GeForce GTX 970M vs Radeon R9 295X2
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon R9 295X2 with GeForce GTX 970M, including specs and performance data.
R9 295X2 outperforms 970M by an impressive 53% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Contents
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 302 | 407 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 2.18 | 0.55 |
| Power efficiency | 3.20 | 12.94 |
| Architecture | GCN 2.0 (2013−2017) | Maxwell 2.0 (2014−2019) |
| GPU code name | Vesuvius | GM204 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Laptop |
| Design | reference | no data |
| Release date | 29 April 2014 (11 years ago) | 7 October 2014 (11 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $1,499 | $2,560.89 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
R9 295X2 has 296% better value for money than GTX 970M.
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 cores | 2816 ×2 | 1280 |
| Core clock speed | no data | 924 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1018 MHz | 1038 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 6,200 million | 5,200 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 500 Watt | unknown |
| Texture fill rate | 179.2 ×2 | 83.04 |
| Floating-point processing power | 5.733 TFLOPS ×2 | 2.657 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 64 ×2 | 48 |
| TMUs | 176 ×2 | 80 |
| L1 Cache | 704 KB | 480 KB |
| L2 Cache | 1024 KB | 1536 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).
| Laptop size | no data | large |
| Bus support | PCIe 2.1 x16 | PCI Express 3.0 |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | MXM-B (3.0) |
| Length | 307 mm | no data |
| Width | 2-slot | no data |
| Supplementary power connectors | 2 x 8-pin | None |
| SLI options | - | + |
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 | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 8 GB ×2 | 3 GB |
| Memory bus width | 512 Bit ×2 | 192 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1250 MHz | 2500 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 640 GB/s ×2 | 120 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 Connectors | 1x DVI, 4x mini-DisplayPort | No outputs |
| Eyefinity | + | - |
| VGA аnalog display support | no data | + |
| DisplayPort Multimode (DP++) support | no data | + |
| HDMI | + | + |
| G-SYNC support | - | + |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| CrossFire | + | - |
| FreeSync | + | - |
| HD3D | + | - |
| LiquidVR | + | - |
| TressFX | + | - |
| UVD | + | - |
| DDMA audio | + | no data |
| GameStream | - | + |
| GeForce ShadowPlay | - | + |
| GPU Boost | no data | 2.0 |
| GameWorks | - | + |
| H.264, VC1, MPEG2 1080p video decoder | - | + |
| Optimus | - | + |
| BatteryBoost | - | + |
| Ansel | - | + |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | DirectX® 12 | 12 (12_1) |
| Shader Model | 6.3 | 6.4 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.5 |
| OpenCL | 2.0 | 1.1 |
| Vulkan | + | 1.1.126 |
| CUDA | - | + |
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.
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.
3DMark Fire Strike Graphics
Fire Strike is a DirectX 11 benchmark for gaming PCs. It features two separate tests displaying a fight between a humanoid and a fiery creature made of lava. Using 1920x1080 resolution, Fire Strike shows off some realistic graphics and is quite taxing on hardware.
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:
| 900p | 200−210
+47.1%
| 136
−47.1%
|
| Full HD | 85−90
+46.6%
| 58
−46.6%
|
| 1440p | 40−45
+48.1%
| 27
−48.1%
|
| 4K | 30−35
+42.9%
| 21
−42.9%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 17.64
+150%
| 44.15
−150%
|
| 1440p | 37.48
+153%
| 94.85
−153%
|
| 4K | 49.97
+144%
| 121.95
−144%
|
- R9 295X2 has 150% lower cost per frame in 1080p
- R9 295X2 has 153% lower cost per frame in 1440p
- R9 295X2 has 144% lower cost per frame in 4K
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 75−80
+0%
|
75−80
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 27−30
+0%
|
27−30
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 66
+0%
|
66
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 75−80
+0%
|
75−80
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 27−30
+0%
|
27−30
+0%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 55−60
+0%
|
55−60
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 46
+0%
|
46
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 163
+0%
|
163
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 61
+0%
|
61
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 40−45
+0%
|
40−45
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 60
+0%
|
60
+0%
|
| Valorant | 110−120
+0%
|
110−120
+0%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 54
+0%
|
54
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 75−80
+0%
|
75−80
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 190−200
+0%
|
190−200
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 27−30
+0%
|
27−30
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 90−95
+0%
|
90−95
+0%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 55−60
+0%
|
55−60
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 43
+0%
|
43
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 65
+0%
|
65
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 53
+0%
|
53
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 40−45
+0%
|
40−45
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 49
+0%
|
49
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 24
+0%
|
24
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 49
+0%
|
49
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 45
+0%
|
45
+0%
|
| Valorant | 110−120
+0%
|
110−120
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 49
+0%
|
49
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 27−30
+0%
|
27−30
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 90−95
+0%
|
90−95
+0%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 55−60
+0%
|
55−60
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 39
+0%
|
39
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 36
+0%
|
36
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 33
+0%
|
33
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 26
+0%
|
26
+0%
|
| Valorant | 110−120
+0%
|
110−120
+0%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 49
+0%
|
49
+0%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 27−30
+0%
|
27−30
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 100−110
+0%
|
100−110
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 14
+0%
|
14
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 120−130
+0%
|
120−130
+0%
|
| Valorant | 140−150
+0%
|
140−150
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 33
+0%
|
33
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 27−30
+0%
|
27−30
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 27
+0%
|
27
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 23
+0%
|
23
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 20−22
+0%
|
20−22
+0%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 31
+0%
|
31
+0%
|
4K
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10−11
+0%
|
10−11
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 33
+0%
|
33
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 7
+0%
|
7
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 16
+0%
|
16
+0%
|
| Valorant | 75−80
+0%
|
75−80
+0%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 15
+0%
|
15
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10−11
+0%
|
10−11
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 50−55
+0%
|
50−55
+0%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 13
+0%
|
13
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 6
+0%
|
6
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 12
+0%
|
12
+0%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 14
+0%
|
14
+0%
|
This is how R9 295X2 and GTX 970M compete in popular games:
- R9 295X2 is 47% faster in 900p
- R9 295X2 is 47% faster in 1080p
- R9 295X2 is 48% faster in 1440p
- R9 295X2 is 43% faster in 4K
All in all, in popular games:
- there's a draw in 64 tests (100%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 20.87 | 13.65 |
| Recency | 29 April 2014 | 7 October 2014 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 8 GB | 3 GB |
R9 295X2 has a 52.9% higher aggregate performance score, and a 166.7% higher maximum VRAM amount.
GTX 970M, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 5 months.
The Radeon R9 295X2 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTX 970M in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon R9 295X2 is a desktop graphics card while GeForce GTX 970M is a notebook one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
