ATI FirePro M5800 vs GeForce GT 425M
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GT 425M with FirePro M5800, including specs and performance data.
ATI M5800 outperforms GT 425M by a small 6% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 1023 | 1001 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 4.07 | 3.81 |
| Architecture | Fermi (2010−2014) | TeraScale 2 (2009−2015) |
| GPU code name | GF108 | Madison |
| Market segment | Laptop | Mobile workstation |
| Release date | 3 September 2010 (14 years ago) | 1 March 2010 (14 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 | 96 | 400 |
| Core clock speed | 560 MHz | 650 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 585 million | 627 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 23 Watt | 26 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 8.960 | 13.00 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.215 TFLOPS | 0.52 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 4 | 8 |
| TMUs | 16 | 20 |
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 |
| Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
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 | DDR3 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 1 GB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 800 MHz | 800 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 25.6 GB/s | 51.2 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 |
API compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 API | 11.2 (11_0) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 5.0 |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.4 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | N/A | N/A |
| 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.
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.
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 | 11
+10%
| 10−12
−10%
|
| Full HD | 16
−31.3%
| 21
+31.3%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| Elden Ring | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2
−100%
|
2−3
+100%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2
−100%
|
2−3
+100%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 1−2
−100%
|
2−3
+100%
|
| Elden Ring | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 10−12
+0%
|
10−12
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 1−2
−100%
|
2−3
+100%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| World of Tanks | 27−30
−3.4%
|
30−33
+3.4%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2
−100%
|
2−3
+100%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 1−2
−100%
|
2−3
+100%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 10−12
+0%
|
10−12
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
1440p
High Preset
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 8−9
−12.5%
|
9−10
+12.5%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| World of Tanks | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Valorant | 6−7
−16.7%
|
7−8
+16.7%
|
4K
High Preset
| Dota 2 | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
| Elden Ring | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Valorant | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Metro Exodus | 0−1 | 0−1 |
Full HD
High Preset
| Metro Exodus | 0−1 | 0−1 |
1440p
High Preset
| Elden Ring | 0−1 | 0−1 |
This is how GT 425M and ATI M5800 compete in popular games:
- GT 425M is 10% faster in 900p
- ATI M5800 is 31% faster in 1080p
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Battlefield 5, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the ATI M5800 is 100% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- ATI M5800 is ahead in 9 tests (20%)
- there's a draw in 35 tests (80%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 1.36 | 1.44 |
| Recency | 3 September 2010 | 1 March 2010 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 23 Watt | 26 Watt |
GT 425M has an age advantage of 6 months, and 13% lower power consumption.
ATI M5800, on the other hand, has a 5.9% higher aggregate performance score.
Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between GeForce GT 425M and FirePro M5800.
Be aware that GeForce GT 425M is a notebook graphics card while FirePro M5800 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.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
