GeForce2 Ultra vs Radeon E8950
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon E8950 with GeForce2 Ultra, including specs and performance data.
E8950 outperforms GeForce2 Ultra by a whopping 70750% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 369 | 1499 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 10.26 | no data |
| Architecture | GCN 3.0 (2014−2019) | Celsius (1999−2005) |
| GPU code name | Amethyst | NV15 A4 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop |
| Release date | 29 September 2015 (9 years ago) | 14 August 2000 (24 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $499 |
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 | 2048 | no data |
| Core clock speed | 735 MHz | 250 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1000 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 5,000 million | 25 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 180 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 95 Watt | no data |
| Texture fill rate | 128.0 | 2.000 |
| Floating-point processing power | 4.096 TFLOPS | no data |
| ROPs | 32 | 4 |
| TMUs | 128 | 8 |
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 | MXM-B (3.0) | AGP 4x |
| Length | no data | 183 mm |
| Width | no data | 1-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | None |
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 | GDDR5 | DDR |
| Maximum RAM amount | 8 GB | 64 MB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1500 MHz | 230 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 192.0 GB/s | 7.36 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 Connectors | No outputs | 1x DVI, 1x VGA, 1x S-Video |
API compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (12_0) | 7.0 |
| Shader Model | 6.3 | no data |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 1.2 |
| OpenCL | 2.0 | N/A |
| Vulkan | 1.2.131 | N/A |
Gaming performance
Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 14.17 | 0.02 |
| Recency | 29 September 2015 | 14 August 2000 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 8 GB | 64 MB |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 180 nm |
Radeon E8950 has a 70750% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 15 years, a 12700% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 542.9% more advanced lithography process.
The Radeon E8950 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce2 Ultra in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon E8950 is a notebook card while GeForce2 Ultra is a desktop one.
Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Comparisons with similar GPUs
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
