GeForce RTX 5090 vs UHD Graphics (Elkhart Lake 16 EU)
Aggregate performance score
We've compared UHD Graphics (Elkhart Lake 16 EU) and GeForce RTX 5090, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
RTX 5090 outperforms UHD Graphics (Elkhart Lake 16 EU) by a whopping 7810% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 1100 | 6 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | 58 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 8.97 |
| Power efficiency | 7.25 | 9.98 |
| Architecture | no data | Blackwell 2.0 (2025) |
| GPU code name | Gen. 11 | GB202 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Desktop |
| Release date | 11 January 2021 (4 years ago) | 30 January 2025 (recently) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $1,999 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
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 | 16 | 21760 |
| Core clock speed | 250 MHz | 2017 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 850 MHz | 2407 MHz |
| Number of transistors | no data | 92,200 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 10 nm | 5 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 4.8 - 10 Watt | 575 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | no data | 1,637 |
| Floating-point processing power | no data | 104.8 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | no data | 176 |
| TMUs | no data | 680 |
| Tensor Cores | no data | 680 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | no data | 170 |
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 | no data | PCIe 5.0 x16 |
| Length | no data | 304 mm |
| Width | no data | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | 1x 16-pin |
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 | no data | GDDR7 |
| Maximum RAM amount | no data | 32 GB |
| Memory bus width | no data | 512 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | no data | 1750 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | no data | 1.79 TB/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 Connectors | no data | 1x HDMI 2.1b, 3x DisplayPort 2.1b |
| HDMI | - | + |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| Quick Sync | + | no data |
API compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12_1 | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |
| Shader Model | no data | 6.8 |
| OpenGL | no data | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | no data | 3.0 |
| Vulkan | - | 1.4 |
| CUDA | - | 10.1 |
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 | 5
−4040%
| 207
+4040%
|
| 1440p | 2−3
−9100%
| 184
+9100%
|
| 4K | 1−2
−14000%
| 141
+14000%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | no data | 9.66 |
| 1440p | no data | 10.86 |
| 4K | no data | 14.18 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8
+16.7%
|
6−7
−16.7%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
−7400%
|
300−310
+7400%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8
+16.7%
|
6−7
−16.7%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
−7400%
|
300−310
+7400%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 8−9
−7400%
|
600−650
+7400%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 6−7
+100%
|
3−4
−100%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8
+16.7%
|
6−7
−16.7%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
−7400%
|
300−310
+7400%
|
| Dota 2 | 2
−7400%
|
150−160
+7400%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 5
−3080%
|
159
+3080%
|
| Fortnite | 4−5
−7400%
|
300−310
+7400%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 8−9
−7400%
|
600−650
+7400%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 12−14
+200%
|
4−5
−200%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 6−7
+100%
|
3−4
−100%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6−7
+50%
|
4−5
−50%
|
| World of Tanks | 24−27
+200%
|
8−9
−200%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8
−2786%
|
202
+2786%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
−7400%
|
300−310
+7400%
|
| Dota 2 | 5
−6900%
|
350−400
+6900%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 10−11
+66.7%
|
6−7
−66.7%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 8−9
−7400%
|
600−650
+7400%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 12−14
+200%
|
4−5
−200%
|
1440p
High Preset
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 5−6
−6900%
|
350−400
+6900%
|
| World of Tanks | 5−6
−6900%
|
350−400
+6900%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−7567%
|
230−240
+7567%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 5−6
+25%
|
4−5
−25%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 4−5
−7400%
|
300−310
+7400%
|
| Valorant | 6−7
+50%
|
4−5
−50%
|
4K
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 6−7
−2800%
|
174
+2800%
|
| Dota 2 | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
−7567%
|
1150−1200
+7567%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 3−4
−7567%
|
230−240
+7567%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 14−16
−7567%
|
1150−1200
+7567%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2
−7400%
|
75−80
+7400%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 6−7
−817%
|
55
+817%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−7400%
|
150−160
+7400%
|
| Dota 2 | 14−16
−7567%
|
1150−1200
+7567%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Valorant | 1−2 | 0−1 |
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 183
+0%
|
183
+0%
|
4K
High Preset
| Metro Exodus | 167
+0%
|
167
+0%
|
This is how UHD Graphics (Elkhart Lake 16 EU) and RTX 5090 compete in popular games:
- RTX 5090 is 4040% faster in 1080p
- RTX 5090 is 9100% faster in 1440p
- RTX 5090 is 14000% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS, with 1080p resolution and the High Preset, the UHD Graphics (Elkhart Lake 16 EU) is 200% faster.
- in Far Cry 5, with 1080p resolution and the High Preset, the RTX 5090 is 3080% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- UHD Graphics (Elkhart Lake 16 EU) is ahead in 12 tests (63%)
- RTX 5090 is ahead in 4 tests (21%)
- there's a draw in 3 tests (16%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 1.04 | 82.26 |
| Recency | 11 January 2021 | 30 January 2025 |
| Chip lithography | 10 nm | 5 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 4 Watt | 575 Watt |
UHD Graphics (Elkhart Lake 16 EU) has 14275% lower power consumption.
RTX 5090, on the other hand, has a 7809.6% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 4 years, and a 100% more advanced lithography process.
The GeForce RTX 5090 is our recommended choice as it beats the UHD Graphics (Elkhart Lake 16 EU) in performance tests.
Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
