GeForce FX 5900 Ultra vs ATI Radeon HD 5670
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon HD 5670 and GeForce FX 5900 Ultra, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
ATI HD 5670 outperforms FX 5900 Ultra by a whopping 1810% 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 | 926 | 1497 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.23 | no data |
| Power efficiency | 2.28 | 0.13 |
| Architecture | TeraScale 2 (2009−2015) | Rankine (2003−2005) |
| GPU code name | Redwood | NV35 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Desktop |
| Release date | 14 January 2010 (15 years ago) | 23 October 2003 (21 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $119 | $499 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.
ATI HD 5670 and FX 5900 Ultra have a nearly equal value for money.
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 | 400 | no data |
| Core clock speed | 775 MHz | 450 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 627 million | 135 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 130 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 64 Watt | 59 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 15.50 | 3.600 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.62 TFLOPS | no data |
| ROPs | 8 | 4 |
| TMUs | 20 | 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).
| Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | AGP 8x |
| Length | 168 mm | 218 mm |
| Width | 1-slot | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | 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 | GDDR5 | DDR |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 256 MB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1000 MHz | 425 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 64 GB/s | 27.2 GB/s |
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 | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x VGA | 1x DVI, 1x VGA, 1x S-Video |
| HDMI | + | - |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 11.2 (11_0) | 9.0a |
| Shader Model | 5.0 | no data |
| OpenGL | 4.4 | 1.5 (2.1) |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | N/A |
| Vulkan | N/A | N/A |
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.
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 | 26
+2500%
| 1−2
−2500%
|
| Full HD | 33
+3200%
| 1−2
−3200%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 3.61
+13738%
| 499.00
−13738%
|
- ATI HD 5670 has 13738% lower cost per frame in 1080p
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 3−4 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5 | 0−1 |
| God of War | 7−8 | 0−1 |
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 5−6 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 3−4 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 5−6 | 0−1 |
| Fortnite | 8−9 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 10−12 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 5 | 3−4 | 0−1 |
| God of War | 7−8 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−12 | 0−1 |
| Valorant | 35−40
+3700%
|
1−2
−3700%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 5−6 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 3−4 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 40−45
+1900%
|
2−3
−1900%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 21−24
+2000%
|
1−2
−2000%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 5−6 | 0−1 |
| Fortnite | 8−9 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 10−12 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 5 | 3−4 | 0−1 |
| God of War | 7−8 | 0−1 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 4−5 | 0−1 |
| Metro Exodus | 3−4 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−12 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 8−9 | 0−1 |
| Valorant | 35−40
+3700%
|
1−2
−3700%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 5−6 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 21−24
+2000%
|
1−2
−2000%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 5−6 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 10−12 | 0−1 |
| God of War | 7−8 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−12 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 8−9 | 0−1 |
| Valorant | 35−40
+3700%
|
1−2
−3700%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 8−9 | 0−1 |
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 5−6 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 12−14 | 0−1 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 18−20 | 0−1 |
| Valorant | 14−16 | 0−1 |
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 5−6 | 0−1 |
| God of War | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 2−3 | 0−1 |
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 3−4 | 0−1 |
4K
High Preset
| Grand Theft Auto V | 16−18 | 0−1 |
| Valorant | 10−11 | 0−1 |
4K
Ultra Preset
| Dota 2 | 4−5 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| God of War | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 3−4 | 0−1 |
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 3−4 | 0−1 |
This is how ATI HD 5670 and FX 5900 Ultra compete in popular games:
- ATI HD 5670 is 2500% faster in 900p
- ATI HD 5670 is 3200% faster in 1080p
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 1.91 | 0.10 |
| Recency | 14 January 2010 | 23 October 2003 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 256 MB |
| Chip lithography | 40 nm | 130 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 64 Watt | 59 Watt |
ATI HD 5670 has a 1810% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 6 years, a 300% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 225% more advanced lithography process.
FX 5900 Ultra, on the other hand, has 8.5% lower power consumption.
The Radeon HD 5670 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce FX 5900 Ultra 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.
