Radeon RX 6500 XT vs Quadro NVS 295

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Quadro NVS 295 with Radeon RX 6500 XT, including specs and performance data.

NVS 295
2009, $55
256 MB GDDR3, 23 Watt
0.26

6500 XT outperforms NVS 295 by a whopping 8688% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking1408270
Place by popularitynot in top-10084
Cost-effectiveness evaluationno data48.45
Power efficiency0.8716.47
ArchitectureTesla (2006−2010)RDNA 2.0 (2020−2025)
GPU code nameG98Navi 24
Market segmentWorkstationDesktop
Release date7 May 2009 (16 years ago)19 January 2022 (3 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$54.50 $199

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.

no data

Performance to price scatter graph

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 cores81024
Core clock speed540 MHz2610 MHz
Boost clock speedno data2815 MHz
Number of transistors210 million5,400 million
Manufacturing process technology65 nm6 nm
Power consumption (TDP)23 Watt107 Watt
Texture fill rate4.320180.2
Floating-point processing power0.0208 TFLOPS5.765 TFLOPS
ROPs432
TMUs864
Ray Tracing Coresno data16
L0 Cacheno data256 KB
L1 Cacheno data256 KB
L2 Cache16 KB1024 KB
L3 Cacheno data16 MB

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 x4
Length168 mmno data
Width1-slot2-slot
Supplementary power connectorsNone1x 6-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 typeGDDR3GDDR6
Maximum RAM amount256 MB8 GB
Memory bus width64 Bit64 Bit
Memory clock speed695 MHz2248 MHz
Memory bandwidth11.12 GB/s143.9 GB/s
Shared memory--
Resizable BAR-+

Connectivity and outputs

This section shows the types and number of video connectors on each GPU. The data applies specifically to desktop reference models (for example, NVIDIA’s Founders Edition). OEM partners often modify both the number and types of ports. On notebook GPUs, video‐output options are determined by the laptop’s design rather than the graphics chip itself.

Display Connectors2x DisplayPort1x HDMI 2.1, 1x DisplayPort 1.4a
HDMI-+

API and SDK support

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

DirectX11.1 (10_0)12 Ultimate (12_2)
Shader Model4.06.6
OpenGL3.34.6
OpenCL1.12.2
VulkanN/A1.3
CUDA1.1-

Synthetic benchmarks

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.

NVS 295 0.26
RX 6500 XT 22.85
+8688%

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 295 111
Samples: 337
RX 6500 XT 9602
+8550%
Samples: 2619

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 HD0−163
1440p-0−131
4K-0−117

Cost per frame, $

1080pno data3.16
1440pno data6.42
4Kno data11.71

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low

Counter-Strike 2 281
+0%
281
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 72
+0%
72
+0%

Full HD
Medium

Battlefield 5 90−95
+0%
90−95
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 194
+0%
194
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 54
+0%
54
+0%
Escape from Tarkov 90−95
+0%
90−95
+0%
Far Cry 5 102
+0%
102
+0%
Fortnite 110−120
+0%
110−120
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 90−95
+0%
90−95
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 107
+0%
107
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 90−95
+0%
90−95
+0%
Valorant 160−170
+0%
160−170
+0%

Full HD
High

Battlefield 5 90−95
+0%
90−95
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 82
+0%
82
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 250−260
+0%
250−260
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 34
+0%
34
+0%
Dota 2 145
+0%
145
+0%
Escape from Tarkov 90−95
+0%
90−95
+0%
Far Cry 5 92
+0%
92
+0%
Fortnite 110−120
+0%
110−120
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 90−95
+0%
90−95
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 81
+0%
81
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 86
+0%
86
+0%
Metro Exodus 52
+0%
52
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 90−95
+0%
90−95
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 92
+0%
92
+0%
Valorant 160−170
+0%
160−170
+0%

Full HD
Ultra

Battlefield 5 90−95
+0%
90−95
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 30
+0%
30
+0%
Dota 2 110
+0%
110
+0%
Escape from Tarkov 90−95
+0%
90−95
+0%
Far Cry 5 86
+0%
86
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 90−95
+0%
90−95
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 90−95
+0%
90−95
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 54
+0%
54
+0%
Valorant 160−170
+0%
160−170
+0%

Full HD
Epic

Fortnite 110−120
+0%
110−120
+0%

1440p
High

Counter-Strike 2 35
+0%
35
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 160−170
+0%
160−170
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 37
+0%
37
+0%
Metro Exodus 18
+0%
18
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 170−180
+0%
170−180
+0%
Valorant 200−210
+0%
200−210
+0%

1440p
Ultra

Battlefield 5 65−70
+0%
65−70
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 17
+0%
17
+0%
Escape from Tarkov 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%
Far Cry 5 57
+0%
57
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 60−65
+0%
60−65
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%

1440p
Epic

Fortnite 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%

4K
High

Counter-Strike 2 7
+0%
7
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 34
+0%
34
+0%
Metro Exodus 11
+0%
11
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 28
+0%
28
+0%
Valorant 130−140
+0%
130−140
+0%

4K
Ultra

Battlefield 5 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 4
+0%
4
+0%
Dota 2 67
+0%
67
+0%
Escape from Tarkov 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Far Cry 5 23
+0%
23
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%

4K
Epic

Fortnite 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 64 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 0.26 22.85
Recency 7 May 2009 19 January 2022
Maximum RAM amount 256 MB 8 GB
Chip lithography 65 nm 6 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 23 Watt 107 Watt

NVS 295 has 365.2% lower power consumption.

RX 6500 XT, on the other hand, has a 8688.5% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 12 years, a 3100% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 983.3% more advanced lithography process.

The Radeon RX 6500 XT 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 Radeon RX 6500 XT is a desktop one.

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
AMD Radeon RX 6500 XT
Radeon RX 6500 XT

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.


2.9 21 votes

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.8 3807 votes

Rate Radeon RX 6500 XT on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about Quadro NVS 295 or Radeon RX 6500 XT, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.