Graphics 4-Cores iGPU (Arc) vs GeForce GTX 295

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared GeForce GTX 295 with Graphics 4-Cores iGPU (Arc), including specs and performance data.

GTX 295
2009
1792 MB GDDR3, 289 Watt
2.85

Graphics 4-Cores iGPU (Arc) outperforms GTX 295 by a whopping 227% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking788465
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation0.13no data
Power efficiency0.74no data
ArchitectureTesla 2.0 (2007−2013)Xe LPG (2023)
GPU code nameGT200BMeteor Lake iGPU
Market segmentDesktopLaptop
Release date8 January 2009 (16 years ago)14 December 2023 (1 year ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$500 no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.

no data

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 cores480 ×24
CUDA cores per GPU240no data
Core clock speed576 MHzno data
Boost clock speedno data1950 MHz
Number of transistors1,400 millionno data
Manufacturing process technology55 nm5 nm
Power consumption (TDP)289 Wattno data
Maximum GPU temperature105 °Cno data
Texture fill rate46.08 ×2no data
Floating-point processing power0.5962 TFLOPS ×2no data
ROPs28 ×2no data
TMUs80 ×2no 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 x16no data
Length267 mmno data
Height4.376" (111 mm) (11.1 cm)no data
Width2-slotno data
Supplementary power connectors1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pinno data
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 typeGDDR3no data
Maximum RAM amount1792 MB ×2no data
Standard memory config per GPU896 MBno data
Memory bus width896 Bit ×2no data
Memory clock speed999 MHzno data
Memory bandwidth223.8 GB/s ×2no data
Memory interface width per GPU448 Bitno data
Shared memory-+

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 DVIHDMIno data
Multi monitor support+no data
HDMI+-
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 and SDK compatibility

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

DirectX11.1 (10_0)12_2
Shader Model4.0no data
OpenGL2.1no data
OpenCL1.1no data
VulkanN/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 HD7−8
−257%
25
+257%

Cost per frame, $

1080p71.43no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2 13
+0%
13
+0%
Hogwarts Legacy 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 11
+0%
11
+0%
Far Cry 5 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 50
+0%
50
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
Hogwarts Legacy 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Valorant 90−95
+0%
90−95
+0%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 13
+0%
13
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 20−22
+0%
20−22
+0%
Far Cry 5 24
+0%
24
+0%
Fortnite 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 39
+0%
39
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 15
+0%
15
+0%
Hogwarts Legacy 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Metro Exodus 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Valorant 90−95
+0%
90−95
+0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 20−22
+0%
20−22
+0%
Far Cry 5 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Fortnite 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 30
+0%
30
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
Hogwarts Legacy 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Valorant 90−95
+0%
90−95
+0%

1440p
High Preset

Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 70−75
+0%
70−75
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Metro Exodus 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Far Cry 5 20−22
+0%
20−22
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Hogwarts Legacy 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Valorant 100−110
+0%
100−110
+0%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Metro Exodus 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Far Cry 5 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Fortnite 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Hogwarts Legacy 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Valorant 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%

This is how GTX 295 and Graphics 4-Cores iGPU (Arc) compete in popular games:

  • Graphics 4-Cores iGPU (Arc) is 257% faster in 1080p

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 60 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 2.85 9.33
Recency 8 January 2009 14 December 2023
Chip lithography 55 nm 5 nm

Graphics 4-Cores iGPU (Arc) has a 227.4% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 14 years, and a 1000% more advanced lithography process.

The Graphics 4-Cores iGPU (Arc) is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTX 295 in performance tests.

Be aware that GeForce GTX 295 is a desktop card while Graphics 4-Cores iGPU (Arc) is a notebook one.

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
Intel Graphics 4-Cores iGPU (Arc)
Graphics 4-Cores iGPU (Arc)

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.


3.9 89 votes

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
2.1 10 votes

Rate Graphics 4-Cores iGPU (Arc) on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about GeForce GTX 295 or Graphics 4-Cores iGPU (Arc), agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.