Quadro NVS 295 vs GeForce GTX 295
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GTX 295 with Quadro NVS 295, including specs and performance data.
GTX 295 outperforms NVS 295 by a whopping 970% 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 | 778 | 1359 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.13 | no data |
| Power efficiency | 0.73 | 0.86 |
| Architecture | Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013) | Tesla (2006−2010) |
| GPU code name | GT200B | G98 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Workstation |
| Release date | 8 January 2009 (16 years ago) | 7 May 2009 (15 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $500 | $54.50 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices 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. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 480 ×2 | 8 |
| CUDA cores per GPU | 240 | no data |
| Core clock speed | 576 MHz | 540 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 1,400 million | 210 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 55 nm | 65 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 289 Watt | 23 Watt |
| Maximum GPU temperature | 105 °C | no data |
| Texture fill rate | 46.08 ×2 | 4.320 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.5962 TFLOPS ×2 | 0.0208 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 28 ×2 | 4 |
| TMUs | 80 ×2 | 8 |
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 | PCIe 2.0 x16 | PCIe 1.0 x16 |
| Length | 267 mm | 168 mm |
| Height | 4.376" (111 mm) (11.1 cm) | no data |
| Width | 2-slot | 1-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin | None |
| 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 | GDDR3 | GDDR3 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1792 MB ×2 | 256 MB |
| Standard memory config per GPU | 896 MB | no data |
| Memory bus width | 896 Bit ×2 | 64 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 999 MHz | 695 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 223.8 GB/s ×2 | 11.12 GB/s |
| Memory interface width per GPU | 448 Bit | no 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 Connectors | Two Dual Link DVIHDMI | 2x DisplayPort |
| Multi monitor support | + | no data |
| HDMI | + | - |
| Maximum VGA resolution | 2048x1536 | no data |
| Audio input for HDMI | S/PDIF | no 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) | 128bit | no data |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 11.1 (10_0) | 11.1 (10_0) |
| Shader Model | 4.0 | 4.0 |
| OpenGL | 2.1 | 3.3 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | 1.1 |
| Vulkan | N/A | N/A |
| CUDA | + | 1.1 |
Synthetic benchmark performance
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.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 2.89 | 0.27 |
| Recency | 8 January 2009 | 7 May 2009 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1792 MB | 256 MB |
| Chip lithography | 55 nm | 65 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 289 Watt | 23 Watt |
GTX 295 has a 970.4% higher aggregate performance score, a 600% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 18.2% more advanced lithography process.
NVS 295, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 3 months, and 1156.5% lower power consumption.
The GeForce GTX 295 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro NVS 295 in performance tests.
Be aware that GeForce GTX 295 is a desktop card while Quadro NVS 295 is a workstation one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
