GeForce FX 5950 Ultra vs RADEON E2400

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.

GeForce FX 5950 Ultra vs RADEON E2400 FPS Benchmarks

Predicted gaming performance across popular games. Tested paired with Ryzen 7 9800X3D to isolate GPU performance.

Search any supported game below to compare 1080p FPS for both components.

GeForce FX 5950 Ultra vs RADEON E2400: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

See where each GPU makes more sense in practice: raw FPS, VRAM, features, power draw, pricing, and long-term headroom.

GeForce FX 5950 Ultra

2011

Why buy it

✅+13.5% higher PassMark G3D performance.

Trade-offs

❌Less VRAM, with 256 MB vs 512 MB for high-resolution textures and newer games.
❌2011 hardware with 256 MB of VRAM is already well past its comfortable zone for modern gaming, so it is hard to recommend now.
❌Lower G3D Mark per dollar, at 0 vs 0.5 G3D/$ (Unknown MSRP vs $100 MSRP).
❌132% higher power demand at 116W vs 50W.

RADEON E2400

2017

Why buy it

✅Delivers 100+% more G3D Mark for each dollar spent, at 0.5 vs 0 G3D/$ ($100 MSRP vs Unknown MSRP).
✅100% more VRAM for high-resolution textures and newer games (512 MB vs 256 MB).
✅Draws 50W instead of 116W, a 66W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark G3D performance (52 vs 59).
❌2017 hardware with 512 MB of VRAM is already well past its comfortable zone for modern gaming, so it is hard to recommend now.

Quick Answers

Which GPU is faster for gaming right now?

GeForce FX 5950 Ultra is the faster gaming card right now based on the synthetic data we have. It leads by 13.5% in PassMark G3D (59 vs 52), which is the best performance signal available in this matchup.

Which GPU is the safer long-term pick for 2026 and beyond?

GeForce FX 5950 Ultra is the safer long-term pick for 2026 and beyond because it comes out ahead on the available hardware-headroom signals for this matchup.

Which GPU is the better buy today?

RADEON E2400 makes the most sense today based on the pricing and value data we have for this matchup. If you are mainly targeting 1080p and some 1440p, RADEON E2400 is the easier value choice. If you care more about 1080p and some 1440p headroom, GeForce FX 5950 Ultra has the stronger long-term case.

GeForce FX 5950 Ultra vs RADEON E2400 Technical Specifications

Side-by-side specs, architecture details, clocks, memory, power, and platform differences.

GeForce FX 5950 Ultra

The GeForce FX 5950 Ultra is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in March 15 2011. It features the Rankine architecture. The core clock speed is 900 MHz. It has 192 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 116W. Manufactured using 40 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 59 points. Launch price was $149.

RADEON E2400

The RADEON E2400 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in April 20 2017. It features the GCN 4.0 architecture. The core clock ranges from 1183 MHz to 1124 MHz. It has 384 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 50W. Manufactured using 14 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 52 points. Launch price was $79.

⚡

Graphics Performance

In G3D Mark, the GeForce FX 5950 Ultra scores 59 versus the RADEON E2400's 52 — the GeForce FX 5950 Ultra leads by 13.5%. The GeForce FX 5950 Ultra is built on Rankine while the RADEON E2400 uses GCN 4.0, both on 40 nm vs 14 nm. Shader units: 192 (GeForce FX 5950 Ultra) vs 384 (RADEON E2400). Raw compute: 0.6912 TFLOPS (GeForce FX 5950 Ultra) vs 0.9085 TFLOPS (RADEON E2400).

Feature	GeForce FX 5950 Ultra	RADEON E2400
G3D Mark Score	59+13%	52
Architecture	Rankine	GCN 4.0
Process Node	40 nm	14 nm
Shading Units	192	384+100%
Compute (TFLOPS)	0.6912 TFLOPS	0.9085 TFLOPS+31%
ROPs	24+50%	16
TMUs	32+33%	24
L1 Cache	256 KB+167%	96 KB
L2 Cache	384 KB	512 KB+33%

✨

Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)

The GeForce FX 5950 Ultra gets NVIDIA DLSS, which still tends to look cleaner in motion. The RADEON E2400 leans on FSR, which is flexible and widely supported, but usually a bit rougher at the same settings.

Feature	GeForce FX 5950 Ultra	RADEON E2400
Upscaling Tech	Upscaling support	FSR Upscaling / FSR 4
Frame Generation	Not Supported	Not Supported
Ray Reconstruction	No	No
Low Latency	NVIDIA Reflex	AMD Anti-Lag

💾

Video Memory (VRAM)

The GeForce FX 5950 Ultra has 256 MB of VRAM, while the RADEON E2400 carries 512 MB. RADEON E2400 gives you 100% more memory capacity, which matters more once you move into heavier textures, mods, or higher resolutions. Memory bus width is 128-bit on the GeForce FX 5950 Ultra and 64-bit on the RADEON E2400. L2 Cache: 384 KB (GeForce FX 5950 Ultra) vs 512 KB (RADEON E2400) — the RADEON E2400 has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.

Feature	GeForce FX 5950 Ultra	RADEON E2400
VRAM Capacity	0.25 GB	0.5 GB+100%
Memory Type	GDDR5	GDDR5
Bus Width	128-bit+100%	64-bit
L2 Cache	384 KB	512 KB+33%

🔌

Power & Dimensions

The GeForce FX 5950 Ultra draws 116W versus the RADEON E2400's 50W — a 79.5% difference. The RADEON E2400 is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 350W (GeForce FX 5950 Ultra) vs 350W (RADEON E2400). Power connectors: Legacy vs Legacy.

Feature	GeForce FX 5950 Ultra	RADEON E2400
TDP	116W	50W-57%
Recommended PSU	350W	350W
Power Connector	Legacy	Legacy
Length	229mm	—
Slots	2	—
Temp (Load)	75°C	—
Perf/Watt	0.5	1.0+100%

💰

Value Analysis

At launch, the GeForce FX 5950 Ultra came in at $0, while the RADEON E2400 launched at $100. On MSRP, GeForce FX 5950 Ultra was 100+% cheaper ($100 less). Performance per dollar on MSRP (G3D Mark / MSRP): Infinity (GeForce FX 5950 Ultra) vs 0.5 (RADEON E2400) — the GeForce FX 5950 Ultra offers Infinity% better value. The newer card here is RADEON E2400 (2017 vs 2011).

Feature	GeForce FX 5950 Ultra	RADEON E2400
MSRP	$0-100%	$100
Performance per Dollar	Infinity	0.5
Codename	GF116	Lexa
Release	March 15 2011	April 20 2017
Ranking	#761	#773

Search GeForce FX 5950 Ultra on Amazon

Search RADEON E2400 on Amazon

Affiliate Disclosure

ChipVERSUS is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to Amazon.com. We may earn a commission on qualifying purchases made through our links. This comes at no additional cost to you and helps support our work in providing comprehensive PC building guides and tools.

Amazon and the Amazon logo are trademarks of Amazon.com, Inc. or its affiliates.