ATI Radeon X800 PRO vs GeForce FX 5200

VS

Primary details

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

Place in the rankingnot ratednot rated
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
ArchitectureCelsius (1999−2005)R400 (2004−2008)
GPU code nameNV18 C1R423
Market segmentDesktopDesktop
Release date6 March 2003 (21 year ago)1 May 2004 (20 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$69.99 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.

Core clock speed250 MHz475 MHz
Number of transistors29 million160 million
Manufacturing process technology150 nm130 nm
Power consumption (TDP)no data48 Watt
Texture fill rate1.0005.700
ROPs212
TMUs412

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).

InterfaceAGP 8xPCIe 1.0 x16
Width1-slot1-slot
Supplementary power connectorsNone1x 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 typeDDRGDDR3
Maximum RAM amount128 MB256 MB
Memory bus width128 Bit256 Bit
Memory clock speed200 MHz450 MHz
Memory bandwidth6.4 GB/s28.8 GB/s

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 DVI, 1x VGA, 1x S-Video1x DVI, 1x VGA, 1x S-Video

API compatibility

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

DirectX8.09.0b (9_2)
OpenGL1.32.0
OpenCLN/AN/A
VulkanN/AN/A

Synthetic benchmark performance

Non-gaming benchmark results comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.



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.

FX 5200 7
ATI X800 PRO 64
+814%

Pros & cons summary


Recency 6 March 2003 1 May 2004
Maximum RAM amount 128 MB 256 MB
Chip lithography 150 nm 130 nm

ATI X800 PRO has an age advantage of 1 year, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 15.4% more advanced lithography process.

We couldn't decide between GeForce FX 5200 and Radeon X800 PRO. We've got no test results to judge.


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 FX 5200
GeForce FX 5200
ATI Radeon X800 PRO
Radeon X800 PRO

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.


3.4 242 votes

Rate GeForce FX 5200 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.5 2 votes

Rate Radeon X800 PRO 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.