GeForce GTX 295 vs Graphics 4-Core iGPU (Meteor / Arrow Lake)
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Graphics 4-Core iGPU (Meteor / Arrow Lake) with GeForce GTX 295, including specs and performance data.
Graphics 4-Core iGPU (Meteor / Arrow Lake) outperforms GTX 295 by a whopping 217% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Contents
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 522 | 828 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 0.13 |
| Power efficiency | no data | 0.78 |
| Architecture | Xe LPG (2023−2025) | Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013) |
| GPU code name | Meteor Lake iGPU | GT200B |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop |
| Release date | 6 January 2025 (1 year ago) | 8 January 2009 (17 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $500 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
Performance to price scatter graph
Currently popular graphics cards are shown for comparison.
Detailed specifications
General parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. Real power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially if overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 64 | 480 ×2 |
| CUDA cores per GPU | no data | 240 |
| Core clock speed | 300 MHz | 576 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1950 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | no data | 1,400 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | no data | 55 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | no data | 289 Watt |
| Maximum GPU temperature | no data | 105 °C |
| Texture fill rate | no data | 46.08 ×2 |
| Floating-point processing power | no data | 0.5962 TFLOPS ×2 |
| ROPs | no data | 28 ×2 |
| TMUs | no data | 80 ×2 |
| L1 Cache | 768 KB | no data |
| L2 Cache | no data | 224 KB |
Form factor & compatibility
Information on compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For desktop graphics cards it's interface and bus (motherboard compatibility), additional power connectors (power supply compatibility).
| Interface | no data | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Length | no data | 267 mm |
| Height | no data | 4.376" (111 mm) (11.1 cm) |
| Width | no data | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin |
| SLI options | - | + |
VRAM capacity and type
Parameters of VRAM installed: its type, size, bus, clock and resulting bandwidth. Integrated GPUs have no dedicated video RAM and use a shared part of system RAM.
| Memory type | no data | GDDR3 |
| Maximum RAM amount | no data | 1792 MB ×2 |
| Standard memory config per GPU | no data | 896 MB |
| Memory bus width | no data | 896 Bit ×2 |
| Memory clock speed | no data | 999 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | no data | 223.8 GB/s ×2 |
| Memory interface width per GPU | no data | 448 Bit |
| Shared memory | + | - |
Connectivity and outputs
This section shows the types and number of video connectors on each GPU. The data applies specifically to desktop reference models (for example, NVIDIA’s Founders Edition). OEM partners often modify both the number and types of ports. On notebook GPUs, video‐output options are determined by the laptop’s design rather than the graphics chip itself.
| Display Connectors | no data | Two Dual Link DVIHDMI |
| Multi monitor support | no data | + |
| HDMI | - | + |
| Maximum VGA resolution | no data | 2048x1536 |
| Audio input for HDMI | no data | S/PDIF |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| High Dynamic-Range Lighting (HDRR) | no data | 128bit |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | no data | 11.1 (10_0) |
| Shader Model | no data | 4.0 |
| OpenGL | no data | 2.1 |
| OpenCL | no data | 1.1 |
| Vulkan | - | N/A |
| CUDA | - | + |
Gaming performance
Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.
Average FPS across all PC games
Here are the average frames per second in a large set of popular games across different resolutions:
| Full HD | 20
+233%
| 6−7
−233%
|
| 1440p | 6
+500%
| 1−2
−500%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | no data | 83.33 |
| 1440p | no data | 500.00 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 50
+257%
|
14−16
−257%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 18−20
+280%
|
5−6
−280%
|
| Palworld | 21−24
+267%
|
6−7
−267%
|
| Resident Evil 4 Remake | 18−20
+260%
|
5−6
−260%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 40−45
+242%
|
12−14
−242%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 48
+243%
|
14−16
−243%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 18−20
+280%
|
5−6
−280%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 24
+243%
|
7−8
−243%
|
| Fortnite | 55−60
+250%
|
16−18
−250%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 40−45
+242%
|
12−14
−242%
|
| Palworld | 21−24
+267%
|
6−7
−267%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 30−35
+240%
|
10−11
−240%
|
| Valorant | 90−95
+233%
|
27−30
−233%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 40−45
+242%
|
12−14
−242%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 22
+267%
|
6−7
−267%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 140−150
+255%
|
40−45
−255%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 18−20
+280%
|
5−6
−280%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 22
+267%
|
6−7
−267%
|
| Fortnite | 55−60
+250%
|
16−18
−250%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 40−45
+242%
|
12−14
−242%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 15
+275%
|
4−5
−275%
|
| Metro Exodus | 18−20
+280%
|
5−6
−280%
|
| Palworld | 21−24
+267%
|
6−7
−267%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 30−35
+240%
|
10−11
−240%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 30
+233%
|
9−10
−233%
|
| Valorant | 90−95
+233%
|
27−30
−233%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 40−45
+242%
|
12−14
−242%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 18−20
+280%
|
5−6
−280%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 21
+250%
|
6−7
−250%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 40−45
+242%
|
12−14
−242%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 30−35
+240%
|
10−11
−240%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 16
+220%
|
5−6
−220%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 55−60
+250%
|
16−18
−250%
|
| Palworld | 21−24
+267%
|
6−7
−267%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 16−18
+240%
|
5−6
−240%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 70−75
+238%
|
21−24
−238%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 12−14
+300%
|
3−4
−300%
|
| Metro Exodus | 10−11
+233%
|
3−4
−233%
|
| Valorant | 95−100
+252%
|
27−30
−252%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 21−24
+229%
|
7−8
−229%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 8−9
+300%
|
2−3
−300%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 20−22
+233%
|
6−7
−233%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 21−24
+267%
|
6−7
−267%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 12−14
+225%
|
4−5
−225%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 20−22
+233%
|
6−7
−233%
|
| Palworld | 12−14
+225%
|
4−5
−225%
|
4K
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 4−5
+300%
|
1−2
−300%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 20−22
+233%
|
6−7
−233%
|
| Metro Exodus | 5−6
+400%
|
1−2
−400%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 10−11
+233%
|
3−4
−233%
|
| Valorant | 40−45
+250%
|
12−14
−250%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 10−12
+267%
|
3−4
−267%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 9−10
+350%
|
2−3
−350%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 16−18
+220%
|
5−6
−220%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
+350%
|
2−3
−350%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 9−10
+350%
|
2−3
−350%
|
| Palworld | 6−7
+500%
|
1−2
−500%
|
This is how Graphics 4-Core iGPU (Meteor / Arrow Lake) and GTX 295 compete in popular games:
- Graphics 4-Core iGPU (Meteor / Arrow Lake) is 233% faster in 1080p
- Graphics 4-Core iGPU (Meteor / Arrow Lake) is 500% faster in 1440p
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 9.30 | 2.93 |
| Recency | 6 January 2025 | 8 January 2009 |
Graphics 4-Core iGPU (Meteor / Arrow Lake) has a 217% higher aggregate performance score, and an age advantage of 15 years.
The Graphics 4-Core iGPU (Meteor / Arrow Lake) is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTX 295 in performance tests.
Be aware that Graphics 4-Core iGPU (Meteor / Arrow Lake) is a notebook graphics card while GeForce GTX 295 is a desktop one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
