Quadro NVS 295 vs Radeon RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 2000/3000)
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 2000/3000) with Quadro NVS 295, including specs and performance data.
RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 2000/3000) outperforms NVS 295 by a whopping 1496% 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 | 705 | 1393 |
| Place by popularity | 46 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 21.08 | 0.86 |
| Architecture | Vega (2017−2020) | Tesla (2006−2010) |
| GPU code name | Vega Raven Ridge | G98 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Workstation |
| Release date | 26 October 2017 (7 years ago) | 7 May 2009 (16 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $54.50 |
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 | 512 | 8 |
| Core clock speed | 300 MHz | 540 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1200 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 9,800 million | 210 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 14 nm | 65 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 15 Watt | 23 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 57.60 | 4.320 |
| Floating-point processing power | 1.843 TFLOPS | 0.0208 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 8 | 4 |
| TMUs | 32 | 8 |
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 | IGP | PCIe 1.0 x16 |
| Length | no data | 168 mm |
| Width | no data | 1-slot |
| 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 | System Shared | GDDR3 |
| Maximum RAM amount | System Shared | 256 MB |
| Memory bus width | System Shared | 64 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | System Shared | 695 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | no data | 11.12 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 Connectors | No outputs | 2x DisplayPort |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (12_1) | 11.1 (10_0) |
| Shader Model | 6.4 | 4.0 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 3.3 |
| OpenCL | 2.1 | 1.1 |
| Vulkan | 1.2 | N/A |
| CUDA | - | 1.1 |
Synthetic benchmark performance
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.
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 | 18
+1700%
| 1−2
−1700%
|
| 4K | 10 | 0−1 |
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | no data | 54.50 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 18−20
+1700%
|
1−2
−1700%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 9 | 0−1 |
| God of War | 10−11 | 0−1 |
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 24
+2300%
|
1−2
−2300%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 18−20
+1700%
|
1−2
−1700%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 9 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 12 | 0−1 |
| Fortnite | 30
+2900%
|
1−2
−2900%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 26
+2500%
|
1−2
−2500%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 17
+1600%
|
1−2
−1600%
|
| God of War | 10−11 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 17
+1600%
|
1−2
−1600%
|
| Valorant | 55−60
+1733%
|
3−4
−1733%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 22
+2100%
|
1−2
−2100%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 18−20
+1700%
|
1−2
−1700%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 42
+2000%
|
2−3
−2000%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 38
+1800%
|
2−3
−1800%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 10 | 0−1 |
| Fortnite | 19
+1800%
|
1−2
−1800%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 30
+2900%
|
1−2
−2900%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 10−12 | 0−1 |
| God of War | 10−11 | 0−1 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 13 | 0−1 |
| Metro Exodus | 7 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 14 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 13 | 0−1 |
| Valorant | 55−60
+1733%
|
3−4
−1733%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 23
+2200%
|
1−2
−2200%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 35
+1650%
|
2−3
−1650%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 9 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 23
+2200%
|
1−2
−2200%
|
| God of War | 10−11 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 14 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 8 | 0−1 |
| Valorant | 15 | 0−1 |
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 10 | 0−1 |
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 8−9 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 30−35
+1500%
|
2−3
−1500%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 4−5 | 0−1 |
| Metro Exodus | 3−4 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 30−35
+1550%
|
2−3
−1550%
|
| Valorant | 45−50
+2150%
|
2−3
−2150%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 7−8 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 10−11 | 0−1 |
| God of War | 3−4 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 5−6 | 0−1 |
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 8−9 | 0−1 |
4K
High Preset
| Grand Theft Auto V | 16−18
+1500%
|
1−2
−1500%
|
| Valorant | 21−24
+2000%
|
1−2
−2000%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 6 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 15 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 3−4 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 9 | 0−1 |
| God of War | 3−4 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 4−5 | 0−1 |
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 4−5 | 0−1 |
This is how RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 2000/3000) and NVS 295 compete in popular games:
- RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 2000/3000) is 1700% faster in 1080p
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 4.15 | 0.26 |
| Recency | 26 October 2017 | 7 May 2009 |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 65 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 15 Watt | 23 Watt |
RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 2000/3000) has a 1496.2% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 8 years, a 364.3% more advanced lithography process, and 53.3% lower power consumption.
The Radeon RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 2000/3000) is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro NVS 295 in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 2000/3000) is a notebook graphics card while Quadro NVS 295 is a workstation one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
