Radeon R5 (Bristol Ridge) vs GeForce GTX 295

Place in the ranking	759	843
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	0.14	no data
Power efficiency	0.75	3.75
Architecture	Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013)	GCN 1.2/2.0 (2015−2016)
GPU code name	GT200B	Bristol Ridge
Market segment	Desktop	Laptop
Release date	8 January 2009 (16 years ago)	1 June 2016 (8 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 cores	480	384
CUDA cores per GPU	240	no data
Core clock speed	576 MHz	no data
Boost clock speed	no data	800 MHz
Number of transistors	1,400 million	3100 Million
Manufacturing process technology	55 nm	28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	289 Watt	12-45 Watt
Maximum GPU temperature	105 °C	no data
Texture fill rate	46.08	no data
Floating-point processing power	0.5962 TFLOPS	no data
ROPs	28	no data
TMUs	80	no 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).

Laptop size	no data	medium sized
Interface	PCIe 2.0 x16	no data
Length	267 mm	no data
Height	4.376" (111 mm) (11.1 cm)	no data
Width	2-slot	no data
Supplementary power connectors	1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin	no 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 type	GDDR3	no data
Maximum RAM amount	1792 MB	no data
Standard memory config per GPU	896 MB	no data
Memory bus width	896 Bit	64/128 Bit
Memory clock speed	999 MHz	no data
Memory bandwidth	223.8 GB/s	no data
Memory interface width per GPU	448 Bit	no 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 Connectors	Two Dual Link DVIHDMI	no data
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 compatibility

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

DirectX	11.1 (10_0)	12 (FL 12_0)
Shader Model	4.0	no data
OpenGL	2.1	no data
OpenCL	1.1	no data
Vulkan	N/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 HD

14−16
+27.3%

−27.3%

Cost per frame, $

1080p

35.71

no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2	10−12 +0%	10−12 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	6−7 +0%	6−7 +0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5	5−6 +0%	5−6 +0%
Counter-Strike 2	10−12 +0%	10−12 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	6−7 +0%	6−7 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	12−14 +0%	12−14 +0%
Forza Horizon 5	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Metro Exodus	4−5 +0%	4−5 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	7 +0%	7 +0%
Valorant	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5	5−6 +0%	5−6 +0%
Counter-Strike 2	10−12 +0%	10−12 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	6−7 +0%	6−7 +0%
Dota 2	6 +0%	6 +0%
Far Cry 5	14−16 +0%	14−16 +0%
Fortnite	12−14 +0%	12−14 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	12−14 +0%	12−14 +0%
Forza Horizon 5	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Grand Theft Auto V	6−7 +0%	6−7 +0%
Metro Exodus	4−5 +0%	4−5 +0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	19 +0%	19 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	9−10 +0%	9−10 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	10−11 +0%	10−11 +0%
Valorant	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
World of Tanks	45−50 +0%	45−50 +0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	5−6 +0%	5−6 +0%
Counter-Strike 2	10−12 +0%	10−12 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	6−7 +0%	6−7 +0%
Dota 2	17 +0%	17 +0%
Far Cry 5	14−16 +0%	14−16 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	12−14 +0%	12−14 +0%
Forza Horizon 5	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	21−24 +0%	21−24 +0%
Valorant	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2	0−1	0−1
Grand Theft Auto V	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	16−18 +0%	16−18 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
World of Tanks	16−18 +0%	16−18 +0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Counter-Strike 2	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	4−5 +0%	4−5 +0%
Far Cry 5	7−8 +0%	7−8 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	0−1	0−1
Forza Horizon 5	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	5−6 +0%	5−6 +0%
Valorant	9−10 +0%	9−10 +0%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2	9−10 +0%	9−10 +0%
Dota 2	16−18 +0%	16−18 +0%
Grand Theft Auto V	14−16 +0%	14−16 +0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	7−8 +0%	7−8 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	14−16 +0%	14−16 +0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%
Counter-Strike 2	9−10 +0%	9−10 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%
Dota 2	16−18 +0%	16−18 +0%
Far Cry 5	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%
Fortnite	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Forza Horizon 5	0−1	0−1
Valorant	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%

This is how GTX 295 and R5 (Bristol Ridge) compete in popular games:

GTX 295 is 27% faster in 1080p

All in all, in popular games:

there's a draw in 58 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	3.14	2.45
Recency	8 January 2009	1 June 2016
Chip lithography	55 nm	28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	289 Watt	12 Watt

GTX 295 has a 28.2% higher aggregate performance score.

R5 (Bristol Ridge), on the other hand, has an age advantage of 7 years, a 96.4% more advanced lithography process, and 2308.3% lower power consumption.

The GeForce GTX 295 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon R5 (Bristol Ridge) in performance tests.

Be aware that GeForce GTX 295 is a desktop card while Radeon R5 (Bristol Ridge) is a notebook one.

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