GeForce FX 5700 vs Radeon RX Vega 56

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon RX Vega 56 and GeForce FX 5700, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.

RX Vega 56
2017
8 GB HBM2, 210 Watt
34.26
+34160%

RX Vega 56 outperforms FX 5700 by a whopping 34160% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking1511448
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation24.50no data
Power efficiency11.180.27
ArchitectureGCN 5.0 (2017−2020)Rankine (2003−2005)
GPU code nameVega 10NV36
Market segmentDesktopDesktop
Release date14 August 2017 (7 years ago)23 October 2003 (21 year ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$399 no data

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 cores3584no data
Core clock speed1156 MHz425 MHz
Boost clock speed1471 MHzno data
Number of transistors12,500 million82 million
Manufacturing process technology14 nm130 nm
Power consumption (TDP)210 Watt25 Watt
Texture fill rate329.51.700
Floating-point processing power10.54 TFLOPSno data
ROPs644
TMUs2244

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).

InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16AGP 8x
Length267 mmno data
Width2-slot1-slot
Supplementary power connectors2x 8-pinNone

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 typeHBM2DDR
Maximum RAM amount8 GB128 MB
Memory bus width2048 Bit256 Bit
Memory clock speed800 MHz250 MHz
Memory bandwidth409.6 GB/s16 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 Connectors1x HDMI, 3x DisplayPort1x DVI, 1x VGA, 1x S-Video
HDMI+-

API compatibility

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

DirectX12 (12_1)9.0a
Shader Model6.4no data
OpenGL4.61.5 (2.1)
OpenCL2.0N/A
Vulkan1.1.125N/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. 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.

RX Vega 56 34.26
+34160%
FX 5700 0.10

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.

RX Vega 56 13197
+32893%
FX 5700 40

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 HD114-0−1
1440p78-0−1
4K45-0−1

Cost per frame, $

1080p3.50no data
1440p5.12no data
4K8.87no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 55−60 0−1

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 77 0−1
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 55−60 0−1
Battlefield 5 164 0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 70−75 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 55−60 0−1
Far Cry 5 115 0−1
Far Cry New Dawn 114 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 293 0−1
Hitman 3 70−75 0−1
Horizon Zero Dawn 140−150 0−1
Metro Exodus 144 0−1
Red Dead Redemption 2 80−85 0−1
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 184 0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion 120−130 0−1

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 134 0−1
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 55−60 0−1
Battlefield 5 153 0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 70−75 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 55−60 0−1
Far Cry 5 92 0−1
Far Cry New Dawn 88 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 272 0−1
Hitman 3 70−75 0−1
Horizon Zero Dawn 140−150 0−1
Metro Exodus 119 0−1
Red Dead Redemption 2 80−85 0−1
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 120−130 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 70−75 0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion 120−130 0−1

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 52 0−1
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 55−60 0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 70−75 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 55−60 0−1
Far Cry 5 69 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 109 0−1
Hitman 3 70−75 0−1
Horizon Zero Dawn 140−150 0−1
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 120−130 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 74 0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion 120−130 0−1

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 80−85 0−1

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 98 0−1
Far Cry New Dawn 60 0−1

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 44 0−1
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 35−40 0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 40−45 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 24−27 0−1
Far Cry 5 46 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 268 0−1
Hitman 3 40−45 0−1
Horizon Zero Dawn 70−75 0−1
Metro Exodus 74 0−1
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 80−85 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 45−50 0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion 170−180 0−1

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 55−60 0−1

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5 46 0−1
Far Cry New Dawn 32 0−1
Hitman 3 27−30 0−1
Horizon Zero Dawn 160−170 0−1
Metro Exodus 46 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 44 0−1

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 27 0−1
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 20−22 0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 21−24 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 10−11 0−1
Far Cry 5 23 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 59 0−1
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 45−50 0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion 16−18 0−1

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 30−33 0−1

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 34.26 0.10
Recency 14 August 2017 23 October 2003
Maximum RAM amount 8 GB 128 MB
Chip lithography 14 nm 130 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 210 Watt 25 Watt

RX Vega 56 has a 34160% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 13 years, a 6300% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 828.6% more advanced lithography process.

FX 5700, on the other hand, has 740% lower power consumption.

The Radeon RX Vega 56 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce FX 5700 in performance tests.


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.


AMD Radeon RX Vega 56
Radeon RX Vega 56
NVIDIA GeForce FX 5700
GeForce FX 5700

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.


4.3 792 votes

Rate Radeon RX Vega 56 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
2.7 71 vote

Rate GeForce FX 5700 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.