GeForce FX 5900 Ultra vs GTX 880M

Place in the ranking	454	1450
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Power efficiency	5.64	0.13
Architecture	Kepler (2012−2018)	Rankine (2003−2005)
GPU code name	GK104	NV35
Market segment	Laptop	Desktop
Release date	12 March 2014 (10 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 cores	1536	no data
Core clock speed	954 MHz	450 MHz
Boost clock speed	993 MHz	no data
Number of transistors	3,540 million	135 million
Manufacturing process technology	28 nm	130 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	122 Watt	59 Watt
Texture fill rate	127.1	3.600
Floating-point processing power	3.05 TFLOPS	no data
ROPs	32	4
TMUs	128	8

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	large	no data
Bus support	PCI Express 2.0, PCI Express 3.0	no data
Interface	MXM-B (3.0)	AGP 8x
Length	no data	218 mm
Width	no data	2-slot
Supplementary power connectors	None	1x Molex
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	DDR
Maximum RAM amount	8 GB	256 MB
Standard memory configuration	GDDR5	no data
Memory bus width	256 Bit	256 Bit
Memory clock speed	Up to 2500 MHz	425 MHz
Memory bandwidth	160.0 GB/s	27.2 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 Connectors	No outputs	1x DVI, 1x VGA, 1x S-Video
eDP 1.2 signal support	Up to 3840x2160	no data
LVDS signal support	Up to 1920x1200	no data
VGA аnalog display support	Up to 2048x1536	no data
DisplayPort Multimode (DP++) support	Up to 3840x2160	no data
HDMI	+	-
HDCP content protection	+	-
7.1 channel HD audio on HDMI	+	-
TrueHD and DTS-HD audio bitstreaming	+	-

Supported technologies

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

H.264, VC1, MPEG2 1080p video decoder	+	-
Optimus	+	-

API compatibility

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

DirectX	12 (11_0)	9.0a
Shader Model	5.1	no data
OpenGL	4.5	1.5 (2.1)
OpenCL	1.1	N/A
Vulkan	1.1.126	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.

GTX 880M 9.98
+8973%

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 880M 3837
+9259%

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:

900p	135 +13400%	1−2 −13400%
Full HD	56	0−1
4K	24	-0−1

Cost per frame, $

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2	16−18	0−1
Cyberpunk 2077	20−22	0−1

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5	30−35	0−1
Counter-Strike 2	16−18	0−1
Cyberpunk 2077	20−22	0−1
Forza Horizon 4	40−45	0−1
Forza Horizon 5	24−27	0−1
Metro Exodus	27−30	0−1
Red Dead Redemption 2	24−27	0−1
Valorant	35−40	0−1

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5	30−35	0−1
Counter-Strike 2	16−18	0−1
Cyberpunk 2077	20−22	0−1
Dota 2	30	0−1
Far Cry 5	40−45	0−1
Fortnite	55−60	0−1
Forza Horizon 4	40−45	0−1
Forza Horizon 5	24−27	0−1
Grand Theft Auto V	45	0−1
Metro Exodus	27−30	0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	75−80	0−1
Red Dead Redemption 2	24−27	0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	38	0−1
Valorant	35−40	0−1
World of Tanks	140−150 +14300%	1−2 −14300%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	30−35	0−1
Counter-Strike 2	16−18	0−1
Cyberpunk 2077	20−22	0−1
Dota 2	35−40	0−1
Far Cry 5	40−45	0−1
Forza Horizon 4	40−45	0−1
Forza Horizon 5	24−27	0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	75−80	0−1
Valorant	35−40	0−1

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2	12−14	0−1
Grand Theft Auto V	12−14	0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	45−50	0−1
Red Dead Redemption 2	8−9	0−1
World of Tanks	70−75	0−1

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	18−20	0−1
Counter-Strike 2	30−35	0−1
Cyberpunk 2077	8−9	0−1
Far Cry 5	21−24	0−1
Forza Horizon 4	21−24	0−1
Forza Horizon 5	14−16	0−1
Metro Exodus	18−20	0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	12−14	0−1
Valorant	24−27	0−1

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2	4−5	0−1
Dota 2	20−22	0−1
Grand Theft Auto V	20−22	0−1
Metro Exodus	5−6	0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	27−30	0−1
Red Dead Redemption 2	6−7	0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	20−22	0−1

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	9−10	0−1
Counter-Strike 2	4−5	0−1
Cyberpunk 2077	3−4	0−1
Dota 2	20−22	0−1
Far Cry 5	12−14	0−1
Fortnite	10−11	0−1
Forza Horizon 4	12−14	0−1
Forza Horizon 5	7−8	0−1
Valorant	10−11	0−1

This is how GTX 880M and FX 5900 Ultra compete in popular games:

GTX 880M is 13400% faster in 900p

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	9.98	0.11
Recency	12 March 2014	23 October 2003
Maximum RAM amount	8 GB	256 MB
Chip lithography	28 nm	130 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	122 Watt	59 Watt

GTX 880M has a 8972.7% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 10 years, a 3100% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 364.3% more advanced lithography process.

FX 5900 Ultra, on the other hand, has 106.8% lower power consumption.

The GeForce GTX 880M is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce FX 5900 Ultra in performance tests.

Be aware that GeForce GTX 880M 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.