Radeon RX 5700 vs GeForce FX 5950 Ultra

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared GeForce FX 5950 Ultra and Radeon RX 5700, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.

FX 5950 Ultra
2003
256 MB DDR, 74 Watt
0.15

RX 5700 outperforms FX 5950 Ultra by a whopping 23927% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking1460157
Place by popularitynot in top-10045
Cost-effectiveness evaluationno data30.92
Power efficiency0.1414.17
ArchitectureRankine (2003−2005)RDNA 1.0 (2019−2020)
GPU code nameNV38Navi 10
Market segmentDesktopDesktop
Release date23 October 2003 (21 years ago)7 July 2019 (5 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$499 $349

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.

FX 5950 Ultra and RX 5700 have a nearly equal value for money.

Performance to price scatter graph

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 coresno data2304
Core clock speed475 MHz1465 MHz
Boost clock speedno data1725 MHz
Number of transistors135 million10,300 million
Manufacturing process technology130 nm7 nm
Power consumption (TDP)74 Watt180 Watt
Texture fill rate3.800248.4
Floating-point processing powerno data7.949 TFLOPS
ROPs464
TMUs8144

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 mm268 mm
Width2-slot2-slot
Supplementary power connectors1x Molex1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin

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 MB8 GB
Memory bus width256 Bit256 Bit
Memory clock speed475 MHz1750 MHz
Memory bandwidth30.4 GB/s448.0 GB/s
Resizable BAR-+

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 Connectors1x DVI, 1x VGA, 1x S-Video1x HDMI, 3x DisplayPort
HDMI-+

API and SDK compatibility

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

DirectX9.0a12 (12_1)
Shader Modelno data6.5
OpenGL2.14.6
OpenCLN/A2.0
VulkanN/A1.2.131

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.

FX 5950 Ultra 0.15
RX 5700 36.04
+23927%

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
RX 5700 14340
+24205%

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-0−1114
1440p-0−169
4K-0−143

Cost per frame, $

1080pno data3.06
1440pno data5.06
4Kno data8.12

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2 344
+0%
344
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 84
+0%
84
+0%
Dead Island 2 204
+0%
204
+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5 115
+0%
115
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 307
+0%
307
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 75
+0%
75
+0%
Dead Island 2 176
+0%
176
+0%
Far Cry 5 156
+0%
156
+0%
Fortnite 166
+0%
166
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 132
+0%
132
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 150
+0%
150
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 151
+0%
151
+0%
Valorant 294
+0%
294
+0%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5 105
+0%
105
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 154
+0%
154
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 270−280
+0%
270−280
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 67
+0%
67
+0%
Dead Island 2 125
+0%
125
+0%
Dota 2 156
+0%
156
+0%
Far Cry 5 144
+0%
144
+0%
Fortnite 140
+0%
140
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 130
+0%
130
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 132
+0%
132
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 137
+0%
137
+0%
Metro Exodus 87
+0%
87
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 144
+0%
144
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 147
+0%
147
+0%
Valorant 291
+0%
291
+0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 97
+0%
97
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 58
+0%
58
+0%
Dead Island 2 95
+0%
95
+0%
Dota 2 146
+0%
146
+0%
Far Cry 5 135
+0%
135
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 118
+0%
118
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 139
+0%
139
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 91
+0%
91
+0%
Valorant 160
+0%
160
+0%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Fortnite 118
+0%
118
+0%

1440p
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2 87
+0%
87
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 240−250
+0%
240−250
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 72
+0%
72
+0%
Metro Exodus 51
+0%
51
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 170−180
+0%
170−180
+0%
Valorant 277
+0%
277
+0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 81
+0%
81
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 36
+0%
36
+0%
Dead Island 2 64
+0%
64
+0%
Far Cry 5 93
+0%
93
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 103
+0%
103
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 60−65
+0%
60−65
+0%

1440p
Epic Preset

Fortnite 77
+0%
77
+0%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2 25
+0%
25
+0%
Dead Island 2 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 72
+0%
72
+0%
Metro Exodus 31
+0%
31
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 48
+0%
48
+0%
Valorant 231
+0%
231
+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 54
+0%
54
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 15
+0%
15
+0%
Dead Island 2 32
+0%
32
+0%
Dota 2 100
+0%
100
+0%
Far Cry 5 47
+0%
47
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 70
+0%
70
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 59
+0%
59
+0%

4K
Epic Preset

Fortnite 39
+0%
39
+0%

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 66 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 0.15 36.04
Recency 23 October 2003 7 July 2019
Maximum RAM amount 256 MB 8 GB
Chip lithography 130 nm 7 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 74 Watt 180 Watt

FX 5950 Ultra has 143.2% lower power consumption.

RX 5700, on the other hand, has a 23926.7% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 15 years, a 3100% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 1757.1% more advanced lithography process.

The Radeon RX 5700 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce FX 5950 Ultra in performance tests.

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite graphics card.


NVIDIA GeForce FX 5950 Ultra
GeForce FX 5950 Ultra
AMD Radeon RX 5700
Radeon RX 5700

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 79 votes

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4.3 2073 votes

Rate Radeon RX 5700 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 Radeon RX 5700, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.