Radeon R5 240 OEM vs GeForce FX 5700 Ultra

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking1461not rated
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiency0.13no data
ArchitectureRankine (2003−2005)GCN 1.0 (2011−2020)
GPU code nameNV36Oland
Market segmentDesktopDesktop
Release date23 October 2003 (21 year ago)1 November 2013 (11 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$199 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 coresno data384
Core clock speed475 MHz730 MHz
Boost clock speedno data780 MHz
Number of transistors82 million950 million
Manufacturing process technology130 nm28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)46 Watt50 Watt
Texture fill rate1.90018.72
Floating-point processing powerno data0.599 TFLOPS
ROPs48
TMUs424

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 x8
Length229 mm168 mm
Width1-slot1-slot
Supplementary power connectors1x MolexNone

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 typeGDDR2DDR3
Maximum RAM amount128 MB2 GB
Memory bus width128 Bit64 Bit
Memory clock speed453 MHz900 MHz
Memory bandwidth14.5 GB/s14.4 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 HDMI, 1x VGA
HDMI-+

API compatibility

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

DirectX9.0a12 (11_1)
Shader Modelno data5.1
OpenGL1.5 (2.1)4.6
OpenCLN/A1.2
VulkanN/A1.2.131

Pros & cons summary


Recency 23 October 2003 1 November 2013
Maximum RAM amount 128 MB 2 GB
Chip lithography 130 nm 28 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 46 Watt 50 Watt

FX 5700 Ultra has 8.7% lower power consumption.

R5 240 OEM, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 10 years, a 1500% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 364.3% more advanced lithography process.

We couldn't decide between GeForce FX 5700 Ultra and Radeon R5 240 OEM. 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 5700 Ultra
GeForce FX 5700 Ultra
AMD Radeon R5 240 OEM
Radeon R5 240 OEM

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.


2.6 5 votes

Rate GeForce FX 5700 Ultra on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.6 546 votes

Rate Radeon R5 240 OEM 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.