
GeForce FX 5900ZT vs RADEON 9550

GeForce FX 5900ZT
Popular choices:

RADEON 9550
Popular choices:
Performance Spectrum - GPU
About G3D Mark
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.
Avg price is the current average price collected from markets across the web.
Performance Per Dollar
Performance Per Dollar RADEON 9550
Performance Comparison
About G3D Mark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
⚠️ Generational Difference
The RADEON 9550 is significantly newer (2017 vs 2011). The RADEON 9550 likely supports modern features like Ray Tracing, Tensor Cores, and DLSS/FSR upscaling, which act as force multipliers for performance. The GeForce FX 5900ZT lacks this hardware feature set, limiting its longevity in modern titles despite any raw power similarities.
🚀 Performance Leadership
The RADEON 9550 is the superior choice for raw performance. It leads with a 6.1% higher G3D Mark score and 100% more VRAM (256 MB vs 128 MB). This advantage makes it significantly better for higher resolutions (1440p/4K) and graphic-intensive titles compared to the GeForce FX 5900ZT.
| Insight | GeForce FX 5900ZT | RADEON 9550 |
|---|---|---|
| Performance | ❌Lower raw frame rates (-6.1%) | ✅Leading raw performance (+6.1%) |
| Longevity | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2011 / Fermi 2.0 (2010−2014)) | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2017 / GCN 4.0 (2016−2020)) |
| 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 | — |
💎 Value Proposition
While current pricing data is unavailable, the RADEON 9550 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.
Technical Specifications
Side-by-side comparison of GeForce FX 5900ZT and RADEON 9550

GeForce FX 5900ZT
The GeForce FX 5900ZT is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in March 24 2011. It features the Rankine architecture. The core clock speed is 607 MHz. It has 1024 ×2 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 365W. Manufactured using 40 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 33 points. Launch price was $699.

RADEON 9550
The RADEON 9550 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in April 20 2017. It features the GCN 4.0 architecture. The core clock ranges from 1100 MHz to 1183 MHz. It has 512 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 50W. Manufactured using 14 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 35 points. Launch price was $79.
Graphics Performance
In G3D Mark, the GeForce FX 5900ZT scores 33 versus the RADEON 9550's 35 — the RADEON 9550 leads by 6.1%. The GeForce FX 5900ZT is built on Rankine while the RADEON 9550 uses GCN 4.0, both on 40 nm vs 14 nm. Shader units: 1,024 (GeForce FX 5900ZT) vs 512 (RADEON 9550). Raw compute: 1.244 TFLOPS ×2 (GeForce FX 5900ZT) vs 1.211 TFLOPS (RADEON 9550).
| Feature | GeForce FX 5900ZT | RADEON 9550 |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 33 | 35+6% |
| Architecture | Rankine | GCN 4.0 |
| Process Node | 40 nm | 14 nm |
| Shading Units | 1024 ×2+100% | 512 |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 1.244 TFLOPS ×2+3% | 1.211 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 48 ×2+200% | 16 |
| TMUs | 64 ×2+100% | 32 |
| L1 Cache | 1 MB+669% | 0.13 MB |
| L2 Cache | 768 KB+200% | 256 KB |
Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)
| Feature | GeForce FX 5900ZT | RADEON 9550 |
|---|---|---|
| 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 5900ZT comes with 128 MB of VRAM, while the RADEON 9550 has 256 MB. The RADEON 9550 offers 100% more capacity, crucial for higher resolutions and texture-heavy games. Bus width: 128-bit vs 64-bit. L2 Cache: 768 KB (GeForce FX 5900ZT) vs 256 KB (RADEON 9550) — the GeForce FX 5900ZT has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.
| Feature | GeForce FX 5900ZT | RADEON 9550 |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 0.125 GB | 0.25 GB+100% |
| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Bus Width | 128-bit+100% | 64-bit |
| L2 Cache | 768 KB+200% | 256 KB |
Power & Dimensions
The GeForce FX 5900ZT draws 365W versus the RADEON 9550's 50W — a 151.8% difference. The RADEON 9550 is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 350W (GeForce FX 5900ZT) vs 350W (RADEON 9550). Power connectors: Legacy vs Legacy.
| Feature | GeForce FX 5900ZT | RADEON 9550 |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 365W | 50W-86% |
| Recommended PSU | 350W | 350W |
| Power Connector | Legacy | Legacy |
| Length | 218mm | — |
| Height | 111mm | — |
| Slots | 1 | — |
| Temp (Load) | 70 | — |
| Perf/Watt | 0.1 | 0.7+600% |
Value Analysis
The GeForce FX 5900ZT launched at $0 MSRP and currently averages $0, while the RADEON 9550 launched at $129 and now averages $30. The GeForce FX 5900ZT costs 100+% less ($30 savings) at current market prices. Performance per dollar (G3D Mark / price): Infinity (GeForce FX 5900ZT) vs 1.2 (RADEON 9550) — the GeForce FX 5900ZT offers Infinity% better value. The RADEON 9550 is the newer GPU (2017 vs 2011).
| Feature | GeForce FX 5900ZT | RADEON 9550 |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $0-100% | $129 |
| Avg Price (30d) | $0-100% | $30 |
| Performance per Dollar | Infinity | 1.2 |
| Codename | GF110 | Lexa |
| Release | March 24 2011 | April 20 2017 |
| Ranking | #555 | #668 |
Top Performing GPUs
The most powerful gpus ranked by G3D Mark benchmark scores.















