GeForce FX 5900 Ultra vs Radeon R7 265

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking433not rated
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation5.05no data
Power efficiency4.80no data
ArchitectureGCN 1.0 (2011−2020)Rankine (2003−2005)
GPU code namePitcairnNV35
Market segmentDesktopDesktop
Designreferenceno data
Release date13 February 2014 (10 years ago)23 October 2003 (21 year ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$149 $499

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 cores1024no data
Core clock speedno data450 MHz
Boost clock speed925 MHzno data
Number of transistors2,800 million135 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm130 nm
Power consumption (TDP)150 Watt59 Watt
Texture fill rate59.203.600
Floating-point processing power1.894 TFLOPSno data
ROPs324
TMUs648

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).

Bus supportPCIe 3.0no data
InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16AGP 8x
Length210 mm218 mm
Width2-slot2-slot
Supplementary power connectors1 x 6-pin1x 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 typeGDDR5DDR
Maximum RAM amount4 GB256 MB
Memory bus width256 Bit256 Bit
Memory clock speed1400 MHz425 MHz
Memory bandwidth179.2 GB/s27.2 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 Connectors2x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort1x DVI, 1x VGA, 1x S-Video
Eyefinity+-
HDMI+-

Supported technologies

Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.

CrossFire+-
FreeSync+-
DDMA audio+no data

API compatibility

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

DirectXDirectX® 129.0a
Shader Model5.1no data
OpenGL4.61.5 (2.1)
OpenCL1.2N/A
Vulkan-N/A

Pros & cons summary


Recency 13 February 2014 23 October 2003
Maximum RAM amount 4 GB 256 MB
Chip lithography 28 nm 130 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 150 Watt 59 Watt

R7 265 has an age advantage of 10 years, a 1500% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 364.3% more advanced lithography process.

FX 5900 Ultra, on the other hand, has 154.2% lower power consumption.

We couldn't decide between Radeon R7 265 and GeForce FX 5900 Ultra. 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.


AMD Radeon R7 265
Radeon R7 265
NVIDIA GeForce FX 5900 Ultra
GeForce FX 5900 Ultra

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.


3.1 373 votes

Rate Radeon R7 265 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.5 6 votes

Rate GeForce FX 5900 Ultra 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.