GeForce4 Ti 4800 vs GeForce FX 5500
GeForce4 Ti 4800
Popular choices:
GeForce FX 5500
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. The GeForce4 Ti 4800 is positioned at rank 384 and the GeForce FX 5500 is on rank 736, so the GeForce4 Ti 4800 offers better cost-efficiency for playing games.
Avg price is the current average price collected from markets across the web.
Performance Per Dollar GeForce4 Ti 4800
Performance Per Dollar GeForce FX 5500
Performance Comparison
About G3D Mark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
⚠️ Generational Difference
The GeForce FX 5500 is significantly newer (2021 vs 2010). The GeForce FX 5500 likely supports modern features like Ray Tracing, Tensor Cores, and DLSS/FSR upscaling, which act as force multipliers for performance. The GeForce4 Ti 4800 lacks this hardware feature set, limiting its longevity in modern titles despite any raw power similarities.
🚀 Performance Leadership
The GeForce FX 5500 is the superior choice for raw performance. It leads with a 33.3% higher G3D Mark score. However, the GeForce4 Ti 4800 offers more VRAM, which may be beneficial for texture-heavy scenarios at higher resolutions.
| Insight | GeForce4 Ti 4800 | GeForce FX 5500 |
|---|---|---|
| Performance | ❌Lower raw frame rates (-33.3%) | ✅Leading raw performance (+33.3%) |
| Longevity | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2010 / Fermi (2010−2014)) | Turing (2018−2022) (12nm) |
| Ecosystem | Supports FSR Upscaling | Supports FSR Upscaling |
| VRAM | ✅ More VRAM (+100%) | ❌ Less VRAM capacity |
| Efficiency | ⚡ Higher Power Consumption | 💡 Excellent Perf/Watt |
| Case Fit | 📏 Compact / SFF Friendly | 📏 Compact / SFF Friendly |
💎 Value Proposition
The GeForce FX 5500 offers a compelling cost-to-performance ratio. Priced at $30 versus $40 for the GeForce4 Ti 4800, it costs 25% less. While it maintains basic entry-level capabilities, this results in a 77.8% higher cost efficiency score.
| Insight | GeForce4 Ti 4800 | GeForce FX 5500 |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ❌Lower cost efficiency | ✅Better overall value (+77.8%) |
| Upfront Cost | ⚠️Higher upfront cost ($40) | ✅More affordable ($30) |
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 GeForce4 Ti 4800 and GeForce FX 5500
GeForce4 Ti 4800
The GeForce4 Ti 4800 is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in March 26 2010. It features the Fermi architecture. The core clock speed is 700 MHz. It has 480 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 250W. Manufactured using 40 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 6 points. Launch price was $499.
GeForce FX 5500
The GeForce FX 5500 is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in December 17 2021. It features the Rankine architecture. The core clock ranges from 1065 MHz to 1320 MHz. It has 1024 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 25W. Manufactured using 12 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 8 points.
Graphics Performance
In G3D Mark, the GeForce4 Ti 4800 scores 6 versus the GeForce FX 5500's 8 — the GeForce FX 5500 leads by 33.3%. The GeForce4 Ti 4800 is built on Fermi while the GeForce FX 5500 uses Rankine, both on 40 nm vs 12 nm. Shader units: 480 (GeForce4 Ti 4800) vs 1,024 (GeForce FX 5500). Raw compute: 1.345 TFLOPS (GeForce4 Ti 4800) vs 2.703 TFLOPS (GeForce FX 5500).
| Feature | GeForce4 Ti 4800 | GeForce FX 5500 |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 6 | 8+33% |
| Architecture | Fermi | Rankine |
| Process Node | 40 nm | 12 nm |
| Shading Units | 480 | 1024+113% |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 1.345 TFLOPS | 2.703 TFLOPS+101% |
| ROPs | 48+200% | 16 |
| TMUs | 60+88% | 32 |
| L1 Cache | 0.94 MB | 2 MB+113% |
| L2 Cache | 0.75 MB | 2 MB+167% |
Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)
| Feature | GeForce4 Ti 4800 | GeForce FX 5500 |
|---|---|---|
| Upscaling Tech | FSR 1.0 (Software) | FSR 1.0 (Software) |
| Frame Generation | Not Supported | Not Supported |
| Ray Reconstruction | No | No |
| Low Latency | Standard | Standard |
Video Memory (VRAM)
The GeForce4 Ti 4800 comes with 512 MB of VRAM, while the GeForce FX 5500 has 256 MB. The GeForce4 Ti 4800 offers 100% more capacity, crucial for higher resolutions and texture-heavy games. Bus width: 64-bit vs 128-bit. L2 Cache: 0.75 MB (GeForce4 Ti 4800) vs 2 MB (GeForce FX 5500) — the GeForce FX 5500 has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.
| Feature | GeForce4 Ti 4800 | GeForce FX 5500 |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 0.5 GB+100% | 0.25 GB |
| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Bus Width | 64-bit | 128-bit+100% |
| L2 Cache | 0.75 MB | 2 MB+167% |
Display & API Support
DirectX support: 8.1 (GeForce4 Ti 4800) vs 9.0a (GeForce FX 5500). Vulkan: None vs None. OpenGL: 1.3 vs 1.5. Maximum simultaneous displays: 2 vs 2.
| Feature | GeForce4 Ti 4800 | GeForce FX 5500 |
|---|---|---|
| DirectX | 8.1 | 9.0a+11% |
| Vulkan | None | None |
| OpenGL | 1.3 | 1.5+15% |
| Max Displays | 2 | 2 |
Media & Encoding
Hardware encoder: No (GeForce4 Ti 4800) vs No (GeForce FX 5500). Decoder: No vs No.
| Feature | GeForce4 Ti 4800 | GeForce FX 5500 |
|---|---|---|
| Encoder | No | No |
| Decoder | No | No |
Power & Dimensions
The GeForce4 Ti 4800 draws 250W versus the GeForce FX 5500's 25W — a 163.6% difference. The GeForce FX 5500 is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 350W (GeForce4 Ti 4800) vs 350W (GeForce FX 5500). Power connectors: PCIe-powered vs Legacy. Card length: 216mm vs 171mm, occupying 1 vs 1 slots. Typical load temperature: 65°C vs 70°C.
| Feature | GeForce4 Ti 4800 | GeForce FX 5500 |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 250W | 25W-90% |
| Recommended PSU | 350W | 350W |
| Power Connector | PCIe-powered | Legacy |
| Length | 216mm | 171mm |
| Height | 111mm | 111mm |
| Slots | 1 | 1 |
| Temp (Load) | 65°C-7% | 70°C |
| Perf/Watt | 0.0 | 0.3 |
Value Analysis
The GeForce4 Ti 4800 launched at $399 MSRP and currently averages $40, while the GeForce FX 5500 launched at $37 and now averages $30. The GeForce FX 5500 costs 25% less ($10 savings) at current market prices. Performance per dollar (G3D Mark / price): 0.1 (GeForce4 Ti 4800) vs 0.3 (GeForce FX 5500) — the GeForce FX 5500 offers 200% better value. The GeForce FX 5500 is the newer GPU (2021 vs 2010).
| Feature | GeForce4 Ti 4800 | GeForce FX 5500 |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $399 | $37-91% |
| Avg Price (30d) | $40 | $30-25% |
| Performance per Dollar | 0.1 | 0.3+200% |
| Codename | GF100 | TU117S |
| Release | March 26 2010 | December 17 2021 |
| Ranking | #488 | #468 |
Top Performing GPUs
The most powerful gpus ranked by G3D Mark benchmark scores.
You May Also Compare
Similar GPU comparisons based on GeForce4 Ti 4800 and GeForce FX 5500
