Quadro NVS 295 vs GeForce GTX 1060 6 GB

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared GeForce GTX 1060 6 GB with Quadro NVS 295, including specs and performance data.

GTX 1060 6 GB
2016
6 GB GDDR5, 120 Watt
26.60
+10983%

GTX 1060 6 GB outperforms NVS 295 by a whopping 10983% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking2061364
Place by popularity9not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation17.17no data
Power efficiency15.190.72
ArchitecturePascal (2016−2021)Tesla (2006−2010)
GPU code nameGP106G98
Market segmentDesktopWorkstation
Release date19 July 2016 (8 years ago)7 May 2009 (15 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$299 $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 cores12808
Core clock speed1506 MHz540 MHz
Boost clock speed1709 MHzno data
Number of transistors4,400 million210 million
Manufacturing process technology16 nm65 nm
Power consumption (TDP)120 Watt23 Watt
Texture fill rate136.74.320
Floating-point processing power4.375 TFLOPS0.0208 TFLOPS
ROPs484
TMUs808

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 3.0 x16PCIe 1.0 x16
Length250 mm168 mm
Width2-slot1-slot
Supplementary power connectors1x 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 amount6 GB256 MB
Memory bus width192 Bit64 Bit
Memory clock speed2002 MHz695 MHz
Memory bandwidth192.2 GB/s11.12 GB/s
Shared memory--

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 Connectors1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 3x DisplayPort2x DisplayPort
HDMI+-
G-SYNC support+-

Supported technologies

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

VR Ready+no data

API compatibility

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

DirectX12 (12_1)11.1 (10_0)
Shader Model6.44.0
OpenGL4.63.3
OpenCL1.21.1
Vulkan1.2.131N/A
CUDA6.11.1

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.

GTX 1060 6 GB 26.60
+10983%
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.

GTX 1060 6 GB 10252
+10924%
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.

Average FPS across all PC games

Here are the average frames per second in a large set of popular games across different resolutions:

Full HD900−1
1440p47-0−1
4K30-0−1

Cost per frame, $

1080p3.32no data
1440p6.36no data
4K9.97no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 40−45 0−1

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 72 0−1
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 45−50 0−1
Battlefield 5 89 0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 66 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 40−45 0−1
Far Cry 5 83 0−1
Far Cry New Dawn 82 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 279
+13850%
2−3
−13850%
Hitman 3 50−55 0−1
Horizon Zero Dawn 120−130
+12000%
1−2
−12000%
Metro Exodus 92 0−1
Red Dead Redemption 2 100 0−1
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 135
+13400%
1−2
−13400%
Watch Dogs: Legion 100−110 0−1

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 93 0−1
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 45−50 0−1
Battlefield 5 78 0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 60 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 40−45 0−1
Far Cry 5 64 0−1
Far Cry New Dawn 64 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 260
+12900%
2−3
−12900%
Hitman 3 50−55 0−1
Horizon Zero Dawn 120−130
+12000%
1−2
−12000%
Metro Exodus 78 0−1
Red Dead Redemption 2 69 0−1
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 90−95 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 183
+18200%
1−2
−18200%
Watch Dogs: Legion 100−110 0−1

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 38 0−1
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 45−50 0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 43 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 40−45 0−1
Far Cry 5 50 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 73 0−1
Hitman 3 50−55 0−1
Horizon Zero Dawn 120−130
+12000%
1−2
−12000%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 90−95 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 44 0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion 100−110 0−1

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 69 0−1

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 48 0−1
Far Cry New Dawn 43 0−1

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 32 0−1
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 24−27 0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 30 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 16−18 0−1
Far Cry 5 31 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 196
+19500%
1−2
−19500%
Hitman 3 30−35 0−1
Horizon Zero Dawn 55−60 0−1
Metro Exodus 50 0−1
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 55−60 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 30−35 0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion 140−150
+14700%
1−2
−14700%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 46 0−1

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5 24 0−1
Far Cry New Dawn 22 0−1
Hitman 3 21−24 0−1
Horizon Zero Dawn 130−140
+13400%
1−2
−13400%
Metro Exodus 25 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 29 0−1

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 18 0−1
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 14−16 0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 14 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 7−8 0−1
Far Cry 5 15 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 38 0−1
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 30−35 0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion 12−14 0−1

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 22 0−1

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 26.60 0.24
Recency 19 July 2016 7 May 2009
Maximum RAM amount 6 GB 256 MB
Chip lithography 16 nm 65 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 120 Watt 23 Watt

GTX 1060 6 GB has a 10983.3% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 7 years, a 2300% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 306.3% more advanced lithography process.

NVS 295, on the other hand, has 421.7% lower power consumption.

The GeForce GTX 1060 6 GB is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro NVS 295 in performance tests.

Be aware that GeForce GTX 1060 6 GB 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 GTX 1060 6 GB
GeForce GTX 1060 6 GB
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.


4.1 13751 vote

Rate GeForce GTX 1060 6 GB 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.