ATI Radeon X1800 GTO vs GeForce GTX 590
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GTX 590 and Radeon X1800 GTO, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
GTX 590 outperforms X1800 GTO by a whopping 2309% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Contents
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 555 | 1354 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.68 | no data |
| Power efficiency | 1.68 | 0.53 |
| Architecture | Fermi 2.0 (2010−2014) | R500 (2005−2007) |
| GPU code name | GF110 | R520 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Desktop |
| Release date | 24 March 2011 (14 years ago) | 1 March 2006 (19 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $699 | no data |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
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 cores | 1024 ×2 | no data |
| Core clock speed | 607 MHz | 500 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 3,000 million | 321 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 90 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 365 Watt | 48 Watt |
| Maximum GPU temperature | 97 °C | no data |
| Texture fill rate | 38.91 ×2 | 6.000 |
| Floating-point processing power | 1.244 TFLOPS ×2 | no data |
| ROPs | 48 ×2 | 12 |
| TMUs | 64 ×2 | 12 |
| L1 Cache | 1 MB | no data |
| L2 Cache | 768 KB | no data |
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).
| Bus support | 16x PCI-E 2.0 | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | PCIe 1.0 x16 |
| Length | 279 mm | no data |
| Height | 4.376" (111 mm) (11.1 cm) | no data |
| Width | 2-slot | 1-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | 2x 8-pin | 1x 6-pin |
| SLI options | + | - |
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 | GDDR3 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 3072 MB (1536 MB per GPU) ×2 | 256 MB |
| Memory bus width | 768-bit (384-bit per GPU) ×2 | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1707 MHz | 495 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 327.7 GB/s ×2 | 31.68 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | - |
Connectivity and outputs
This section shows the types and number of video connectors on each GPU. The data applies specifically to desktop reference models (for example, NVIDIA’s Founders Edition). OEM partners often modify both the number and types of ports. On notebook GPUs, video‐output options are determined by the laptop’s design rather than the graphics chip itself.
| Display Connectors | Three Dual Link DVI-IMini DisplayPort | 2x DVI, 1x S-Video |
| Multi monitor support | + | no data |
| HDMI | + | - |
| Maximum VGA resolution | 2048x1536 | no data |
| Audio input for HDMI | Internal | no data |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (11_0) | 9.0c (9_3) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 3.0 |
| OpenGL | 4.2 | 2.0 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | N/A |
| Vulkan | N/A | N/A |
| CUDA | + | - |
Synthetic benchmarks
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.
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.
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 | 47
+4600%
| 1−2
−4600%
|
| Full HD | 111
+2675%
| 4−5
−2675%
|
| 1200p | 112
+2700%
| 4−5
−2700%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 6.30 | no data |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 40−45
+4100%
|
1−2
−4100%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 16−18 | 0−1 |
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 35−40
+3500%
|
1−2
−3500%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 40−45
+4100%
|
1−2
−4100%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 16−18 | 0−1 |
| Escape from Tarkov | 30−35
+3200%
|
1−2
−3200%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 24−27
+2500%
|
1−2
−2500%
|
| Fortnite | 45−50
+2350%
|
2−3
−2350%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 35−40
+3500%
|
1−2
−3500%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 24−27 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 27−30
+2800%
|
1−2
−2800%
|
| Valorant | 80−85
+2667%
|
3−4
−2667%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 35−40
+3500%
|
1−2
−3500%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 40−45
+4100%
|
1−2
−4100%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 120−130
+2440%
|
5−6
−2440%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 16−18 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 60−65
+2950%
|
2−3
−2950%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 30−35
+3200%
|
1−2
−3200%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 24−27
+2500%
|
1−2
−2500%
|
| Fortnite | 45−50
+2350%
|
2−3
−2350%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 35−40
+3500%
|
1−2
−3500%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 24−27 | 0−1 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 30−33
+2900%
|
1−2
−2900%
|
| Metro Exodus | 16−18 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 27−30
+2800%
|
1−2
−2800%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 21−24 | 0−1 |
| Valorant | 80−85
+2667%
|
3−4
−2667%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 35−40
+3500%
|
1−2
−3500%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 16−18 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 60−65
+2950%
|
2−3
−2950%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 30−35
+3200%
|
1−2
−3200%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 24−27
+2500%
|
1−2
−2500%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 35−40
+3500%
|
1−2
−3500%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 27−30
+2800%
|
1−2
−2800%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 21−24 | 0−1 |
| Valorant | 80−85
+2667%
|
3−4
−2667%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 45−50
+2350%
|
2−3
−2350%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 14−16 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 60−65
+3000%
|
2−3
−3000%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 10−11 | 0−1 |
| Metro Exodus | 8−9 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 40−45
+4200%
|
1−2
−4200%
|
| Valorant | 90−95
+2933%
|
3−4
−2933%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 18−20 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6−7 | 0−1 |
| Escape from Tarkov | 14−16 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 16−18 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 18−20 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 10−12 | 0−1 |
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 16−18 | 0−1 |
4K
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 18−20 | 0−1 |
| Metro Exodus | 3−4 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 8−9 | 0−1 |
| Valorant | 40−45
+4100%
|
1−2
−4100%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 9−10 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 30−33
+2900%
|
1−2
−2900%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 7−8 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 8−9 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 12−14 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 8−9 | 0−1 |
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 8−9 | 0−1 |
This is how GTX 590 and ATI X1800 GTO compete in popular games:
- GTX 590 is 4600% faster in 900p
- GTX 590 is 2675% faster in 1080p
- GTX 590 is 2700% faster in 1200p
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 7.95 | 0.33 |
| Recency | 24 March 2011 | 1 March 2006 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 3072 MB (1536 MB per GPU) | 256 MB |
| Chip lithography | 40 nm | 90 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 365 Watt | 48 Watt |
GTX 590 has a 2309.1% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 5 years, a 1100% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 125% more advanced lithography process.
ATI X1800 GTO, on the other hand, has 660.4% lower power consumption.
The GeForce GTX 590 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon X1800 GTO in performance tests.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
