Radeon RX Vega Nano vs GeForce FX 5600

VS

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking1483not rated
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiency0.06no data
ArchitectureRankine (2003−2005)GCN 5.0 (2017−2020)
GPU code nameNV31Vega 10
Market segmentDesktopDesktop
Release date6 March 2003 (21 year ago)no data (2024 years ago)

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 coresno data4096
Core clock speed325 MHz1200 MHz
Boost clock speedno data1546 MHz
Number of transistors80 million12,500 million
Manufacturing process technology130 nm14 nm
Power consumption (TDP)37 Watt175 Watt
Texture fill rate1.300395.8
ROPs464
TMUs4256

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 3.0 x16
Lengthno data152 mm
Width1-slot2-slot
Supplementary power connectorsNone1x 8-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 typeDDRHBM2
Maximum RAM amount128 MB8 GB
Memory bus width128 Bit2048 Bit
Memory clock speed250 MHz1600 MBps
Memory bandwidth8 GB/s409.6 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 HDMI 2.0b, 3x DisplayPort 1.4a
HDMI-+

API compatibility

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

DirectX9.0a12 (12_1)
Shader Modelno data6.7
OpenGL1.5 (2.1)4.6
OpenCLN/A2.1
VulkanN/A1.3

Pros & cons summary


Maximum RAM amount 128 MB 8 GB
Chip lithography 130 nm 14 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 37 Watt 175 Watt

FX 5600 has 373% lower power consumption.

RX Vega Nano, on the other hand, has a 6300% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 828.6% more advanced lithography process.

We couldn't decide between GeForce FX 5600 and Radeon RX Vega Nano. 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 5600
GeForce FX 5600
AMD Radeon RX Vega Nano
Radeon RX Vega Nano

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.


3.1 65 votes

Rate GeForce FX 5600 on a scale of 1 to 5:

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

Rate Radeon RX Vega Nano 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.