Radeon HD 6950M vs GeForce GTX 295
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GTX 295 with Radeon HD 6950M, including specs and performance data.
HD 6950M outperforms GTX 295 by a moderate 13% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in performance ranking | 717 | 687 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.17 | 0.51 |
| Architecture | Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013) | Terascale 2 (2009−2015) |
| GPU code name | GT200B | Blackcomb Pro |
| Market segment | Desktop | Laptop |
| Release date | 8 January 2009 (15 years ago) | 6 January 2011 (13 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $500 | no data |
| Current price | $200 (0.4x MSRP) | $338 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
HD 6950M has 200% better value for money than GTX 295.
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 cores | 240 | 960 |
| CUDA cores | 480 | no data |
| CUDA cores per GPU | 240 | no data |
| Core clock speed | 576 MHz | 580 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 1,400 million | 1,700 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 55 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 289 Watt | 50 Watt |
| Maximum GPU temperature | 105 °C | no data |
| Texture fill rate | 92.2 billion/sec | 27.84 |
| Floating-point performance | 2x 596.2 gflops | 1,113.6 gflops |
Form factor & compatibility
Information on GeForce GTX 295 and Radeon HD 6950M compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For desktop video cards it's interface and bus (motherboard compatibility), additional power connectors (power supply compatibility). For notebook video cards it's notebook size, connection slot and bus, if the video card is inserted into a slot instead of being soldered to the notebook motherboard.
| Laptop size | no data | large |
| Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | MXM-B (3.0) |
| Length | 10.5" (267 mm) (26.7 cm) | no data |
| Height | 4.376" (111 mm) (11.1 cm) | no data |
| Width | 2-slot | no data |
| Supplementary power connectors | 6-pin & 8-pin | no data |
| 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 type | GDDR3 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1792 MB | 2 GB |
| Standard memory config per GPU | 896 MB | no data |
| Memory bus width | 896 Bit | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 999 MHz | 900 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 223.8 GB/s | 115.2 GB/s |
| Memory interface width per GPU | 448 Bit | no data |
| Shared memory | 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 | No outputs |
| Multi monitor support | + | no data |
| HDMI | + | no data |
| 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 compatibility
List of supported graphics and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 11.1 (10_0) | 11.2 (11_0) |
| Shader Model | 4.0 | 5.0 |
| OpenGL | 2.1 | 4.4 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | N/A | N/A |
| CUDA | + | no data |
Gaming performance
Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
−20%
|
6−7
+20%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 6−7
−16.7%
|
7−8
+16.7%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 0−1 | 1−2 |
| Battlefield 5 | 6−7
−16.7%
|
7−8
+16.7%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 7−8
−14.3%
|
8−9
+14.3%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
−20%
|
6−7
+20%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 6−7
−16.7%
|
7−8
+16.7%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 8−9
−25%
|
10−11
+25%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 12−14
−25%
|
14−16
+25%
|
| Hitman 3 | 6−7
−16.7%
|
7−8
+16.7%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 18−20
−16.7%
|
21−24
+16.7%
|
| Metro Exodus | 2−3
−50%
|
3−4
+50%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 7−8
−28.6%
|
9−10
+28.6%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 12−14
−16.7%
|
14−16
+16.7%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 14−16
−28.6%
|
18−20
+28.6%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 6−7
−16.7%
|
7−8
+16.7%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 0−1 | 1−2 |
| Battlefield 5 | 6−7
−16.7%
|
7−8
+16.7%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 7−8
−14.3%
|
8−9
+14.3%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
−20%
|
6−7
+20%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 6−7
−16.7%
|
7−8
+16.7%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 8−9
−25%
|
10−11
+25%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 12−14
−25%
|
14−16
+25%
|
| Hitman 3 | 6−7
−16.7%
|
7−8
+16.7%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 18−20
−16.7%
|
21−24
+16.7%
|
| Metro Exodus | 2−3
−50%
|
3−4
+50%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 7−8
−28.6%
|
9−10
+28.6%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 12−14
−16.7%
|
14−16
+16.7%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 7−8
−14.3%
|
8−9
+14.3%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 14−16
−28.6%
|
18−20
+28.6%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 6−7
−16.7%
|
7−8
+16.7%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 0−1 | 1−2 |
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 7−8
−14.3%
|
8−9
+14.3%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
−20%
|
6−7
+20%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 6−7
−16.7%
|
7−8
+16.7%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 12−14
−25%
|
14−16
+25%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 18−20
−16.7%
|
21−24
+16.7%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 12−14
−16.7%
|
14−16
+16.7%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 7−8
−14.3%
|
8−9
+14.3%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 14−16
−28.6%
|
18−20
+28.6%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 7−8
−28.6%
|
9−10
+28.6%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 5−6
−20%
|
6−7
+20%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 3−4
−33.3%
|
4−5
+33.3%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 2−3
−50%
|
3−4
+50%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 5−6
−20%
|
6−7
+20%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−100%
|
2−3
+100%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 4−5
−25%
|
5−6
+25%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 4−5
−25%
|
5−6
+25%
|
| Hitman 3 | 7−8
−14.3%
|
8−9
+14.3%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 7−8
−28.6%
|
9−10
+28.6%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 2−3
−50%
|
3−4
+50%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 0−1 | 1−2 |
1440p
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 6−7
−16.7%
|
7−8
+16.7%
|
4K
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2
−100%
|
2−3
+100%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 1−2
−100%
|
2−3
+100%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 2−3
−50%
|
3−4
+50%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 0−1 | 0−1 |
4K
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 2−3
−50%
|
3−4
+50%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 0−1 | 1−2 |
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 0−1 | 1−2 |
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2
−100%
|
2−3
+100%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 0−1 | 1−2 |
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 2−3
−50%
|
3−4
+50%
|
| Metro Exodus | 4−5
−25%
|
5−6
+25%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 0−1 | 1−2 |
4K
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 3−4
−33.3%
|
4−5
+33.3%
|
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 3.12 | 3.52 |
| Recency | 8 January 2009 | 6 January 2011 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1792 MB | 2 GB |
| Chip lithography | 55 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 289 Watt | 50 Watt |
The Radeon HD 6950M 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 Radeon HD 6950M is a notebook one.
Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Comparisons with similar GPUs
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
