Radeon RX 9060 XT 16GB vs Quadro NVS 295

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
210S 280 AGP 280 PCI 280 PCIe 280 SD 285 290 295
VS
#ad 
Buy on Amazon
9060 9060 XT 9060 XT 8 GB 9060 XT 16 GB 9060 XT 16GB 9070 9070 GRE 9070 GRE 16 GB 9070 XT

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Quadro NVS 295 with Radeon RX 9060 XT 16GB, including specs and performance data.

NVS 295
2009
256 MB GDDR3, 23 Watt
0.25

9060 XT 16GB outperforms 295 by a whopping 21976% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Contents

Share:
NVS 295 NVS 295
RX 9060 XT 16GB RX 9060 XT 16GB

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking140248
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiency0.88no data
ArchitectureTesla (2006−2010)RDNA 4 (2025)
GPU code nameG98no data
Market segmentWorkstationDesktop
Release date7 May 2009 (16 years ago)2 January 2025 (less than a year ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$54.50 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 cores82048
Core clock speed540 MHzno data
Boost clock speedno data2530 MHz
Number of transistors210 millionno data
Manufacturing process technology65 nm4 nm
Power consumption (TDP)23 Wattno data
Texture fill rate4.320no data
Floating-point processing power0.0208 TFLOPSno data
ROPs4no data
TMUs8no data
L2 Cache16 KBno 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 1.0 x16no data
Length168 mmno data
Width1-slotno data
Supplementary power connectorsNoneno data

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 Bit128 Bit
Memory clock speed695 MHzno data
Memory bandwidth11.12 GB/sno data
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 DisplayPortno data

API and SDK support

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

DirectX11.1 (10_0)no data
Shader Model4.0no data
OpenGL3.3no data
OpenCL1.1no data
VulkanN/A-
CUDA1.1-

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 HD0−1171
1440p-0−178
4K-0−148

Cost per frame, $

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low

Counter-Strike 2 290−300
+0%
290−300
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 140−150
+0%
140−150
+0%
Hogwarts Legacy 203
+0%
203
+0%

Full HD
Medium

Battlefield 5 160−170
+0%
160−170
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 290−300
+0%
290−300
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 140−150
+0%
140−150
+0%
Far Cry 5 270
+0%
270
+0%
Fortnite 270−280
+0%
270−280
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 220−230
+0%
220−230
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 170−180
+0%
170−180
+0%
Hogwarts Legacy 157
+0%
157
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 170−180
+0%
170−180
+0%
Valorant 300−350
+0%
300−350
+0%

Full HD
High

Battlefield 5 160−170
+0%
160−170
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 290−300
+0%
290−300
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 270−280
+0%
270−280
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 140−150
+0%
140−150
+0%
Far Cry 5 248
+0%
248
+0%
Fortnite 270−280
+0%
270−280
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 220−230
+0%
220−230
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 170−180
+0%
170−180
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 154
+0%
154
+0%
Hogwarts Legacy 119
+0%
119
+0%
Metro Exodus 140−150
+0%
140−150
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 170−180
+0%
170−180
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 273
+0%
273
+0%
Valorant 300−350
+0%
300−350
+0%

Full HD
Ultra

Battlefield 5 160−170
+0%
160−170
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 140−150
+0%
140−150
+0%
Far Cry 5 233
+0%
233
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 220−230
+0%
220−230
+0%
Hogwarts Legacy 91
+0%
91
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 170−180
+0%
170−180
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 146
+0%
146
+0%

Full HD
Epic

Fortnite 270−280
+0%
270−280
+0%

1440p
High

Counter-Strike 2 170−180
+0%
170−180
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 400−450
+0%
400−450
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 83
+0%
83
+0%
Metro Exodus 95−100
+0%
95−100
+0%
Valorant 350−400
+0%
350−400
+0%

1440p
Ultra

Battlefield 5 140−150
+0%
140−150
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 80−85
+0%
80−85
+0%
Far Cry 5 160
+0%
160
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 190−200
+0%
190−200
+0%
Hogwarts Legacy 68
+0%
68
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 102
+0%
102
+0%

1440p
Epic

Fortnite 150−160
+0%
150−160
+0%

4K
High

Counter-Strike 2 75−80
+0%
75−80
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 91
+0%
91
+0%
Metro Exodus 60−65
+0%
60−65
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 84
+0%
84
+0%
Valorant 300−350
+0%
300−350
+0%

4K
Ultra

Battlefield 5 100−110
+0%
100−110
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Far Cry 5 80
+0%
80
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 140−150
+0%
140−150
+0%
Hogwarts Legacy 36
+0%
36
+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 59 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score 0.25 55.19
Recency 7 May 2009 2 January 2025
Maximum RAM amount 256 MB 16 GB
Chip lithography 65 nm 4 nm

RX 9060 XT 16GB has a 21976% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 15 years, a 6300% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 1525% more advanced lithography process.

The Radeon RX 9060 XT 16GB 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 9060 XT 16GB 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 9060 XT 16GB
Radeon RX 9060 XT 16GB
Like
Like

Other comparisons

We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.

NVS 295 Quadro NVS 295
vs
FX 370 LP Quadro FX 370 LP
RX 9060 XT 16GB Radeon RX 9060 XT 16GB
vs
RX 9070 GRE Radeon RX 9070 GRE
NVS 295 Quadro NVS 295
vs
NVS 300 NVS 300
ATI FireGL V5600 ATI FireGL V5600
vs
GT 430 PCI GT 430 PCI
Quadro 2000 NVIDIA Quadro 2000
vs
RX 6600 RX 6600
Quadro 2000 NVIDIA Quadro 2000
vs
T1000 T1000
FX 380 LP NVIDIA Quadro FX 380 LP
vs
NVS 210S NVS 210S
NVS 295 NVIDIA Quadro NVS 295
vs
RX 9060 XT RX 9060 XT
FX 4800 NVIDIA Quadro FX 4800
vs
GT 630 OEM GT 630 OEM
NVS 290 NVIDIA Quadro NVS 290
vs
Pro W6800X Duo Pro W6800X Duo
FX 550 NVIDIA Quadro FX 550
vs
6800 GTO GeForce 6800 GTO
FX 1000 NVIDIA Quadro FX 1000
vs
GRID RTX T10-4 GRID RTX T10-4
FX 1000 NVIDIA Quadro FX 1000
vs
Tesla T10 16 GB Tesla T10 16 GB

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
4.3 158 votes

Rate Radeon RX 9060 XT 16GB 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 9060 XT 16GB, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.