Radeon HD 4650 AGP vs GeForce FX 5950 Ultra
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in performance ranking | not rated | 1182 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Architecture | Rankine (2003−2005) | TeraScale (2005−2013) |
| GPU code name | NV38 | RV730 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Desktop |
| Release date | 23 October 2003 (20 years ago) | 10 September 2008 (15 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $499 | no data |
| Current price | no data | $249 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
Detailed specifications
General performance parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. These parameters indirectly speak of performance, but for precise assessment you have to consider their benchmark and gaming test results. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | no data | 320 |
| Core clock speed | 475 MHz | 600 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 135 million | 514 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 130 nm | 55 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 74 Watt | 48 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 3.800 | 19.20 |
| Floating-point performance | no data | 384.0 gflops |
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).
| Interface | AGP 8x | AGP 8x |
| Length | 229 mm | no data |
| Width | 2-slot | 1-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | 1x Molex | 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 | DDR | DDR2 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 256 MB | 512 MB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 950 MHz | 800 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 30.4 GB/s | 12.8 GB/s |
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 | 1x DVI, 1x VGA, 1x S-Video | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x VGA |
| HDMI | no data | + |
API compatibility
List of supported graphics and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 9.0a | 10.1 (10_1) |
| Shader Model | no data | 4.1 |
| OpenGL | 2.1 | 3.3 |
| OpenCL | N/A | 1.1 |
| Vulkan | N/A | N/A |
Synthetic benchmark performance
Non-gaming benchmark performance comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.
Passmark
This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark, part of Passmark PerformanceTest suite. 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.
Benchmark coverage: 25%
Radeon HD 4650 AGP outperforms GeForce FX 5950 Ultra by 251% in Passmark.
Pros & cons summary
| Recency | 23 October 2003 | 10 September 2008 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 256 MB | 512 MB |
| Chip lithography | 130 nm | 55 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 74 Watt | 48 Watt |
We couldn't decide between GeForce FX 5950 Ultra and Radeon HD 4650 AGP. We've got no test results to judge.
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.
