GeForce FX 5900 Ultra vs GTX 260M

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared GeForce GTX 260M with GeForce FX 5900 Ultra, including specs and performance data.

GTX 260M
2009
1 GB GDDR3, 65 Watt
0.98
+791%

GTX 260M outperforms FX 5900 Ultra by a whopping 791% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking11091444
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiency1.05no data
ArchitectureTesla (2006−2010)Rankine (2003−2005)
GPU code nameG92NV35
Market segmentLaptopDesktop
Release date3 March 2009 (15 years ago)23 October 2003 (21 year ago)
Launch price (MSRP)no data$499

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

no data

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 cores112no data
Core clock speed550 MHz450 MHz
Number of transistors754 million135 million
Manufacturing process technology65 nm130 nm
Power consumption (TDP)65 Watt59 Watt
Texture fill rate30.803.600
Floating-point processing power0.308 TFLOPSno data
Gigaflops462no data
ROPs164
TMUs568

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 sizelargeno data
Bus supportPCI-E 2.0no data
InterfacePCIe 2.0 x16AGP 8x
Lengthno data218 mm
Widthno data2-slot
Supplementary power connectorsno data1x Molex
SLI options2-way-
MXM TypeMXM 3.0 Type-Bno 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 typeGDDR3DDR
Maximum RAM amount1 GB256 MB
Memory bus width256 Bit256 Bit
Memory clock speedUp to 950 MHz425 MHz
Memory bandwidth61 GB/s27.2 GB/s
Shared memory-no data

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 ConnectorsDisplayPortSingle Link DVIDual Link DVIVGALVDSHDMI1x DVI, 1x VGA, 1x S-Video
HDMI+-
Maximum VGA resolution2048x1536no data
Audio input for HDMIS/PDIFno data

Supported technologies

Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.

Power management8.0no data

API compatibility

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

DirectX11.1 (10_0)9.0a
Shader Model4.0no data
OpenGL2.11.5 (2.1)
OpenCL1.1N/A
VulkanN/AN/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.

GTX 260M 0.98
+791%
FX 5900 Ultra 0.11

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.

GTX 260M 379
+824%
FX 5900 Ultra 41

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 HD29
+867%
3−4
−867%

Cost per frame, $

1080pno data166.33

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 3−4 0−1

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 5−6 0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 4−5 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4 0−1
Far Cry 5 1−2 0−1
Far Cry New Dawn 2−3 0−1
Hitman 3 5−6 0−1
Horizon Zero Dawn 12−14
+1200%
1−2
−1200%
Red Dead Redemption 2 1−2 0−1
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 7−8 0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion 30−35
+967%
3−4
−967%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 5−6 0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 4−5 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4 0−1
Far Cry 5 1−2 0−1
Far Cry New Dawn 2−3 0−1
Hitman 3 5−6 0−1
Horizon Zero Dawn 12−14
+1200%
1−2
−1200%
Red Dead Redemption 2 1−2 0−1
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 7−8 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 10−11
+900%
1−2
−900%
Watch Dogs: Legion 30−35
+967%
3−4
−967%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 5−6 0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 4−5 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4 0−1
Far Cry 5 1−2 0−1
Hitman 3 5−6 0−1
Horizon Zero Dawn 12−14
+1200%
1−2
−1200%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 7−8 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 10−11
+900%
1−2
−900%
Watch Dogs: Legion 30−35
+967%
3−4
−967%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 1−2 0−1

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 1−2 0−1
Far Cry New Dawn 1−2 0−1

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 1−2 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2 0−1
Far Cry 5 1−2 0−1
Hitman 3 7−8 0−1
Horizon Zero Dawn 4−5 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 0−1 0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion 4−5 0−1

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 3−4 0−1

4K
High Preset

Far Cry New Dawn 0−1 0−1

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 1−2 0−1
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 0−1 0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 0−1 0−1
Far Cry 5 0−1 0−1

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 2−3 0−1

This is how GTX 260M and FX 5900 Ultra compete in popular games:

  • GTX 260M is 867% faster in 1080p

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 0.98 0.11
Recency 3 March 2009 23 October 2003
Maximum RAM amount 1 GB 256 MB
Chip lithography 65 nm 130 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 65 Watt 59 Watt

GTX 260M has a 790.9% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 5 years, a 300% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 100% more advanced lithography process.

FX 5900 Ultra, on the other hand, has 10.2% lower power consumption.

The GeForce GTX 260M is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce FX 5900 Ultra in performance tests.

Be aware that GeForce GTX 260M is a notebook card while GeForce FX 5900 Ultra is a desktop one.


Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.

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 GTX 260M
GeForce GTX 260M
NVIDIA GeForce FX 5900 Ultra
GeForce FX 5900 Ultra

Comparisons with similar GPUs

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.


3.2 15 votes

Rate GeForce GTX 260M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.5 6 votes

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about this comparison, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.