Radeon Vega 7 vs Quadro NVS 295

Place in the ranking	1353	538
Place by popularity	not in top-100	10
Power efficiency	0.80	11.43
Architecture	Tesla (2006−2010)	GCN 5.1 (2018−2022)
GPU code name	G98	Cezanne
Market segment	Workstation	Laptop
Release date	7 May 2009 (15 years ago)	13 April 2021 (3 years 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 cores	8	448
Core clock speed	540 MHz	300 MHz
Boost clock speed	no data	1900 MHz
Number of transistors	210 million	9,800 million
Manufacturing process technology	65 nm	7 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	23 Watt	45 Watt
Texture fill rate	4.320	53.20
Floating-point processing power	0.0208 TFLOPS	1.702 TFLOPS
ROPs	4	8
TMUs	8	28

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).

Interface	PCIe 1.0 x16	IGP
Length	168 mm	no data
Width	1-slot	no data
Supplementary power connectors	None	None

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	GDDR3	System Shared
Maximum RAM amount	256 MB	System Shared
Memory bus width	64 Bit	System Shared
Memory clock speed	695 MHz	System Shared
Memory bandwidth	11.12 GB/s	no data
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

2x DisplayPort

No outputs

API and SDK compatibility

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

DirectX	11.1 (10_0)	12 (12_1)
Shader Model	4.0	6.4
OpenGL	3.3	4.6
OpenCL	1.1	2.1
Vulkan	N/A	1.2
CUDA	1.1	-

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 HD	0−1	23
1440p	0−1	25
4K	0−1	15

Cost per frame, $

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2

14−16

+0%

14−16

+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5	24−27 +0%	24−27 +0%
Counter-Strike 2	14−16 +0%	14−16 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	29 +0%	29 +0%
Forza Horizon 5	18 +0%	18 +0%
Metro Exodus	21 +0%	21 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	27 +0%	27 +0%
Valorant	29 +0%	29 +0%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5	24−27 +0%	24−27 +0%
Counter-Strike 2	14−16 +0%	14−16 +0%
Dota 2	17 +0%	17 +0%
Far Cry 5	28 +0%	28 +0%
Fortnite	40−45 +0%	40−45 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	24 +0%	24 +0%
Forza Horizon 5	16−18 +0%	16−18 +0%
Metro Exodus	15 +0%	15 +0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	46 +0%	46 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	21−24 +0%	21−24 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	21−24 +0%	21−24 +0%
Valorant	14 +0%	14 +0%
World of Tanks	58 +0%	58 +0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	24−27 +0%	24−27 +0%
Counter-Strike 2	14−16 +0%	14−16 +0%
Far Cry 5	30−35 +0%	30−35 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	21 +0%	21 +0%
Forza Horizon 5	12 +0%	12 +0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	60−65 +0%	60−65 +0%
Valorant	25 +0%	25 +0%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2	9−10 +0%	9−10 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	6−7 +0%	6−7 +0%
World of Tanks	50−55 +0%	50−55 +0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	12−14 +0%	12−14 +0%
Far Cry 5	16−18 +0%	16−18 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	14−16 +0%	14−16 +0%
Forza Horizon 5	10−12 +0%	10−12 +0%
Metro Exodus	10−12 +0%	10−12 +0%
Valorant	18−20 +0%	18−20 +0%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2	4−5 +0%	4−5 +0%
Dota 2	18−20 +0%	18−20 +0%
Metro Exodus	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	21−24 +0%	21−24 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	5−6 +0%	5−6 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	18−20 +0%	18−20 +0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	6−7 +0%	6−7 +0%
Counter-Strike 2	4−5 +0%	4−5 +0%
Far Cry 5	9−10 +0%	9−10 +0%
Fortnite	7−8 +0%	7−8 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	9−10 +0%	9−10 +0%
Forza Horizon 5	5−6 +0%	5−6 +0%
Valorant	7−8 +0%	7−8 +0%

All in all, in popular games:

there's a draw in 50 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	0.25	6.98
Recency	7 May 2009	13 April 2021
Chip lithography	65 nm	7 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	23 Watt	45 Watt

NVS 295 has 95.7% lower power consumption.

Vega 7, on the other hand, has a 2692% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 11 years, and a 828.6% more advanced lithography process.

The Radeon Vega 7 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro NVS 295 in performance tests.

Be aware that Quadro NVS 295 is a workstation card while Radeon Vega 7 is a notebook one.

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