Quadro NVS 295 vs GeForce GTS 250

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared GeForce GTS 250 with Quadro NVS 295, including specs and performance data.

GTS 250
2009
1 GB GDDR3, 150 Watt
1.54
+542%

GTS 250 outperforms NVS 295 by a whopping 542% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking9721364
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation0.09no data
Power efficiency0.700.72
ArchitectureTesla (2006−2010)Tesla (2006−2010)
GPU code nameG92BG98
Market segmentDesktopWorkstation
Release date4 March 2009 (15 years ago)7 May 2009 (15 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$199 $54.50

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

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 cores1288
Core clock speed738 MHz540 MHz
Number of transistors754 million210 million
Manufacturing process technology55 nm65 nm
Power consumption (TDP)150 Watt23 Watt
Maximum GPU temperature105 °Cno data
Texture fill rate44.934.320
Floating-point processing power0.3871 TFLOPS0.0208 TFLOPS
ROPs164
TMUs648

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 2.0 x16PCIe 1.0 x16
Length229 mm168 mm
Height4.376" (111 mm) (11.1 cm)no data
Width2-slot1-slot
Supplementary power connectors1x 6-pinNone
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 typeGDDR3GDDR3
Maximum RAM amount1 GB256 MB
Memory bus width256 Bit64 Bit
Memory clock speed1100 MHz695 MHz
Memory bandwidth70.4 GB/s11.12 GB/s

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 ConnectorsTwo Dual Link DVI2x DisplayPort
Multi monitor support+no data
HDMI+-
Maximum VGA resolution2048x1536no data
Audio input for HDMIS/PDIFno data

API compatibility

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

DirectX11.1 (10_0)11.1 (10_0)
Shader Model4.04.0
OpenGL3.03.3
OpenCL1.11.1
VulkanN/AN/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. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.

GTS 250 1.54
+542%
NVS 295 0.24

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.

GTS 250 594
+539%
NVS 295 93

Gaming performance

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

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 1.54 0.24
Recency 4 March 2009 7 May 2009
Maximum RAM amount 1 GB 256 MB
Chip lithography 55 nm 65 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 150 Watt 23 Watt

GTS 250 has a 541.7% higher aggregate performance score, a 300% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 18.2% more advanced lithography process.

NVS 295, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 2 months, and 552.2% lower power consumption.

The GeForce GTS 250 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro NVS 295 in performance tests.

Be aware that GeForce GTS 250 is a desktop card while Quadro NVS 295 is a workstation one.


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

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 GeForce GTS 250
GeForce GTS 250
NVIDIA Quadro NVS 295
Quadro NVS 295

Comparisons with similar GPUs

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.


3.5 1667 votes

Rate GeForce GTS 250 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
2.7 17 votes

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about this comparison, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.