Radeon HD 8310G vs GeForce FX 5900 Ultra

VS

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking1444not rated
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiency0.13no data
ArchitectureRankine (2003−2005)TeraScale 3 (2010−2013)
GPU code nameNV35Scrapper Lite
Market segmentDesktopLaptop
Release date23 October 2003 (21 year ago)July 2013 (11 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$499 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 data128
Core clock speed450 MHz554 MHz
Boost clock speedno data720 MHz
Number of transistors135 million1,303 million
Manufacturing process technology130 nm32 nm
Power consumption (TDP)59 Watt20 Watt
Texture fill rate3.6005.760
Floating-point processing powerno data0.1843 TFLOPS
ROPs44
TMUs88

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 8xIGP
Length218 mmno data
Width2-slotno data
Supplementary power connectors1x Molexno data

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 typeDDRSystem Shared
Maximum RAM amount256 MBSystem Shared
Memory bus width256 BitSystem Shared
Memory clock speed425 MHzSystem Shared
Memory bandwidth27.2 GB/sno data
Shared memoryno 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 DVI, 1x VGA, 1x S-VideoNo outputs

API compatibility

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

DirectX9.0a11.2 (11_0)
Shader Modelno data5.0
OpenGL1.5 (2.1)4.4
OpenCLN/A1.2
VulkanN/AN/A

Pros & cons summary


Chip lithography 130 nm 32 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 59 Watt 20 Watt

HD 8310G has a 306.3% more advanced lithography process, and 195% lower power consumption.

We couldn't decide between GeForce FX 5900 Ultra and Radeon HD 8310G. We've got no test results to judge.

Be aware that GeForce FX 5900 Ultra is a desktop card while Radeon HD 8310G is a notebook one.


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 5900 Ultra
GeForce FX 5900 Ultra
AMD Radeon HD 8310G
Radeon HD 8310G

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.


3.5 6 votes

Rate GeForce FX 5900 Ultra on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
1 1 vote

Rate Radeon HD 8310G 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.