GeForce RTX 4090 vs Quadro NVS 295

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Quadro NVS 295 with GeForce RTX 4090, including specs and performance data.

NVS 295
2009
256 MB GDDR3, 23 Watt
0.24

RTX 4090 outperforms NVS 295 by a whopping 41567% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking13641
Place by popularitynot in top-1006
Cost-effectiveness evaluationno data18.83
Power efficiency0.7215.33
ArchitectureTesla (2006−2010)Ada Lovelace (2022−2024)
GPU code nameG98AD102
Market segmentWorkstationDesktop
Release date7 May 2009 (15 years ago)20 September 2022 (2 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$54.50 $1,599

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 cores816384
Core clock speed540 MHz2235 MHz
Boost clock speedno data2520 MHz
Number of transistors210 million76,300 million
Manufacturing process technology65 nm5 nm
Power consumption (TDP)23 Watt450 Watt
Texture fill rate4.3201,290
Floating-point processing power0.0208 TFLOPS82.58 TFLOPS
ROPs4176
TMUs8512
Tensor Coresno data512
Ray Tracing Coresno data128

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 1.0 x16PCIe 4.0 x16
Length168 mm304 mm
Width1-slot3-slot
Supplementary power connectorsNone1x 16-pin

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 typeGDDR3GDDR6X
Maximum RAM amount256 MB24 GB
Memory bus width64 Bit384 Bit
Memory clock speed695 MHz1313 MHz
Memory bandwidth11.12 GB/s1.01 TB/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 Connectors2x DisplayPort1x HDMI 2.1, 3x DisplayPort 1.4a
HDMI-+

API compatibility

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

DirectX11.1 (10_0)12 Ultimate (12_2)
Shader Model4.06.8
OpenGL3.34.6
OpenCL1.13.0
VulkanN/A1.3
CUDA1.18.9

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.

NVS 295 0.24
RTX 4090 100.00
+41567%

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.

NVS 295 93
RTX 4090 38452
+41246%

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 HD0−1258
1440p-0−1197
4K-0−1143

Cost per frame, $

1080pno data6.20
1440pno data8.12
4Kno data11.18

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2 212
+0%
212
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 225
+0%
225
+0%
Elden Ring 249
+0%
249
+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5 110−120
+0%
110−120
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 215
+0%
215
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 111
+0%
111
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 555
+0%
555
+0%
Metro Exodus 178
+0%
178
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 150−160
+0%
150−160
+0%
Valorant 826
+0%
826
+0%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5 110−120
+0%
110−120
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 199
+0%
199
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 107
+0%
107
+0%
Dota 2 200
+0%
200
+0%
Elden Ring 468
+0%
468
+0%
Far Cry 5 149
+0%
149
+0%
Fortnite 300−350
+0%
300−350
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 548
+0%
548
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 174
+0%
174
+0%
Metro Exodus 183
+0%
183
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 210−220
+0%
210−220
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 150−160
+0%
150−160
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 170−180
+0%
170−180
+0%
Valorant 750−800
+0%
750−800
+0%
World of Tanks 270−280
+0%
270−280
+0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 110−120
+0%
110−120
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 185
+0%
185
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 105
+0%
105
+0%
Dota 2 224
+0%
224
+0%
Far Cry 5 210−220
+0%
210−220
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 544
+0%
544
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 210−220
+0%
210−220
+0%
Valorant 680
+0%
680
+0%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2 162
+0%
162
+0%
Elden Ring 343
+0%
343
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 161
+0%
161
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 170−180
+0%
170−180
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 90−95
+0%
90−95
+0%
World of Tanks 500−550
+0%
500−550
+0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 85−90
+0%
85−90
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 152
+0%
152
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 77
+0%
77
+0%
Far Cry 5 160−170
+0%
160−170
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 507
+0%
507
+0%
Metro Exodus 152
+0%
152
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 262
+0%
262
+0%
Valorant 572
+0%
572
+0%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2 166
+0%
166
+0%
Dota 2 187
+0%
187
+0%
Elden Ring 198
+0%
198
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 187
+0%
187
+0%
Metro Exodus 137
+0%
137
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 200−210
+0%
200−210
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 60−65
+0%
60−65
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 187
+0%
187
+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 90−95
+0%
90−95
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 150−160
+0%
150−160
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 40
+0%
40
+0%
Dota 2 227
+0%
227
+0%
Far Cry 5 100−110
+0%
100−110
+0%
Fortnite 95−100
+0%
95−100
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 284
+0%
284
+0%
Valorant 364
+0%
364
+0%

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 63 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 0.24 100.00
Recency 7 May 2009 20 September 2022
Maximum RAM amount 256 MB 24 GB
Chip lithography 65 nm 5 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 23 Watt 450 Watt

NVS 295 has 1856.5% lower power consumption.

RTX 4090, on the other hand, has a 41566.7% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 13 years, a 9500% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 1200% more advanced lithography process.

The GeForce RTX 4090 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro NVS 295 in performance tests.

Be aware that Quadro NVS 295 is a workstation graphics card while GeForce RTX 4090 is a desktop 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 Quadro NVS 295
Quadro NVS 295
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090
GeForce RTX 4090

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.


2.7 17 votes

Rate Quadro NVS 295 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.7 15679 votes

Rate GeForce RTX 4090 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.