Quadro NVS 295 vs Radeon R9 270X

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon R9 270X with Quadro NVS 295, including specs and performance data.

R9 270X
2013
4 GB GDDR5, 180 Watt
11.02
+4308%

R9 270X outperforms 295 by a whopping 4308% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking4421397
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation4.85no data
Power efficiency4.930.88
ArchitectureGCN 1.0 (2012−2020)Tesla (2006−2010)
GPU code nameCuracaoG98
Market segmentDesktopWorkstation
Designreferenceno data
Release date8 October 2013 (11 years ago)7 May 2009 (16 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$199 $54.50

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 cores12808
Core clock speedno data540 MHz
Boost clock speed1050 MHzno data
Number of transistors2,800 million210 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm65 nm
Power consumption (TDP)180 Watt23 Watt
Texture fill rate84.004.320
Floating-point processing power2.688 TFLOPS0.0208 TFLOPS
ROPs324
TMUs808
L1 Cache320 KBno data
L2 Cache512 KB16 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).

Bus supportPCIe 3.0no data
InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16PCIe 1.0 x16
Lengthno data168 mm
Width2-slot1-slot
Supplementary power connectors2 x 6-pinNone

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 typeGDDR5GDDR3
Maximum RAM amount4 GB256 MB
Memory bus width256 Bit64 Bit
Memory clock speedno data695 MHz
Memory bandwidth179.2 GB/s11.12 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 DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort2x DisplayPort
Eyefinity+-
HDMI+-
DisplayPort support+-

Supported technologies

Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.

AppAcceleration+-
CrossFire+-
FreeSync+-
HD3D+-
LiquidVR+-
TressFX+-
TrueAudio+-
UVD+-
DDMA audio+no data

API and SDK support

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

DirectXDirectX® 1211.1 (10_0)
Shader Model5.14.0
OpenGL4.63.3
OpenCL1.21.1
Vulkan+N/A
CUDA-1.1

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.

R9 270X 11.02
+4308%
NVS 295 0.25

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.

R9 270X 4873
+4290%
Samples: 10880
NVS 295 111
Samples: 337

Gaming performance

Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low

Counter-Strike 2 65−70
+6400%
1−2
−6400%
Cyberpunk 2077 24−27 0−1
Hogwarts Legacy 21−24 0−1

Full HD
Medium

Battlefield 5 50−55
+5100%
1−2
−5100%
Counter-Strike 2 65−70
+6400%
1−2
−6400%
Cyberpunk 2077 24−27 0−1
Far Cry 5 35−40 0−1
Fortnite 65−70
+6800%
1−2
−6800%
Forza Horizon 4 50−55
+4900%
1−2
−4900%
Forza Horizon 5 35−40 0−1
Hogwarts Legacy 21−24 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 40−45 0−1
Valorant 100−110
+5200%
2−3
−5200%

Full HD
High

Battlefield 5 50−55
+5100%
1−2
−5100%
Counter-Strike 2 65−70
+6400%
1−2
−6400%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 170−180
+5567%
3−4
−5567%
Cyberpunk 2077 24−27 0−1
Dota 2 80−85
+7900%
1−2
−7900%
Far Cry 5 35−40 0−1
Fortnite 65−70
+6800%
1−2
−6800%
Forza Horizon 4 50−55
+4900%
1−2
−4900%
Forza Horizon 5 35−40 0−1
Grand Theft Auto V 45−50
+4400%
1−2
−4400%
Hogwarts Legacy 21−24 0−1
Metro Exodus 24−27 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 40−45 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 30−35 0−1
Valorant 100−110
+5200%
2−3
−5200%

Full HD
Ultra

Battlefield 5 50−55
+5100%
1−2
−5100%
Cyberpunk 2077 24−27 0−1
Dota 2 80−85
+7900%
1−2
−7900%
Far Cry 5 35−40 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 50−55
+4900%
1−2
−4900%
Hogwarts Legacy 21−24 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 40−45 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 30−35 0−1
Valorant 100−110
+5200%
2−3
−5200%

Full HD
Epic

Fortnite 65−70
+6800%
1−2
−6800%

1440p
High

Counter-Strike 2 21−24 0−1
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 85−90
+4350%
2−3
−4350%
Grand Theft Auto V 18−20 0−1
Metro Exodus 14−16 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 90−95
+4450%
2−3
−4450%
Valorant 120−130
+6250%
2−3
−6250%

1440p
Ultra

Battlefield 5 30−35 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 10−11 0−1
Far Cry 5 24−27 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 27−30 0−1
Hogwarts Legacy 12−14 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 16−18 0−1

1440p
Epic

Fortnite 24−27 0−1

4K
High

Counter-Strike 2 7−8 0−1
Grand Theft Auto V 21−24 0−1
Hogwarts Legacy 6−7 0−1
Metro Exodus 8−9 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 14−16 0−1
Valorant 60−65
+6200%
1−2
−6200%

4K
Ultra

Battlefield 5 16−18 0−1
Counter-Strike 2 7−8 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5 0−1
Dota 2 40−45 0−1
Far Cry 5 12−14 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 20−22 0−1
Hogwarts Legacy 6−7 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 10−12 0−1

4K
Epic

Fortnite 10−12 0−1

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 11.02 0.25
Recency 8 October 2013 7 May 2009
Maximum RAM amount 4 GB 256 MB
Chip lithography 28 nm 65 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 180 Watt 23 Watt

R9 270X has a 4308% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 4 years, a 1500% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 132.1% more advanced lithography process.

NVS 295, on the other hand, has 682.6% lower power consumption.

The Radeon R9 270X is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro NVS 295 in performance tests.

Be aware that Radeon R9 270X is a desktop graphics card while Quadro NVS 295 is a workstation 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.


AMD Radeon R9 270X
Radeon R9 270X
NVIDIA Quadro NVS 295
Quadro NVS 295

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.


4 805 votes

Rate Radeon R9 270X on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3 20 votes

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about Radeon R9 270X or Quadro NVS 295, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.