T1000 vs Quadro NVS 295

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Quadro NVS 295 and T1000, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.

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

T1000 outperforms NVS 295 by a whopping 6667% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking1406332
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiency0.9028.05
ArchitectureTesla (2006−2010)Turing (2018−2022)
GPU code nameG98TU117
Market segmentWorkstationWorkstation
Release date7 May 2009 (16 years ago)6 May 2021 (4 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 cores8896
Core clock speed540 MHz1065 MHz
Boost clock speedno data1395 MHz
Number of transistors210 million4,700 million
Manufacturing process technology65 nm12 nm
Power consumption (TDP)23 Watt50 Watt
Texture fill rate4.32078.12
Floating-point processing power0.0208 TFLOPS2.5 TFLOPS
ROPs432
TMUs856
L1 Cacheno data896 KB
L2 Cache16 KB1024 KB

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 3.0 x16
Length168 mm156 mm
Width1-slot1-slot
Supplementary power connectorsNoneNone

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 MB4 GB
Memory bus width64 Bit128 Bit
Memory clock speed695 MHz1250 MHz
Memory bandwidth11.12 GB/s160.0 GB/s
Shared memory--

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 DisplayPort4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a

API and SDK support

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

DirectX11.1 (10_0)12 (12_1)
Shader Model4.06.8
OpenGL3.34.6
OpenCL1.13.0
VulkanN/A1.3
CUDA1.17.5

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
T1000 18.27
+6667%

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
T1000 7643
+6786%
Samples: 728

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 HD0−157

Cost per frame, $

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low

Counter-Strike 2 100−110
+0%
100−110
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%

Full HD
Medium

Battlefield 5 75−80
+0%
75−80
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 100−110
+0%
100−110
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Escape from Tarkov 75−80
+0%
75−80
+0%
Far Cry 5 62
+0%
62
+0%
Fortnite 95−100
+0%
95−100
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 75−80
+0%
75−80
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 70−75
+0%
70−75
+0%
Valorant 140−150
+0%
140−150
+0%

Full HD
High

Battlefield 5 75−80
+0%
75−80
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 100−110
+0%
100−110
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 220−230
+0%
220−230
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Escape from Tarkov 75−80
+0%
75−80
+0%
Far Cry 5 57
+0%
57
+0%
Fortnite 95−100
+0%
95−100
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 75−80
+0%
75−80
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 77
+0%
77
+0%
Metro Exodus 35
+0%
35
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 70−75
+0%
70−75
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 64
+0%
64
+0%
Valorant 140−150
+0%
140−150
+0%

Full HD
Ultra

Battlefield 5 75−80
+0%
75−80
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Escape from Tarkov 75−80
+0%
75−80
+0%
Far Cry 5 53
+0%
53
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 75−80
+0%
75−80
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 70−75
+0%
70−75
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 35
+0%
35
+0%
Valorant 140−150
+0%
140−150
+0%

Full HD
Epic

Fortnite 95−100
+0%
95−100
+0%

1440p
High

Counter-Strike 2 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 130−140
+0%
130−140
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Metro Exodus 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 160−170
+0%
160−170
+0%
Valorant 170−180
+0%
170−180
+0%

1440p
Ultra

Battlefield 5 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Escape from Tarkov 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
Far Cry 5 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%

1440p
Epic

Fortnite 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%

4K
High

Counter-Strike 2 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Metro Exodus 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
Valorant 100−110
+0%
100−110
+0%

4K
Ultra

Battlefield 5 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Escape from Tarkov 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Far Cry 5 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%

4K
Epic

Fortnite 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 61 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 0.27 18.27
Recency 7 May 2009 6 May 2021
Maximum RAM amount 256 MB 4 GB
Chip lithography 65 nm 12 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 23 Watt 50 Watt

NVS 295 has 117.4% lower power consumption.

T1000, on the other hand, has a 6666.7% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 11 years, a 1500% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 441.7% more advanced lithography process.

The T1000 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro NVS 295 in performance tests.

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 T1000
T1000

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
3.6 73 votes

Rate T1000 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 T1000, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.