256no data
Core clock speedno data400 MHz
Boost clock speed800 MHzno data
Number of transistors2410 Million135 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm130 nm
Power consumption (TDP)12-35 Wattno data
Texture fill rateno data3.200
ROPsno data4
TMUsno data8

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 sizemedium sizedno data
Interfaceno dataAGP 8x
Lengthno data218 mm
Widthno data1-slot
Supplementary power connectorsno data1x 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 typeno dataDDR
Maximum RAM amountno data128 MB
Memory bus width64/128 Bit256 Bit
Memory clock speedno data425 MHz
Memory bandwidthno data27.2 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 Connectorsno data1x DVI, 1x VGA, 1x S-Video

API and SDK support

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

DirectX12 (FL 12_0)9.0a
OpenGLno data1.5 (2.1)
OpenCLno dataN/A
Vulkan-N/A

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

Atomic Heart 4−5 0−1
Counter-Strike 2 2−3 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4 0−1
Resident Evil 4 Remake 1−2 0−1

Full HD
Medium

Atomic Heart 4−5 0−1
Battlefield 5 4−5 0−1
Counter-Strike 2 2−3 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4 0−1
Far Cry 5 4−5 0−1
Fortnite 7−8 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 9−10 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 10−12 0−1
Valorant 35−40
+3700%
1−2

Full HD
High

Atomic Heart 4−5 0−1
Battlefield 5 4−5 0−1
Counter-Strike 2 2−3 0−1
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 35−40
+3500%
1−2
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4 0−1
Dota 2 20−22 0−1
Far Cry 5 4−5 0−1
Fortnite 7−8 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 9−10 0−1
Grand Theft Auto V 2−3 0−1
Metro Exodus 2−3 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 10−12 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 8−9 0−1
Valorant 35−40
+3700%
1−2

Full HD
Ultra

Battlefield 5 4−5 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4 0−1
Dota 2 20−22 0−1
Far Cry 5 4−5 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 9−10 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 10−12 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 8−9 0−1
Valorant 35−40
+3700%
1−2

Full HD
Epic

Fortnite 7−8 0−1

1440p
High

Counter-Strike 2 4−5 0−1
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 12−14 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 16−18 0−1
Valorant 14−16 0−1

1440p
Ultra

Cyberpunk 2077 1−2 0−1
Far Cry 5 2−3 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 4−5 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 2−3 0−1

1440p
Epic

Fortnite 3−4 0−1

4K
High

Atomic Heart 1−2 0−1
Grand Theft Auto V 14−16 0−1
Valorant 9−10 0−1

4K
Ultra

Dota 2 3−4 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 2−3 0−1

4K
Epic

Fortnite 2−3 0−1

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 1.70 0.08
Recency 4 June 2015 12 May 2003
Chip lithography 28 nm 130 nm

R5 (Carrizo) has a 2025% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 12 years, and a 78% more advanced lithography process.

The Radeon R5 (Carrizo) is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce FX 5900 in performance tests.

Be aware that Radeon R5 (Carrizo) is a notebook graphics card while GeForce FX 5900 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.

Community ratings

Here you can see the user ratings of the compared graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.


4 6 votes

Rate Radeon R5 (Carrizo) on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.3 55 votes

Rate GeForce FX 5900 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about Radeon R5 (Carrizo) or GeForce FX 5900, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.