GeForce FX 5700 Ultra vs GTX 980 Mobile

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared GeForce GTX 980 Mobile with GeForce FX 5700 Ultra, including specs and performance data.

GTX 980 Mobile
2015
4 GB GDDR5, 100 Watt
21.55
+23844%

GTX 980 Mobile outperforms FX 5700 Ultra by a whopping 23844% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking2521462
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation19.13no data
Power efficiency7.510.14
ArchitectureMaxwell 2.0 (2014−2019)Rankine (2003−2005)
GPU code nameGM204NV36
Market segmentLaptopDesktop
Release date21 September 2015 (9 years ago)23 October 2003 (21 year ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$395.82 $199

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

GTX 980 Mobile and FX 5700 Ultra have a nearly equal value for money.

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 cores2048no data
Core clock speed1064 MHz475 MHz
Boost clock speed1216 MHzno data
Number of transistors5,200 million82 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm130 nm
Power consumption (TDP)100-200 Watt46 Watt
Texture fill rate136.21.900
Floating-point processing power4.358 TFLOPSno data
ROPs644
TMUs1284

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 Express 3.0no data
InterfaceMXM-B (3.0)AGP 8x
Lengthno data229 mm
Widthno data1-slot
Supplementary power connectorsno data1x 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 typeGDDR5GDDR2
Maximum RAM amount4 GB128 MB
Memory bus width256 Bit128 Bit
Memory clock speed7.0 GB/s453 MHz
Memory bandwidth224 GB/s14.5 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 ConnectorsDual Link DVI-I, HDMI 2.0, 3x DisplayPort 1.21x DVI, 1x VGA, 1x S-Video
Multi monitor support4 displaysno data
VGA аnalog display support+no data
DisplayPort Multimode (DP++) support+no data
HDMI+-
HDCP+-
Maximum VGA resolution2048x1536no data
G-SYNC support+-
Audio input for HDMIInternalno data

Supported technologies

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

GameStream+-
GeForce ShadowPlay+-
GPU Boost2.0no data
GameWorks+-
H.264, VC1, MPEG2 1080p video decoder+-
Optimus+-
BatteryBoost+-

API compatibility

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

DirectX12 (12_1)9.0a
Shader Model6.4no data
OpenGL4.51.5 (2.1)
OpenCL1.2N/A
Vulkan1.1.126N/A
CUDA+-

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 HD97-0−1
1440p60-0−1
4K45-0−1

Cost per frame, $

1080p4.08no data
1440p6.60no data
4K8.80no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 35−40 0−1

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 45−50 0−1
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 35−40 0−1
Battlefield 5 70−75 0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 45−50 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 35−40 0−1
Far Cry 5 50−55 0−1
Far Cry New Dawn 55−60 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 130−140 0−1
Hitman 3 40−45 0−1
Horizon Zero Dawn 100−110 0−1
Metro Exodus 75−80 0−1
Red Dead Redemption 2 55−60 0−1
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 70−75 0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion 95−100 0−1

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 45−50 0−1
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 35−40 0−1
Battlefield 5 70−75 0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 45−50 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 35−40 0−1
Far Cry 5 50−55 0−1
Far Cry New Dawn 55−60 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 130−140 0−1
Hitman 3 40−45 0−1
Horizon Zero Dawn 100−110 0−1
Metro Exodus 75−80 0−1
Red Dead Redemption 2 55−60 0−1
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 70−75 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 124 0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion 95−100 0−1

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 45−50 0−1
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 35−40 0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 45−50 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 35−40 0−1
Far Cry 5 50−55 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 130−140 0−1
Hitman 3 40−45 0−1
Horizon Zero Dawn 100−110 0−1
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 70−75 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 44 0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion 95−100 0−1

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 55−60 0−1

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 40−45 0−1
Far Cry New Dawn 30−35 0−1

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 21−24 0−1
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 21−24 0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 24−27 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 12−14 0−1
Far Cry 5 24−27 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 120−130 0−1
Hitman 3 24−27 0−1
Horizon Zero Dawn 45−50 0−1
Metro Exodus 40−45 0−1
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 45−50 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 24−27 0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion 120−130 0−1

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 35−40 0−1

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5 21−24 0−1
Far Cry New Dawn 16−18 0−1
Hitman 3 16−18 0−1
Horizon Zero Dawn 110−120 0−1
Metro Exodus 24−27 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 30 0−1

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 12−14 0−1
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 12−14 0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 12−14 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 5−6 0−1
Far Cry 5 12−14 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 30−33 0−1
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 24−27 0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion 10−11 0−1

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 18−20 0−1

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 21.55 0.09
Recency 21 September 2015 23 October 2003
Maximum RAM amount 4 GB 128 MB
Chip lithography 28 nm 130 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 100 Watt 46 Watt

GTX 980 Mobile has a 23844.4% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 11 years, a 3100% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 364.3% more advanced lithography process.

FX 5700 Ultra, on the other hand, has 117.4% lower power consumption.

The GeForce GTX 980 Mobile is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce FX 5700 Ultra in performance tests.

Be aware that GeForce GTX 980 Mobile is a notebook card while GeForce FX 5700 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 980 Mobile
GeForce GTX 980 Mobile
NVIDIA GeForce FX 5700 Ultra
GeForce FX 5700 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.


3.5 76 votes

Rate GeForce GTX 980 Mobile on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
2.6 5 votes

Rate GeForce FX 5700 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.