Radeon R7 384 Cores (Kaveri Desktop) vs GeForce GTX 295

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared GeForce GTX 295 and Radeon R7 384 Cores (Kaveri Desktop), covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.

GTX 295
2009
1792 MB GDDR3, 289 Watt
3.08
+13.2%

GTX 295 outperforms R7 384 Cores (Kaveri Desktop) 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 the ranking768808
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation0.14no data
Power efficiency0.74no data
ArchitectureTesla 2.0 (2007−2013)GCN (2012−2015)
GPU code nameGT200BKaveri Spectre
Market segmentDesktopDesktop
Release date8 January 2009 (16 years ago)14 January 2014 (11 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$500 no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.

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 cores480 ×2384
CUDA cores per GPU240no data
Core clock speed576 MHz720 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 rate46.08 ×2no data
Floating-point processing power0.5962 TFLOPS ×2no data
ROPs28 ×2no data
TMUs80 ×2no 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 MB ×2no data
Standard memory config per GPU896 MBno data
Memory bus width896 Bit ×2no data
Memory clock speed999 MHzno data
Memory bandwidth223.8 GB/s ×2no 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 and SDK 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
+0%
14
+0%

Cost per frame, $

1080p35.71no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Atomic Heart 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Atomic Heart 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Battlefield 5 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Far Cry 5 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Fortnite 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Valorant 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%

Full HD
High Preset

Atomic Heart 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Battlefield 5 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Dota 2 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Far Cry 5 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Fortnite 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 9
+0%
9
+0%
Metro Exodus 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Valorant 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Dota 2 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Far Cry 5 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Valorant 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Fortnite 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%

1440p
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Metro Exodus 0−1 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Valorant 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Far Cry 5 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%

1440p
Epic Preset

Fortnite 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%

4K
High Preset

Atomic Heart 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Valorant 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Dota 2 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Far Cry 5 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 0−1 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%

4K
Epic Preset

Fortnite 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%

This is how GTX 295 and R7 384 Cores (Kaveri Desktop) compete in popular games:

  • A tie in 1080p

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 59 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 3.08 2.72
Recency 8 January 2009 14 January 2014
Chip lithography 55 nm 28 nm

GTX 295 has a 13.2% higher aggregate performance score.

R7 384 Cores (Kaveri Desktop), 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 R7 384 Cores (Kaveri Desktop) in performance tests.

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 R7 384 Cores (Kaveri Desktop)
Radeon R7 384 Cores (Kaveri Desktop)

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
3.9 21 vote

Rate Radeon R7 384 Cores (Kaveri Desktop) on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can give us your opinion about GeForce GTX 295 or Radeon R7 384 Cores (Kaveri Desktop), agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.