GeForce FX 5900 Ultra vs RTX 2080 Mobile
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce RTX 2080 Mobile with GeForce FX 5900 Ultra, including specs and performance data.
RTX 2080 Mobile outperforms FX 5900 Ultra by a whopping 35409% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 114 | 1455 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 18.15 | 0.13 |
| Architecture | Turing (2018−2022) | Rankine (2003−2005) |
| GPU code name | TU104B | NV35 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop |
| Release date | 29 January 2019 (6 years ago) | 23 October 2003 (21 year ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $499 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.
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 | 2944 | no data |
| Core clock speed | 1380 MHz | 450 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1590 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 13,600 million | 135 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 12 nm | 130 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 150 Watt | 59 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 292.6 | 3.600 |
| Floating-point processing power | 9.362 TFLOPS | no data |
| ROPs | 64 | 4 |
| TMUs | 184 | 8 |
| Tensor Cores | 368 | no data |
| Ray Tracing Cores | 46 | 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).
| Laptop size | large | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | AGP 8x |
| Length | no data | 218 mm |
| Width | no data | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | 1x Molex |
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 | GDDR6 | DDR |
| Maximum RAM amount | 8 GB | 256 MB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 14000 MHz | 425 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 384.0 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 |
| G-SYNC support | + | - |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| VR Ready | + | no data |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 Ultimate (12_1) | 9.0a |
| Shader Model | 6.5 | no data |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 1.5 (2.1) |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | N/A |
| Vulkan | 1.2.131 | N/A |
| CUDA | 7.5 | - |
| DLSS | + | - |
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 HD | 145 | -0−1 |
| 1440p | 98 | -0−1 |
| 4K | 67 | -0−1 |
Cost per frame, $
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Atomic Heart | 110−120 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 80−85 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 85−90 | 0−1 |
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Atomic Heart | 110−120 | 0−1 |
| Battlefield 5 | 132 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 80−85 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 85−90 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 104 | 0−1 |
| Fortnite | 206 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 147 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 5 | 100−110 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 243 | 0−1 |
| Valorant | 276 | 0−1 |
Full HD
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 110−120 | 0−1 |
| Battlefield 5 | 118 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 80−85 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 270−280 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 85−90 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 131 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 97 | 0−1 |
| Fortnite | 169 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 145 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 5 | 100−110 | 0−1 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 101 | 0−1 |
| Metro Exodus | 90 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 214 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 174 | 0−1 |
| Valorant | 266 | 0−1 |
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 117 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 80−85 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 85−90 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 125 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 96 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 139 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 5 | 100−110 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 174 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 95 | 0−1 |
| Valorant | 205 | 0−1 |
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 155 | 0−1 |
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 250−260 | 0−1 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 70−75 | 0−1 |
| Metro Exodus | 55 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180 | 0−1 |
| Valorant | 260 | 0−1 |
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 115 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 30−33 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 40−45 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 82 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 122 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 5 | 65−70 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 65−70 | 0−1 |
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 124 | 0−1 |
4K
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 30−33 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 18−20 | 0−1 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 75−80 | 0−1 |
| Metro Exodus | 35 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 65 | 0−1 |
| Valorant | 240 | 0−1 |
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 68 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 18−20 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 18−20 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 119 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 52 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 82 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 5 | 40−45 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 61 | 0−1 |
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 61 | 0−1 |
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 39.06 | 0.11 |
| Recency | 29 January 2019 | 23 October 2003 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 8 GB | 256 MB |
| Chip lithography | 12 nm | 130 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 150 Watt | 59 Watt |
RTX 2080 Mobile has a 35409.1% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 15 years, a 3100% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 983.3% more advanced lithography process.
FX 5900 Ultra, on the other hand, has 154.2% lower power consumption.
The GeForce RTX 2080 Mobile is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce FX 5900 Ultra in performance tests.
Be aware that GeForce RTX 2080 Mobile is a notebook card while GeForce FX 5900 Ultra is a desktop one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
