Radeon RX 7900 GRE vs Quadro NVS 295

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Quadro NVS 295 with Radeon RX 7900 GRE, including specs and performance data.

NVS 295
2009, $55
256 MB GDDR3, 23 Watt
0.27

7900 GRE outperforms NVS 295 by a whopping 24078% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking141330
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluationno data70.08
Power efficiency0.9019.33
ArchitectureTesla (2006−2010)RDNA 3.0 (2022−2026)
GPU code nameG98Navi 31
Market segmentWorkstationDesktop
Release date7 May 2009 (16 years ago)27 July 2023 (2 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$54.50 $549

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 cores85120
Core clock speed540 MHz1287 MHz
Boost clock speedno data2245 MHz
Number of transistors210 million57,700 million
Manufacturing process technology65 nm5 nm
Power consumption (TDP)23 Watt260 Watt
Texture fill rate4.320718.4
Floating-point processing power0.0208 TFLOPS45.98 TFLOPS
ROPs4160
TMUs8320
Ray Tracing Coresno data80
L0 Cacheno data2.5 MB
L1 Cacheno data2.5 MB
L2 Cache16 KB6 MB
L3 Cacheno data64 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 x16
Length168 mm276 mm
Width1-slot2-slot
Supplementary power connectorsNone2x 8-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 MB16 GB
Memory bus width64 Bit256 Bit
Memory clock speed695 MHz2250 MHz
Memory bandwidth11.12 GB/s576.0 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 2.1a, 2x DisplayPort 2.1, 1x USB Type-C
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 Model4.06.8
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 0.27
RX 7900 GRE 65.28
+24078%

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 295 113
Samples: 338
RX 7900 GRE 27375
+24126%
Samples: 1957

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 HD0−1206
1440p0−1129
4K-0−177

Cost per frame, $

1080pno data2.67
1440pno data4.26
4Kno data7.13

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low

Counter-Strike 2 300−350
+0%
300−350
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 208
+0%
208
+0%
Resident Evil 4 Remake 234
+0%
234
+0%

Full HD
Medium

Battlefield 5 170−180
+0%
170−180
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 300−350
+0%
300−350
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 184
+0%
184
+0%
Far Cry 5 174
+0%
174
+0%
Fortnite 300−350
+0%
300−350
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 260−270
+0%
260−270
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 190−200
+0%
190−200
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 170−180
+0%
170−180
+0%
Valorant 350−400
+0%
350−400
+0%

Full HD
High

Battlefield 5 170−180
+0%
170−180
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 300−350
+0%
300−350
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 270−280
+0%
270−280
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 158
+0%
158
+0%
Far Cry 5 168
+0%
168
+0%
Fortnite 300−350
+0%
300−350
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 260−270
+0%
260−270
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 190−200
+0%
190−200
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 164
+0%
164
+0%
Metro Exodus 179
+0%
179
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 170−180
+0%
170−180
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 382
+0%
382
+0%
Valorant 350−400
+0%
350−400
+0%

Full HD
Ultra

Battlefield 5 170−180
+0%
170−180
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 148
+0%
148
+0%
Far Cry 5 155
+0%
155
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 260−270
+0%
260−270
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 170−180
+0%
170−180
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 209
+0%
209
+0%
Valorant 350−400
+0%
350−400
+0%

Full HD
Epic

Fortnite 300−350
+0%
300−350
+0%

1440p
High

Counter-Strike 2 200−210
+0%
200−210
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 500−550
+0%
500−550
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 130
+0%
130
+0%
Metro Exodus 111
+0%
111
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 170−180
+0%
170−180
+0%
Valorant 450−500
+0%
450−500
+0%

1440p
Ultra

Battlefield 5 160−170
+0%
160−170
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 98
+0%
98
+0%
Far Cry 5 154
+0%
154
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 220−230
+0%
220−230
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 156
+0%
156
+0%

1440p
Epic

Fortnite 150−160
+0%
150−160
+0%

4K
High

Counter-Strike 2 90−95
+0%
90−95
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 151
+0%
151
+0%
Metro Exodus 71
+0%
71
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 125
+0%
125
+0%
Valorant 300−350
+0%
300−350
+0%

4K
Ultra

Battlefield 5 120−130
+0%
120−130
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 90−95
+0%
90−95
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 45
+0%
45
+0%
Far Cry 5 107
+0%
107
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 170−180
+0%
170−180
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 95−100
+0%
95−100
+0%

4K
Epic

Fortnite 75−80
+0%
75−80
+0%

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 57 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 0.27 65.28
Recency 7 May 2009 27 July 2023
Maximum RAM amount 256 MB 16 GB
Chip lithography 65 nm 5 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 23 Watt 260 Watt

NVS 295 has 1030% lower power consumption.

RX 7900 GRE, on the other hand, has a 24078% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 14 years, a 6300% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 1200% more advanced lithography process.

The Radeon RX 7900 GRE 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 7900 GRE is a desktop one.

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.


3 22 votes

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4.5 1229 votes

Rate Radeon RX 7900 GRE 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 7900 GRE, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.