GeForce GTX 295 vs GTX 1070 Mobile
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GTX 1070 Mobile with GeForce GTX 295, including specs and performance data.
1070 Mobile outperforms GTX 295 by a whopping 808% 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 | 247 | 815 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 13.14 | 0.12 |
| Power efficiency | 16.84 | 0.77 |
| Architecture | Pascal (2016−2021) | Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013) |
| GPU code name | GP104B | GT200B |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop |
| Release date | 15 August 2016 (9 years ago) | 8 January 2009 (16 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $389.99 | $500 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
GTX 1070 Mobile has 10850% better value for money than GTX 295.
Performance to price scatter graph
Detailed specifications
General parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 1920 | 480 ×2 |
| CUDA cores per GPU | no data | 240 |
| Core clock speed | 1506 MHz | 576 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1645 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 7,200 million | 1,400 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 16 nm | 55 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 120 Watt | 289 Watt |
| Maximum GPU temperature | 94 °C | 105 °C |
| Texture fill rate | 210.6 | 46.08 ×2 |
| Floating-point processing power | 6.738 TFLOPS | 0.5962 TFLOPS ×2 |
| ROPs | 64 | 28 ×2 |
| TMUs | 128 | 80 ×2 |
| L1 Cache | 768 KB | no data |
| L2 Cache | 2 MB | 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).
| Laptop size | large | no data |
| Bus support | PCIe 3.0 | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | 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 | GDDR5 | GDDR3 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 8 GB | 1792 MB ×2 |
| Standard memory config per GPU | no data | 896 MB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 896 Bit ×2 |
| Memory clock speed | 8 GB/s | 999 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 256 GB/s | 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 | DP 1.42, HDMI 2.0b, Dual Link-DVI | Two Dual Link DVIHDMI |
| Multi monitor support | + | + |
| HDMI | - | + |
| Maximum VGA resolution | no data | 2048x1536 |
| G-SYNC support | + | - |
| 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 |
| GPU Boost | 3.0 | no data |
| VR Ready | + | no data |
| Ansel | + | no data |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (12_1) | 11.1 (10_0) |
| Shader Model | 6.4 | 4.0 |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 2.1 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 1.1 |
| Vulkan | 1.2.131 | N/A |
| CUDA | + | + |
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.
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.
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 | 101
+910%
| 10−12
−910%
|
| 1440p | 60
+900%
| 6−7
−900%
|
| 4K | 44
+1000%
| 4−5
−1000%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 3.86
+1195%
| 50.00
−1195%
|
| 1440p | 6.50
+1182%
| 83.33
−1182%
|
| 4K | 8.86
+1310%
| 125.00
−1310%
|
- GTX 1070 Mobile has 1195% lower cost per frame in 1080p
- GTX 1070 Mobile has 1182% lower cost per frame in 1440p
- GTX 1070 Mobile has 1310% lower cost per frame in 4K
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 150−160
+850%
|
16−18
−850%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 55−60
+883%
|
6−7
−883%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 122
+917%
|
12−14
−917%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 150−160
+850%
|
16−18
−850%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 55−60
+883%
|
6−7
−883%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 121
+908%
|
12−14
−908%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 92
+820%
|
10−11
−820%
|
| Fortnite | 151
+844%
|
16−18
−844%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 118
+883%
|
12−14
−883%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 80−85
+833%
|
9−10
−833%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 114
+850%
|
12−14
−850%
|
| Valorant | 166
+822%
|
18−20
−822%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 113
+842%
|
12−14
−842%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 150−160
+850%
|
16−18
−850%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 260−270
+889%
|
27−30
−889%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 55−60
+883%
|
6−7
−883%
|
| Dota 2 | 120−130
+814%
|
14−16
−814%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 108
+980%
|
10−11
−980%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 92
+820%
|
10−11
−820%
|
| Fortnite | 148
+825%
|
16−18
−825%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 115
+858%
|
12−14
−858%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 80−85
+833%
|
9−10
−833%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 92
+820%
|
10−11
−820%
|
| Metro Exodus | 59
+883%
|
6−7
−883%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 107
+970%
|
10−11
−970%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 108
+980%
|
10−11
−980%
|
| Valorant | 156
+875%
|
16−18
−875%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 103
+930%
|
10−11
−930%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 55−60
+883%
|
6−7
−883%
|
| Dota 2 | 120−130
+814%
|
14−16
−814%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 99
+890%
|
10−11
−890%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 87
+867%
|
9−10
−867%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 97
+870%
|
10−11
−870%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 79
+888%
|
8−9
−888%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 60
+900%
|
6−7
−900%
|
| Valorant | 112
+833%
|
12−14
−833%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 111
+825%
|
12−14
−825%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 55−60
+883%
|
6−7
−883%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 180−190
+950%
|
18−20
−950%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 50−55
+920%
|
5−6
−920%
|
| Metro Exodus | 35
+1067%
|
3−4
−1067%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180
+872%
|
18−20
−872%
|
| Valorant | 154
+863%
|
16−18
−863%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 75
+838%
|
8−9
−838%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 27−30
+1250%
|
2−3
−1250%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 68
+871%
|
7−8
−871%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 61
+917%
|
6−7
−917%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 76
+850%
|
8−9
−850%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 40−45
+1000%
|
4−5
−1000%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 73
+813%
|
8−9
−813%
|
4K
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 27−30
+1250%
|
2−3
−1250%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 53
+960%
|
5−6
−960%
|
| Metro Exodus | 21
+950%
|
2−3
−950%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 39
+875%
|
4−5
−875%
|
| Valorant | 148
+825%
|
16−18
−825%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 41
+925%
|
4−5
−925%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 27−30
+1250%
|
2−3
−1250%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 12−14
+1100%
|
1−2
−1100%
|
| Dota 2 | 85−90
+856%
|
9−10
−856%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 31
+933%
|
3−4
−933%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 31
+933%
|
3−4
−933%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 52
+940%
|
5−6
−940%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 24
+1100%
|
2−3
−1100%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 35
+1067%
|
3−4
−1067%
|
This is how GTX 1070 Mobile and GTX 295 compete in popular games:
- GTX 1070 Mobile is 910% faster in 1080p
- GTX 1070 Mobile is 900% faster in 1440p
- GTX 1070 Mobile is 1000% faster in 4K
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 25.97 | 2.86 |
| Recency | 15 August 2016 | 8 January 2009 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 8 GB | 1792 MB |
| Chip lithography | 16 nm | 55 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 120 Watt | 289 Watt |
GTX 1070 Mobile has a 808% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 7 years, a 357.1% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 243.8% more advanced lithography process, and 140.8% lower power consumption.
The GeForce GTX 1070 Mobile is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTX 295 in performance tests.
Be aware that GeForce GTX 1070 Mobile 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.
