Radeon RX 7900 XT vs Quadro NVS 295

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Quadro NVS 295 with Radeon RX 7900 XT, including specs and performance data.

NVS 295
2009, $55
256 MB GDDR3, 23 Watt
0.27
RX 7900 XT
2022, $899
20 GB GDDR6, 300 Watt
69.60
+25678%

7900 XT outperforms NVS 295 by a whopping 25678% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.

Place in the ranking143520
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluationno data42.59
Power efficiency0.9118.07
ArchitectureTesla (2006−2010)RDNA 3.0 (2022−2026)
GPU code nameG98SNavi 31
Market segmentWorkstationDesktop
Release date7 May 2009 (17 years ago)3 November 2022 (3 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$54.50 $899

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.

no data

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 cores85376
Core clock speed540 MHz1387 MHz
Boost clock speedno data2394 MHz
Number of transistors210 million57,700 million
Manufacturing process technology65 nm5 nm
Power consumption (TDP)23 Watt300 Watt
Texture fill rate2.160804.4
Floating-point processing powerno data51.48 TFLOPS
ROPs4192
TMUs4336
Ray Tracing Coresno data84
L0 Cacheno data2.6 MB
L1 Cacheno data3 MB
L2 Cache16 KB6 MB
L3 Cacheno data80 MB

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).

InterfacePCIe 1.0 x16PCIe 4.0 x16
Length168 mm276 mm
Width1-slot2-slot
Supplementary power connectorsNone2x 8-pin

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 typeGDDR3GDDR6
Maximum RAM amount256 MB20 GB
Memory bus width64 Bit320 Bit
Memory clock speed695 MHz2500 MHz
Memory bandwidth11.12 GB/s800.0 GB/s
Shared memory--
Resizable BAR-+

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 Connectors2x DisplayPort1x HDMI 2.1a, 2x DisplayPort 2.1, 1x USB Type-C
HDMI-+

API and SDK support

List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.

DirectX11.1 (10_0)12 Ultimate (12_2)
Shader Model4.06.8
OpenGL3.34.6
OpenCL1.12.2
VulkanN/A1.3
CUDA1.1-

Synthetic benchmarks

Non-gaming benchmark results comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.


Combined synthetic benchmark score

This is our combined benchmark score.

NVS 295 0.27
RX 7900 XT 69.60
+25678%

Passmark

This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark. It gives the graphics card a thorough evaluation under various types of load, providing four separate benchmarks for Direct3D versions 9, 10, 11 and 12 (the last being done in 4K resolution if possible), and few more tests engaging DirectCompute capabilities.

NVS 295 113
Samples: 339
RX 7900 XT 29118
+25668%
Samples: 7277

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 HD0−1199
1440p0−1135
4K-0−185

Cost per frame, $

1080pno data4.52
1440pno data6.66
4Kno data10.58

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low

Atomic Heart 328 328
Counter-Strike 2 300−350 300−350
Cyberpunk 2077 237 237
Resident Evil 4 Remake 307 307

Full HD
Medium

Atomic Heart 262 262
Battlefield 5 180−190 180−190
Counter-Strike 2 288 288
Cyberpunk 2077 212 212
Far Cry 5 196 196
Fortnite 300−350 300−350
Forza Horizon 4 280−290 280−290
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 170−180 170−180
Valorant 400−450 400−450

Full HD
High

Atomic Heart 170 170
Battlefield 5 180−190 180−190
Counter-Strike 2 268 268
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 270−280 270−280
Cyberpunk 2077 190 190
Dota 2 199 199
Far Cry 5 187 187
Fortnite 300−350 300−350
Forza Horizon 4 280−290 280−290
Grand Theft Auto V 173 173
Metro Exodus 146 146
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 170−180 170−180
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 483 483
Valorant 400−450 400−450

Full HD
Ultra

Battlefield 5 180−190 180−190
Cyberpunk 2077 179 179
Dota 2 184 184
Far Cry 5 173 173
Forza Horizon 4 280−290 280−290
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 170−180 170−180
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 255 255
Valorant 400−450 400−450

Full HD
Epic

Fortnite 300−350 300−350

1440p
High

Counter-Strike 2 206 206
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 500−550 500−550
Grand Theft Auto V 159 159
Metro Exodus 135 135
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 170−180 170−180
Valorant 450−500 450−500

1440p
Ultra

Battlefield 5 180−190 180−190
Cyberpunk 2077 122 122
Far Cry 5 173 173
Forza Horizon 4 240−250 240−250
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 179 179

1440p
Epic

Fortnite 150−160 150−160

4K
High

Atomic Heart 65−70 65−70
Counter-Strike 2 50 50
Grand Theft Auto V 175 175
Metro Exodus 87 87
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 156 156
Valorant 300−350 300−350

4K
Ultra

Battlefield 5 130−140 130−140
Counter-Strike 2 100−105 100−105
Cyberpunk 2077 60 60
Dota 2 153 153
Far Cry 5 132 132
Forza Horizon 4 200−210 200−210
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 95−100 95−100

4K
Epic

Fortnite 75−80 75−80

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 62 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 0.27 69.60
Recency 7 May 2009 3 November 2022
Maximum RAM amount 256 MB 20 GB
Chip lithography 65 nm 5 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 23 Watt 300 Watt

NVS 295 has 92% lower power consumption.

RX 7900 XT, on the other hand, has a 25678% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 13 years, a 7900% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 92% more advanced lithography process.

The Radeon RX 7900 XT is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro NVS 295 in performance tests.

Be aware that Quadro NVS 295 is a workstation graphics card while Radeon RX 7900 XT 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.

Community ratings

Here you can see the user ratings of the compared graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.


3 22 votes

Rate Quadro NVS 295 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4.2 2658 votes

Rate Radeon RX 7900 XT on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about Quadro NVS 295 or Radeon RX 7900 XT, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.