ATI Radeon HD 5750 vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 275
Comparative analysis of ATI Radeon HD 5750 and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 275 videocards for all known characteristics in the following categories: Essentials, Technical info, Video outputs and ports, Compatibility, dimensions and requirements, API support, Memory, Technologies. Benchmark videocards performance analysis: PassMark - G3D Mark, PassMark - G2D Mark, Geekbench - OpenCL, CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s), GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps), GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps), GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps), 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score.
Differences
Reasons to consider the ATI Radeon HD 5750
- Videocard is newer: launch date 8 month(s) later
- 3x more pipelines: 720 vs 240
- Around 50% better floating-point performance: 1,008.0 gflops vs 673.9 gflops
- A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running videocard: 40 nm vs 55 nm
- 2.5x lower typical power consumption: 86 Watt vs 219 Watt
- Around 14% higher maximum memory size: 1 GB vs 896 MB
- 4.1x more memory clock speed: 4600 MHz vs 1134 MHz
- 5x better performance in PassMark - G2D Mark: 337 vs 67
- Around 5% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 3347 vs 3195
- Around 5% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 3347 vs 3195
Specifications (specs) | |
Launch date | 13 October 2009 vs 15 January 2009 |
Pipelines | 720 vs 240 |
Floating-point performance | 1,008.0 gflops vs 673.9 gflops |
Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm vs 55 nm |
Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 86 Watt vs 219 Watt |
Maximum memory size | 1 GB vs 896 MB |
Memory clock speed | 4600 MHz vs 1134 MHz |
Benchmarks | |
PassMark - G2D Mark | 337 vs 67 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3347 vs 3195 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3347 vs 3195 |
Reasons to consider the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 275
- 2x more core clock speed: 1404 MHz vs 700 MHz
- 2x more texture fill rate: 50.6 billion / sec vs 25.2 GTexel / s
- Around 19% better performance in PassMark - G3D Mark: 1385 vs 1164
- 23.4x better performance in Geekbench - OpenCL: 23256 vs 992
Specifications (specs) | |
Core clock speed | 1404 MHz vs 700 MHz |
Texture fill rate | 50.6 billion / sec vs 25.2 GTexel / s |
Benchmarks | |
PassMark - G3D Mark | 1385 vs 1164 |
Geekbench - OpenCL | 23256 vs 992 |
Compare benchmarks
GPU 1: ATI Radeon HD 5750
GPU 2: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 275
PassMark - G3D Mark |
|
|
||||
PassMark - G2D Mark |
|
|
||||
Geekbench - OpenCL |
|
|
||||
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) |
|
|
||||
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) |
|
|
Name | ATI Radeon HD 5750 | NVIDIA GeForce GTX 275 |
---|---|---|
PassMark - G3D Mark | 1164 | 1385 |
PassMark - G2D Mark | 337 | 67 |
Geekbench - OpenCL | 992 | 23256 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 7.384 | |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 460.31 | |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 0.679 | |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 23.118 | |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 53.346 | |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 2124 | |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 1757 | |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3347 | 3195 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 2124 | |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 1757 | |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3347 | 3195 |
3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 0 |
Compare specifications (specs)
ATI Radeon HD 5750 | NVIDIA GeForce GTX 275 | |
---|---|---|
Essentials |
||
Architecture | TeraScale 2 | Tesla 2.0 |
Code name | Juniper | GT200B |
Design | ATI Radeon HD 5000 Series | |
Launch date | 13 October 2009 | 15 January 2009 |
Place in performance rating | 1230 | 1231 |
Type | Desktop | Desktop |
Launch price (MSRP) | $249 | |
Price now | $119.99 | |
Value for money (0-100) | 13.43 | |
Technical info |
||
Boost clock speed | 700 MHz | |
Core clock speed | 700 MHz | 1404 MHz |
Floating-point performance | 1,008.0 gflops | 673.9 gflops |
Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 55 nm |
Pipelines | 720 | 240 |
Texture fill rate | 25.2 GTexel / s | 50.6 billion / sec |
Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 86 Watt | 219 Watt |
Transistor count | 1,040 million | 1,400 million |
CUDA cores | 240 | |
Maximum GPU temperature | 105 °C | |
Video outputs and ports |
||
Display Connectors | 2x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort | Two Dual Link DVI, 2x DVI |
DisplayPort support | ||
Dual-link DVI support | ||
HDMI | ||
VGA | ||
Audio input for HDMI | S / PDIF | |
Maximum VGA resolution | 2048x1536 | |
Multi monitor support | ||
Compatibility, dimensions and requirements |
||
Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
Length | 178 mm | 10.5" (267 mm) (26.7 cm) |
Supplementary power connectors | 1x 6-pin | 2x 6-pin |
Bus support | PCI-E 2.0 | |
Height | 4.376" (111 mm) (11.1 cm) | |
SLI options | 2-way3-way | |
API support |
||
DirectX | 11 | 10.0 |
OpenGL | 4.4 | 3.0 |
Memory |
||
Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 896 MB |
Memory bandwidth | 73.6 GB / s | 127.0 GB / s |
Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 448 Bit |
Memory clock speed | 4600 MHz | 1134 MHz |
Memory type | GDDR5 | GDDR3 |
Technologies |
||
AMD Eyefinity | ||
3D Vision | ||
CUDA | ||
SLI |