Radeon R3 (Mullins/Beema) vs GeForce GTX 295

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared GeForce GTX 295 with Radeon R3 (Mullins/Beema), including specs and performance data.

GTX 295
2009
1792 MB GDDR3, 289 Watt
3.13
+273%

GTX 295 outperforms R3 (Mullins/Beema) by a whopping 273% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking7531137
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation0.14no data
Power efficiency0.76no data
ArchitectureTesla 2.0 (2007−2013)GCN 1.1 (2014)
GPU code nameGT200BBeema/Mullins
Market segmentDesktopLaptop
Release date8 January 2009 (15 years ago)29 April 2014 (10 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$500 no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

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 cores480128
CUDA cores per GPU240no data
Core clock speed576 MHz350 MHz
Boost clock speedno data686 MHz
Number of transistors1,400 millionno data
Manufacturing process technology55 nm28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)289 Wattno data
Maximum GPU temperature105 °Cno data
Texture fill rate46.08no data
Floating-point processing power0.5962 TFLOPSno data
ROPs28no data
TMUs80no 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 MBno data
Standard memory config per GPU896 MBno data
Memory bus width896 Bit64 Bit
Memory clock speed999 MHzno data
Memory bandwidth223.8 GB/sno 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 compatibility

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

DirectX11.1 (10_0)12 (FL 12_0)
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 HD55−60
+267%
15
−267%

Cost per frame, $

1080p9.09no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Far Cry 5 0−1 0−1
Far Cry New Dawn 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Hitman 3 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Far Cry 5 0−1 0−1
Far Cry New Dawn 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Hitman 3 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Far Cry 5 0−1 0−1
Hitman 3 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 0−1 0−1
Far Cry New Dawn 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 0−1 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Far Cry 5 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Hitman 3 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 0−1 0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%

4K
High Preset

Far Cry New Dawn 0−1 0−1

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 0−1 0−1
Far Cry 5 0−1 0−1

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%

This is how GTX 295 and R3 (Mullins/Beema) compete in popular games:

  • GTX 295 is 267% faster in 1080p

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 38 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 3.13 0.84
Recency 8 January 2009 29 April 2014
Chip lithography 55 nm 28 nm

GTX 295 has a 272.6% higher aggregate performance score.

R3 (Mullins/Beema), on the other hand, has an age advantage of 5 years, and a 96.4% more advanced lithography process.

The GeForce GTX 295 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon R3 (Mullins/Beema) in performance tests.

Be aware that GeForce GTX 295 is a desktop card while Radeon R3 (Mullins/Beema) is a notebook one.


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
AMD Radeon R3 (Mullins/Beema)
Radeon R3 (Mullins/Beema)

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 80 votes

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.1 28 votes

Rate Radeon R3 (Mullins/Beema) 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.