GeForce RTX 5090 vs ATI Radeon Xpress 1100
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon Xpress 1100 and GeForce RTX 5090, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
RTX 5090 outperforms ATI Xpress 1100 by a whopping 111011% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 1473 | 1 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | 59 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 10.89 |
| Power efficiency | no data | 12.11 |
| Architecture | Rage 8 (2002−2007) | Blackwell 2.0 (2025) |
| GPU code name | RC410 | GB202 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Desktop |
| Release date | 17 October 2007 (17 years ago) | 30 January 2025 (recently) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $1,999 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.
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 | 6 | 21760 |
| Core clock speed | 300 MHz | 2017 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 300 MHz | 2407 MHz |
| Number of transistors | no data | 92,200 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 130 nm | 5 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | no data | 575 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 0.6 | 1,637 |
| Floating-point processing power | no data | 104.8 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 2 | 176 |
| TMUs | 2 | 680 |
| Tensor Cores | no data | 680 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | no data | 170 |
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 | PCIe 1.0 x16 | PCIe 5.0 x16 |
| Length | no data | 304 mm |
| Width | IGP | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | 1x 16-pin |
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 | System Shared | GDDR7 |
| Maximum RAM amount | System Shared | 32 GB |
| Memory bus width | System Shared | 512 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | System Shared | 1750 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | no data | 1.79 TB/s |
| Shared memory | - | - |
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 HDMI 2.1b, 3x DisplayPort 2.1b |
| HDMI | - | + |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 9.0 (9_0) | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |
| Shader Model | no data | 6.8 |
| OpenGL | 2.0 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | N/A | 3.0 |
| Vulkan | N/A | 1.4 |
| CUDA | - | 10.1 |
| DLSS | - | + |
Synthetic benchmark performance
Non-gaming benchmark results comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.
Combined synthetic benchmark score
This is our combined benchmark score.
Passmark
This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark. It gives the graphics card a thorough evaluation under various types of load, providing four separate benchmarks for Direct3D versions 9, 10, 11 and 12 (the last being done in 4K resolution if possible), and few more tests engaging DirectCompute capabilities.
Gaming performance
Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.
Average FPS across all PC games
Here are the average frames per second in a large set of popular games across different resolutions:
| Full HD | -0−1 | 207 |
| 1440p | -0−1 | 184 |
| 4K | -0−1 | 141 |
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | no data | 9.66 |
| 1440p | no data | 10.86 |
| 4K | no data | 14.18 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 5−6
−4180%
|
210−220
+4180%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−109900%
|
2200−2250
+109900%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 5−6
−4180%
|
210−220
+4180%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−109900%
|
2200−2250
+109900%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 3−4
−109900%
|
3300−3350
+109900%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 3−4
−5100%
|
150−160
+5100%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 5−6
−4180%
|
210−220
+4180%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−109900%
|
2200−2250
+109900%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 6−7
−2550%
|
159
+2550%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 3−4
−109900%
|
3300−3350
+109900%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 5−6
−4200%
|
210−220
+4200%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 3−4
−5100%
|
150−160
+5100%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 4−5
−4250%
|
170−180
+4250%
|
| World of Tanks | 9−10
−3000%
|
270−280
+3000%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 5−6
−3940%
|
202
+3940%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−109900%
|
2200−2250
+109900%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 6−7
−3300%
|
200−210
+3300%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 3−4
−109900%
|
3300−3350
+109900%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 5−6
−4200%
|
210−220
+4200%
|
1440p
High Preset
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 0−1 | 0−1 |
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−109900%
|
3300−3350
+109900%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 4−5
−3900%
|
160−170
+3900%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 3−4
−109900%
|
3300−3350
+109900%
|
| Valorant | 4−5
−14200%
|
550−600
+14200%
|
4K
High Preset
| Dota 2 | 14−16
−1147%
|
180−190
+1147%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
−110900%
|
16650−16700
+110900%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 14−16
−110900%
|
16650−16700
+110900%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−109900%
|
2200−2250
+109900%
|
| Dota 2 | 14−16
−110900%
|
16650−16700
+110900%
|
| Valorant | 0−1 | 350−400 |
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 110−120
+0%
|
110−120
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 300−350
+0%
|
300−350
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 190−200
+0%
|
190−200
+0%
|
| Valorant | 800−850
+0%
|
800−850
+0%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 110−120
+0%
|
110−120
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 170−180
+0%
|
170−180
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 300−350
+0%
|
300−350
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 300−350
+0%
|
300−350
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 190−200
+0%
|
190−200
+0%
|
| Valorant | 800−850
+0%
|
800−850
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 110−120
+0%
|
110−120
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 300−350
+0%
|
300−350
+0%
|
| Valorant | 800−850
+0%
|
800−850
+0%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 183
+0%
|
183
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 160−170
+0%
|
160−170
+0%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 90−95
+0%
|
90−95
+0%
|
| World of Tanks | 500−550
+0%
|
500−550
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 85−90
+0%
|
85−90
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 230−240
+0%
|
230−240
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 160−170
+0%
|
160−170
+0%
|
4K
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 174
+0%
|
174
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 167
+0%
|
167
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 200−210
+0%
|
200−210
+0%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 60−65
+0%
|
60−65
+0%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 90−95
+0%
|
90−95
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 55
+0%
|
55
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 100−110
+0%
|
100−110
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 95−100
+0%
|
95−100
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 160−170
+0%
|
160−170
+0%
|
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Valorant, with 1440p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the RTX 5090 is 14200% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- RTX 5090 is ahead in 15 tests (34%)
- there's a draw in 29 tests (66%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.09 | 100.00 |
| Recency | 17 October 2007 | 30 January 2025 |
| Chip lithography | 130 nm | 5 nm |
RTX 5090 has a 111011.1% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 17 years, and a 2500% more advanced lithography process.
The GeForce RTX 5090 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon Xpress 1100 in performance tests.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
