GeForce GT 720M vs FirePro M5950
Aggregate performance score
We've compared FirePro M5950 with GeForce GT 720M, including specs and performance data.
M5950 outperforms GT 720M by a whopping 187% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 731 | 1057 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 6.68 | 2.47 |
| Architecture | TeraScale 2 (2009−2015) | Kepler 2.0 (2013−2015) |
| GPU code name | Whistler | GK208 |
| Market segment | Mobile workstation | Laptop |
| Release date | 4 January 2011 (13 years ago) | 25 December 2013 (11 years ago) |
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 cores | 480 | 192 |
| Core clock speed | 725 MHz | 719 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 758 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 716 million | 915 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 35 Watt | 33 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 17.40 | 12.13 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.696 TFLOPS | 0.2911 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 8 | 8 |
| TMUs | 24 | 16 |
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 | medium sized |
| Bus support | n/a | PCI Express 2.0 |
| Interface | MXM-A (3.0) | PCIe 2.0 x8 |
| Form factor | MXM-A | no 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 type | GDDR5 | DDR3 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 2 GB |
| Standard memory configuration | no data | DDR3 |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 64 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 900 MHz | 800 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 57 GB/s | 12.8 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | - |
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 Connectors | No outputs | No outputs |
| eDP 1.2 signal support | no data | Up to 2560x1600 |
| LVDS signal support | no data | Up to 1920x1200 |
| VGA аnalog display support | no data | Up to 2048x1536 |
| DisplayPort Multimode (DP++) support | no data | Up to 2560x1600 |
| HDMI | - | + |
| HDCP content protection | - | + |
| 7.1 channel HD audio on HDMI | - | + |
| TrueHD and DTS-HD audio bitstreaming | - | + |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| Blu-Ray 3D Support | - | + |
| H.264, VC1, MPEG2 1080p video decoder | - | + |
| Optimus | - | + |
API compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 11.2 (11_0) | 12 API |
| Shader Model | 5.0 | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.4 | 4.5 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 1.1 |
| Vulkan | N/A | 1.1.126 |
| CUDA | - | + |
Synthetic benchmark performance
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. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.
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.
3DMark 11 Performance GPU
3DMark 11 is an obsolete DirectX 11 benchmark by Futuremark. It used four tests based on two scenes, one being few submarines exploring the submerged wreck of a sunken ship, the other is an abandoned temple deep in the jungle. All the tests are heavy with volumetric lighting and tessellation, and despite being done in 1280x720 resolution, are relatively taxing. Discontinued in January 2020, 3DMark 11 is now superseded by Time Spy.
3DMark Vantage Performance
3DMark Vantage is an outdated DirectX 10 benchmark using 1280x1024 screen resolution. It taxes the graphics card with two scenes, one depicting a girl escaping some militarized base located within a sea cave, the other displaying a space fleet attack on a defenseless planet. It was discontinued in April 2017, and Time Spy benchmark is now recommended to be used instead.
GeekBench 5 OpenCL
Geekbench 5 is a widespread graphics card benchmark combined from 11 different test scenarios. All these scenarios rely on direct usage of GPU's processing power, no 3D rendering is involved. This variation uses OpenCL API by Khronos Group.
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:
| 900p | 24
+200%
| 8−9
−200%
|
| Full HD | 26
+100%
| 13
−100%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6−7
+100%
|
3−4
−100%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 10−11
+100%
|
5−6
−100%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Battlefield 5 | 7−8
+250%
|
2−3
−250%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 8−9
+100%
|
4−5
−100%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6−7
+100%
|
3−4
−100%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 7−8
+600%
|
1−2
−600%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 9−10
+200%
|
3−4
−200%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 18−20
−57.9%
|
30
+57.9%
|
| Hitman 3 | 8−9
+33.3%
|
6−7
−33.3%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 24−27
+71.4%
|
14−16
−71.4%
|
| Metro Exodus | 5−6
+400%
|
1−2
−400%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 8−9
+300%
|
2−3
−300%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 14−16
+75%
|
8−9
−75%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 40−45
+28.1%
|
30−35
−28.1%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 10−11
+100%
|
5−6
−100%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Battlefield 5 | 7−8
+250%
|
2−3
−250%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 8−9
+100%
|
4−5
−100%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6−7
+100%
|
3−4
−100%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 7−8
+600%
|
1−2
−600%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 9−10
+200%
|
3−4
−200%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 18−20
+1800%
|
1−2
−1800%
|
| Hitman 3 | 8−9
+33.3%
|
6−7
−33.3%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 24−27
+71.4%
|
14−16
−71.4%
|
| Metro Exodus | 5−6
+400%
|
1−2
−400%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 8−9
+300%
|
2−3
−300%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 14−16
+75%
|
8−9
−75%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 14−16
−6.7%
|
16
+6.7%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 40−45
+28.1%
|
30−35
−28.1%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 10−11
+100%
|
5−6
−100%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 8−9
+100%
|
4−5
−100%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6−7
+100%
|
3−4
−100%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 7−8
+600%
|
1−2
−600%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 18−20
+1800%
|
1−2
−1800%
|
| Hitman 3 | 8−9
+33.3%
|
6−7
−33.3%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 24−27
+71.4%
|
14−16
−71.4%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 14−16
+75%
|
8−9
−75%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 14−16
+36.4%
|
10−12
−36.4%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 40−45
+28.1%
|
30−35
−28.1%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 8−9
+300%
|
2−3
−300%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 6−7
+500%
|
1−2
−500%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 5−6
+150%
|
2−3
−150%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 3−4
+200%
|
1−2
−200%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 3−4 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 4−5
+300%
|
1−2
−300%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Hitman 3 | 8−9
+14.3%
|
7−8
−14.3%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 8−9
+100%
|
4−5
−100%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 21−24
+320%
|
5−6
−320%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 7−8
+75%
|
4−5
−75%
|
4K
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry New Dawn | 2−3 | 0−1 |
4K
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 1−2 | 0−1 |
4K
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 4−5
+100%
|
2−3
−100%
|
This is how FirePro M5950 and GT 720M compete in popular games:
- FirePro M5950 is 200% faster in 900p
- FirePro M5950 is 100% faster in 1080p
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Forza Horizon 4, with 1080p resolution and the High Preset, the FirePro M5950 is 1800% faster.
- in Forza Horizon 4, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the GT 720M is 58% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- FirePro M5950 is ahead in 44 tests (94%)
- GT 720M is ahead in 2 tests (4%)
- there's a draw in 1 test (2%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 3.41 | 1.19 |
| Recency | 4 January 2011 | 25 December 2013 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 2 GB |
| Chip lithography | 40 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 35 Watt | 33 Watt |
FirePro M5950 has a 186.6% higher aggregate performance score.
GT 720M, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 2 years, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 42.9% more advanced lithography process, and 6.1% lower power consumption.
The FirePro M5950 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GT 720M in performance tests.
Be aware that FirePro M5950 is a mobile workstation card while GeForce GT 720M is a mobile workstation one.
Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Comparisons with similar GPUs
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
