GeForce FX 5900 Ultra vs Radeon R7 265

Place in the ranking	438	1447
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	5.28	no data
Power efficiency	4.76	0.13
Architecture	GCN 1.0 (2011−2020)	Rankine (2003−2005)
GPU code name	Pitcairn	NV35
Market segment	Desktop	Desktop
Design	reference	no data
Release date	13 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.

R7 265 and FX 5900 Ultra have a nearly equal value for money.

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	1024	no data
Core clock speed	no data	450 MHz
Boost clock speed	925 MHz	no data
Number of transistors	2,800 million	135 million
Manufacturing process technology	28 nm	130 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	150 Watt	59 Watt
Texture fill rate	59.20	3.600
Floating-point processing power	1.894 TFLOPS	no data
ROPs	32	4
TMUs	64	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).

Bus support	PCIe 3.0	no data
Interface	PCIe 3.0 x16	AGP 8x
Length	210 mm	218 mm
Width	2-slot	2-slot
Supplementary power connectors	1 x 6-pin	1x 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 type	GDDR5	DDR
Maximum RAM amount	4 GB	256 MB
Memory bus width	256 Bit	256 Bit
Memory clock speed	1400 MHz	425 MHz
Memory bandwidth	179.2 GB/s	27.2 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 Connectors	2x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort	1x 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.

DirectX	DirectX® 12	9.0a
Shader Model	5.1	no data
OpenGL	4.6	1.5 (2.1)
OpenCL	1.2	N/A
Vulkan	-	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	10.42	0.11
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 a 9372.7% higher aggregate performance score, 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.

The Radeon R7 265 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce FX 5900 Ultra in performance tests.

Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.