GeForce FX 5700 vs GTX 295

Primary details

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

Place in performance ranking716not rated
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation0.17no data
ArchitectureTesla 2.0 (2007−2013)Rankine (2003−2005)
GPU code nameGT200BNV36
Market segmentDesktopDesktop
Release date8 January 2009 (15 years ago)23 October 2003 (20 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$500 no data
Current price$200 (0.4x MSRP)$212

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

no data

Detailed specifications

General performance parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. These parameters indirectly speak of performance, but for precise assessment you have to consider their benchmark and gaming test results. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.

Pipelines / CUDA cores240no data
CUDA cores480no data
CUDA cores per GPU240no data
Core clock speed576 MHz425 MHz
Number of transistors1,400 million82 million
Manufacturing process technology55 nm130 nm
Power consumption (TDP)289 Watt25 Watt
Maximum GPU temperature105 °Cno data
Texture fill rate92.2 billion/sec1.700
Floating-point performance2x 596.2 gflopsno data

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 2.0 x16AGP 8x
Length10.5" (267 mm) (26.7 cm)no data
Height4.376" (111 mm) (11.1 cm)no data
Width2-slot1-slot
Supplementary power connectors6-pin & 8-pinNone
SLI options+no data

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 typeGDDR3DDR
Maximum RAM amount1792 MB128 MB
Standard memory config per GPU896 MBno data
Memory bus width896 Bit256 Bit
Memory clock speed999 MHz500 MHz
Memory bandwidth223.8 GB/s16 GB/s
Memory interface width per GPU448 Bitno data

Connectivity and outputs

Types and number of video connectors present on the reviewed GPUs. As a rule, data in this section is precise only for desktop reference ones (so-called Founders Edition for NVIDIA chips). OEM manufacturers may change the number and type of output ports, while for notebook cards availability of certain video outputs ports depends on the laptop model rather than on the card itself.

Display ConnectorsTwo Dual Link DVIHDMI1x DVI, 1x VGA, 1x S-Video
Multi monitor support+no data
HDMI+no data
Maximum VGA resolution2048x1536no data
Audio input for HDMIS/PDIFno data

Supported technologies

Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.

High Dynamic-Range Lighting (HDRR)128bitno data

API compatibility

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

DirectX11.1 (10_0)9.0a
Shader Model4.0no data
OpenGL2.11.5 (2.1)
OpenCL1.1N/A
VulkanN/AN/A
CUDA+no data

Synthetic benchmark performance

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


Passmark

This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark, part of Passmark PerformanceTest suite. 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.

Benchmark coverage: 25%

GTX 295 1206
+2915%
FX 5700 40

GTX 295 outperforms FX 5700 by 2915% in Passmark.

Pros & cons summary


Recency 8 January 2009 23 October 2003
Maximum RAM amount 1792 MB 128 MB
Chip lithography 55 nm 130 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 289 Watt 25 Watt

We couldn't decide between GeForce GTX 295 and GeForce FX 5700. We've got no test results to judge.


Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite graphics card.


NVIDIA GeForce GTX 295
GeForce GTX 295
NVIDIA GeForce FX 5700
GeForce FX 5700

Comparisons with similar GPUs

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.


3.9 79 votes

Rate GeForce GTX 295 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
2.7 63 votes

Rate GeForce FX 5700 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about this comparison, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.