GeForce FX 5700VE vs Radeon 9550 / X1050

G3D Mark is a standard benchmark that measures graphics performance in real-world gaming scenarios. It simplifies comparing cards from different brands, where higher scores directly correlate with better fps and smoother gaming experiences.

Value Upgrade Path

This is the official ChipVERSUS Value Rating, comparing raw performance (G3D Mark) per dollar. Components placed above yours deliver better value for money.

MSRP is the manufacturer's suggested retail price.•
Avg price is the current average price collected from markets across the web.

Performance Per Dollar

Based on actual market prices and performance benchmarks.

Performance Per Dollar

Based on actual market prices and performance benchmarks.

Performance Comparison

About G3D Mark

🏆 Chipversus Verdict

⚠️ Generational Difference

The Radeon 9550 / X1050 is significantly newer (2019 vs 2010). The Radeon 9550 / X1050 likely supports modern features like Ray Tracing, Tensor Cores, and DLSS/FSR upscaling, which act as force multipliers for performance. The GeForce FX 5700VE lacks this hardware feature set, limiting its longevity in modern titles despite any raw power similarities.

🚀 Performance Leadership

The GeForce FX 5700VE is the superior choice for raw performance. It leads with a 13.8% higher G3D Mark score. However, the Radeon 9550 / X1050 offers more VRAM, which may be beneficial for texture-heavy scenarios at higher resolutions.

Insight	GeForce FX 5700VE	Radeon 9550 / X1050
Performance	✅Leading raw performance (+13.8%)	❌Lower raw frame rates (-13.8%)
Longevity	🛑Obsolete Architecture (2010 / Fermi 2.0 (2010−2014))	GCN 4.0 (2016−2020) (14nm)
Ecosystem	Supports FSR Upscaling	Supports FSR Upscaling
VRAM	❌ Less VRAM capacity	✅ More VRAM (+100%)
Efficiency	⚡ Higher Power Consumption	💡 Excellent Perf/Watt
Case Fit	📏 Compact / SFF Friendly	📏 Compact / SFF Friendly

💎 Value Proposition

While current pricing data is unavailable, the GeForce FX 5700VE remains the clear technical winner. Check real-time availability to determine if the performance gap justifies the market price.

Performance Check

Real-world benchmarks and performance projections based on comprehensive hardware analysis and comparative metrics. Values represent expected performance on High/Ultra settings at 1080p, 1440p, and 4K. Modeled using a Ryzen 7 7800X3D reference profile to minimize specific CPU bottlenecks.

Note: Performance behavior can vary per game. Specific architectures may perform better or worse depending on game engine optimizations and API implementation.

GeForce FX 5700VE Benchmark Check

Radeon 9550 / X1050 Benchmark Check

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of GeForce FX 5700VE and Radeon 9550 / X1050

GeForce FX 5700VE

The GeForce FX 5700VE is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in December 7 2010. It features the Rankine architecture. The core clock speed is 732 MHz. It has 480 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 219W. Manufactured using 40 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 33 points. Launch price was $349.

Radeon 9550 / X1050

The Radeon 9550 / X1050 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in March 27 2019. It features the GCN 4.0 architecture. The core clock ranges from 1082 MHz to 1218 MHz. It has 512 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 50W. Manufactured using 14 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 29 points.

⚡

Graphics Performance

In G3D Mark, the GeForce FX 5700VE scores 33 versus the Radeon 9550 / X1050's 29 — the GeForce FX 5700VE leads by 13.8%. The GeForce FX 5700VE is built on Rankine while the Radeon 9550 / X1050 uses GCN 4.0, both on 40 nm vs 14 nm. Shader units: 480 (GeForce FX 5700VE) vs 512 (Radeon 9550 / X1050). Raw compute: 1.405 TFLOPS (GeForce FX 5700VE) vs 1.247 TFLOPS (Radeon 9550 / X1050).

Feature	GeForce FX 5700VE	Radeon 9550 / X1050
G3D Mark Score	33+14%	29
Architecture	Rankine	GCN 4.0
Process Node	40 nm	14 nm
Shading Units	480	512+7%
Compute (TFLOPS)	1.405 TFLOPS+13%	1.247 TFLOPS
ROPs	40+150%	16
TMUs	60+88%	32
L1 Cache	960 KB+650%	128 KB
L2 Cache	640 KB+25%	512 KB

✨

Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)

Feature	GeForce FX 5700VE	Radeon 9550 / X1050
Upscaling Tech	FSR 1.0 (Software)	FSR 1.0 (Software)
Frame Generation	Not Supported	Not Supported
Ray Reconstruction	No	No
Low Latency	Standard	AMD Anti-Lag

💾

Video Memory (VRAM)

The GeForce FX 5700VE comes with 256 MB of VRAM, while the Radeon 9550 / X1050 has 512 MB. The Radeon 9550 / X1050 offers 100% more capacity, crucial for higher resolutions and texture-heavy games. Bus width: 128-bit vs 64-bit. L2 Cache: 640 KB (GeForce FX 5700VE) vs 512 KB (Radeon 9550 / X1050) — the GeForce FX 5700VE has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.

Feature	GeForce FX 5700VE	Radeon 9550 / X1050
VRAM Capacity	0.25 GB	0.5 GB+100%
Memory Type	GDDR5	GDDR5
Bus Width	128-bit+100%	64-bit
L2 Cache	640 KB+25%	512 KB

🖥️

Display & API Support

DirectX support: 9.0a (GeForce FX 5700VE) vs 9_0 (Radeon 9550 / X1050). Maximum simultaneous displays: 2 vs 2.

Feature	GeForce FX 5700VE	Radeon 9550 / X1050
DirectX	9.0a	9_0
Max Displays	2	2

🔌

Power & Dimensions

The GeForce FX 5700VE draws 219W versus the Radeon 9550 / X1050's 50W — a 125.7% difference. The Radeon 9550 / X1050 is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 350W (GeForce FX 5700VE) vs 350W (Radeon 9550 / X1050). Power connectors: Legacy vs PCIe-powered. Card length: 170mm vs 165mm, occupying 1 vs 1 slots.

Feature	GeForce FX 5700VE	Radeon 9550 / X1050
TDP	219W	50W-77%
Recommended PSU	350W	350W
Power Connector	Legacy	PCIe-powered
Length	170mm	165mm
Height	100mm	—
Slots	1	1
Temp (Load)	75	—
Perf/Watt	0.2	0.6+200%

💰

Value Analysis

The GeForce FX 5700VE launched at $0 MSRP and currently averages $0, while the Radeon 9550 / X1050 launched at $0 and now averages $49. The GeForce FX 5700VE costs 100+% less ($49 savings) at current market prices. Performance per dollar (G3D Mark / price): Infinity (GeForce FX 5700VE) vs 0.6 (Radeon 9550 / X1050) — the GeForce FX 5700VE offers Infinity% better value. The Radeon 9550 / X1050 is the newer GPU (2019 vs 2010).