Quadro NVS 295 vs GeForce GTX 950

Place in the ranking	375	1364
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	8.79	no data
Power efficiency	10.64	0.72
Architecture	Maxwell 2.0 (2014−2019)	Tesla (2006−2010)
GPU code name	GM206	G98
Market segment	Desktop	Workstation
Release date	20 August 2015 (9 years ago)	7 May 2009 (15 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	$159	$54.50

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	768	8
Core clock speed	1024 MHz	540 MHz
Boost clock speed	1188 MHz	no data
Number of transistors	2,940 million	210 million
Manufacturing process technology	28 nm	65 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	90 Watt	23 Watt
Texture fill rate	57.02	4.320
Floating-point processing power	1.825 TFLOPS	0.0208 TFLOPS
ROPs	32	4
TMUs	48	8

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).

Bus support	PCI Express 3.0	no data
Interface	PCIe 3.0 x16	PCIe 1.0 x16
Length	202 mm	168 mm
Height	4.376" (11.1 cm)	no data
Width	2-slot	1-slot
Recommended system power (PSU)	350 Watt	no data
Supplementary power connectors	1x 6-pin	None
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	GDDR5	GDDR3
Maximum RAM amount	2 GB	256 MB
Memory bus width	128 Bit	64 Bit
Memory clock speed	6.6 GB/s	695 MHz
Memory bandwidth	105.6 GB/s	11.12 GB/s
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	Dual Link DVI-I, HDMI 2.0, 3x DisplayPort 1.2	2x DisplayPort
Multi monitor support	4 displays	no data
HDMI	+	-
HDCP	+	-
Maximum VGA resolution	2048x1536	no data
G-SYNC support	+	-
Audio input for HDMI	Internal	no data

Supported technologies

Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.

GameStream	+	-
GeForce ShadowPlay	+	-
GPU Boost	2.0	no data
GameWorks	+	-

API compatibility

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

DirectX	12 (12_1)	11.1 (10_0)
Shader Model	6.4	4.0
OpenGL	4.5	3.3
OpenCL	1.2	1.1
Vulkan	1.1.126	N/A
CUDA	+	1.1

Synthetic benchmark performance

Non-gaming benchmark results comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.

Combined synthetic benchmark score

This is our combined benchmark score. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.

GTX 950 13.88
+5683%

NVS 295 0.24

Passmark

This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark. It gives the graphics card a thorough evaluation under various types of load, providing four separate benchmarks for Direct3D versions 9, 10, 11 and 12 (the last being done in 4K resolution if possible), and few more tests engaging DirectCompute capabilities.

GTX 950 5339
+5641%

NVS 295 93

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	49	0−1
4K	23	-0−1

Cost per frame, $

1080p	3.24	no data
4K	6.91	no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2	24−27	0−1
Cyberpunk 2077	27−30	0−1
Elden Ring	40−45	0−1

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5	45−50	0−1
Counter-Strike 2	24−27	0−1
Cyberpunk 2077	27−30	0−1
Forza Horizon 4	55−60	0−1
Metro Exodus	35−40	0−1
Red Dead Redemption 2	30−35	0−1
Valorant	55−60	0−1

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5	45−50	0−1
Counter-Strike 2	24−27	0−1
Cyberpunk 2077	27−30	0−1
Dota 2	25	0−1
Elden Ring	40−45	0−1
Far Cry 5	50−55	0−1
Fortnite	75−80 +7700%	1−2 −7700%
Forza Horizon 4	55−60	0−1
Grand Theft Auto V	37	0−1
Metro Exodus	35−40	0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	100−110 +10000%	1−2 −10000%
Red Dead Redemption 2	30−35	0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	39	0−1
Valorant	55−60	0−1
World of Tanks	180−190 +6033%	3−4 −6033%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	45−50	0−1
Counter-Strike 2	24−27	0−1
Cyberpunk 2077	27−30	0−1
Dota 2	50−55	0−1
Far Cry 5	50−55	0−1
Forza Horizon 4	55−60	0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	100−110 +10000%	1−2 −10000%
Valorant	55−60	0−1

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2	20−22	0−1
Elden Ring	21−24	0−1
Grand Theft Auto V	20−22	0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	110−120 +11200%	1−2 −11200%
Red Dead Redemption 2	12−14	0−1
World of Tanks	95−100 +9700%	1−2 −9700%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	27−30	0−1
Counter-Strike 2	12−14	0−1
Cyberpunk 2077	10−11	0−1
Far Cry 5	30−35	0−1
Forza Horizon 4	30−35	0−1
Metro Exodus	30−33	0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	16−18	0−1
Valorant	30−35	0−1

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2	9−10	0−1
Dota 2	28	0−1
Elden Ring	9−10	0−1
Grand Theft Auto V	28	0−1
Metro Exodus	9−10	0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	40−45	0−1
Red Dead Redemption 2	9−10	0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	28	0−1

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	12−14	0−1
Counter-Strike 2	9−10	0−1
Cyberpunk 2077	4−5	0−1
Dota 2	24−27	0−1
Far Cry 5	16−18	0−1
Fortnite	16−18	0−1
Forza Horizon 4	18−20	0−1
Valorant	14−16	0−1

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	13.88	0.24
Recency	20 August 2015	7 May 2009
Maximum RAM amount	2 GB	256 MB
Chip lithography	28 nm	65 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	90 Watt	23 Watt

GTX 950 has a 5683.3% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 6 years, a 700% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 132.1% more advanced lithography process.

NVS 295, on the other hand, has 291.3% lower power consumption.

The GeForce GTX 950 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro NVS 295 in performance tests.

Be aware that GeForce GTX 950 is a desktop card while Quadro NVS 295 is a workstation one.

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