Radeon R5 (Bristol Ridge) vs GeForce GTX 295

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared GeForce GTX 295 with Radeon R5 (Bristol Ridge), including specs and performance data.

GTX 295
2009
1792 MB GDDR3, 289 Watt
3.14
+28.2%

GTX 295 outperforms R5 (Bristol Ridge) by a significant 28% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking758842
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation0.14no data
Power efficiency0.753.75
ArchitectureTesla 2.0 (2007−2013)GCN 1.2/2.0 (2015−2016)
GPU code nameGT200BBristol Ridge
Market segmentDesktopLaptop
Release date8 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 cores480384
CUDA cores per GPU240no data
Core clock speed576 MHzno data
Boost clock speedno data800 MHz
Number of transistors1,400 million3100 Million
Manufacturing process technology55 nm28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)289 Watt12-45 Watt
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).

Laptop sizeno datamedium sized
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 Bit64/128 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 HD14−16
+27.3%
11
−27.3%

Cost per frame, $

1080p35.71no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 8−9
+0%
8−9
+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 8−9
+0%
8−9
+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 8−9
+0%
8−9
+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 30−35
+0%
30−35
+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

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%
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 56 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.

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 R5 (Bristol Ridge)
Radeon R5 (Bristol Ridge)

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.


4 86 votes

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.4 25 votes

Rate Radeon R5 (Bristol Ridge) 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.