NVIDIA GeForce FX 5800 Ultra

Memory Subsystem — VRAM size/type, bus width, bandwidth and what it means for high resolutions

The GeForce FX 5800 Ultra ships with 128 MB of GDDR2 memory, a relatively modest allocation even for its 2003 launch window. The 128-bit memory bus is paired with a memory clock of 500 MHz, translating to 1000 Mbps effective and yielding a peak bandwidth of 16.00 GB/s. This configuration places the card in a middle ground: sufficient for contemporary 1024x768 and 1280x1024 gaming, but the combination of a narrow bus and only 128 MB of VRAM becomes a bottleneck at higher resolutions and with texture-heavy workloads.

For high-resolution scenarios, the data indicates a clear limitation. The 16.00 GB/s bandwidth must feed 8 texture mapping units and 4 raster output pipelines, producing a texture rate of 4.000 GTexel/s and a pixel rate of 2.000 GPixel/s. At 1600x1200 or beyond, the memory subsystem is likely to saturate, leading to frame rate drops that are more pronounced than the raw compute capabilities might suggest. The GDDR2 type, while an improvement over the preceding DDR generation, does not offer the clock headroom that later memory standards would bring. Users targeting high resolutions with anisotropic filtering and anti-aliasing enabled would find the 128-bit bus and 16.00 GB/s bandwidth inadequate for sustained performance, as the card must constantly swap textures in and out of its limited frame buffer.

The 128 MB capacity itself is a double-edged sword. It matches the typical allocation of flagship cards of that era, but it lacks headroom for future titles or for modding communities that pushed texture resolutions higher. In practical terms, the memory subsystem is the FX 5800 Ultra's most obvious constraint; the chip's raw processing potential is hampered by how quickly data can be fed to it. The 2.000 GPixel/s fill rate, for instance, can only be realized if the memory bus can keep pace, and at 16.00 GB/s, that pace is not sustainable under heavy load. Benchmark data would show a steep performance cliff as resolution scales, a pattern consistent with a bandwidth-starved design.

How It Compares — position vs each nearest rival

The FACT PACK lists no nearest rivals for the GeForce FX 5800 Ultra. This absence is itself informative. The percentile score of 50 against all GPUs suggests a median standing in the overall performance distribution, but without specific rival names or delta percentages, a direct competitive positioning cannot be established from the available data. The card sits in a historical context between the GeForce 4 Ti (predecessor) and the GeForce 6 AGP (successor), but those transitions are generational, not direct performance comparisons.

Given the lack of nearestRivals entries, the analysis must rely on the card's absolute specifications and its percentile ranking. A 50th percentile score indicates that half of all GPUs in the benchmark database perform better and half perform worse, placing the FX 5800 Ultra squarely in the middle of the pack historically. This is a reasonable outcome for a card that was high-end at launch but has since been surpassed by multiple generations of hardware. The absence of rival data means no percentage-based comparisons can be made; the card's standing is defined by its own metrics and its position relative to the entire GPU population, not by head-to-head matchups.

Benchmark Performance — analyze scores vs rivals with exact % deltas

The benchmark data for the GeForce FX 5800 Ultra is sparse. The avgBenchmarkScore is listed as 0, and the benchmarks array is empty. This means there are no synthetic or game-specific scores to analyze, and no exact percentage deltas can be computed against any rival. The percentileVsAllGpus field of 50 is the only quantitative performance indicator available, and it offers a coarse view: the card sits at the median of the entire GPU landscape in the database.

Interpreting this percentile requires context. A score of 50 does not mean the card is "average" in absolute terms; it means that in the distribution of all GPUs tracked, half are faster and half are slower. For a card released in early 2003, this is a plausible position given the subsequent decade-plus of hardware evolution. The 0 avgBenchmarkScore likely reflects a lack of standardized test results being fed into the database for this particular model, possibly due to its age and end-of-life status. Without actual benchmark numbers, any statement about multi-core or single-core performance, frame rates, or synthetic test scores would be speculative and unsupported by the FACT PACK. The only defensible numerical claim is the 50th percentile ranking, which places it at the midpoint of all GPUs in the database.

FAQ

Q: What is the memory configuration of the GeForce FX 5800 Ultra?

A: It has 128 MB of GDDR2 memory on a 128-bit bus, with a memory clock of 500 MHz (1000 Mbps effective), yielding a bandwidth of 16.00 GB/s.

Q: What is the pixel and texture fill rate?

A: The card achieves a pixel rate of 2.000 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 4.000 GTexel/s, driven by 8 TMUs and 4 ROPs.

Q: What is the card's percentile ranking among all GPUs?

A: The percentileVsAllGpus field is 50, indicating the card sits at the median of the entire GPU distribution in the benchmark database.

Q: Does the card support DirectX 9?

A: Yes, it supports DirectX 9.0a. It also supports OpenGL 1.5 (full) and OpenGL 2.0 (partial).

Q: What is the power connector requirement?

A: The card requires a single Molex power connector, and the suggested PSU rating is 200 W.

Q: What is the production status and release date?

A: The card is marked as end-of-life, and its release date is March 5, 2003.

Ray Tracing and Feature Set — RT/tensor cores, API support from facts

The GeForce FX 5800 Ultra has no dedicated ray tracing cores and no tensor cores, as those features did not exist in the Rankine architecture. The card relies entirely on its traditional rasterization pipeline: 8 TMUs and 4 ROPs, with a pixel rate of 2.000 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 4.000 GTexel/s. There are no shading units listed in the FACT PACK, which suggests the architecture uses a different shading model than later unified shader designs.

API support is limited to the standards of its era. The card supports DirectX 9.0a, which was the initial version of DirectX 9, and OpenGL 1.5 with full compliance, plus partial OpenGL 2.0 support. It does not support Vulkan, which is expected given the card's 2003 release. The partial OpenGL 2.0 support indicates that some but not all of that specification's features are implemented, which could cause compatibility issues with later OpenGL titles that assume full 2.0 compliance. For ray tracing, the absence of RT cores means any ray-traced effects would have to be computed via software or shader-based approximations, which would be prohibitively slow on this hardware. The feature set is firmly rooted in the early DirectX 9 era, with no forward-looking capabilities beyond partial OpenGL 2.0 support.

Power and Cooling — TDP, PSU recommendation, connector requirements

The FACT PACK does not list a TDP for the GeForce FX 5800 Ultra, so no thermal design power figure can be stated. However, the cooling solution is specified as a dual-slot design, indicating a substantial heatsink and fan assembly that occupies two expansion slots. This form factor is typical for high-end cards of that period, which needed large heatsinks to dissipate heat from the 130 nm NV30 chip manufactured by TSMC.

The power delivery system requires a single Molex connector, a standard peripheral power connector of the era. The suggested PSU rating is 200 W, which is a modest recommendation by modern standards but reflects the lower overall system power draw of early 2000s platforms. The card's physical dimensions are 213 mm (8.4 inches) in length, which means it should fit in most full-size ATX cases of that time, though the dual-slot design requires adjacent slot clearance. The 125 million transistors on a 199 mm² die, produced on TSMC's 130 nm process, give a transistor density of 628.1K per mm². The dual-slot cooler is likely necessary given the chip's power characteristics, but without a TDP figure, the exact thermal requirements cannot be quantified. The power connector and PSU recommendation are the only concrete power-related facts available, and they point to a card that is not particularly demanding by historical standards, but still requires a dedicated power connection.