GeForce GT 1030 vs GTX 295

Place in the ranking	751	573
Place by popularity	not in top-100	37
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	0.12	2.31
Power efficiency	0.75	14.68
Architecture	Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013)	Pascal (2016−2021)
GPU code name	GT200B	GP108
Market segment	Desktop	Desktop
Release date	8 January 2009 (15 years ago)	17 May 2017 (7 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	$500	$79

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

GT 1030 has 1825% better value for money than GTX 295.

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	480	384
CUDA cores per GPU	240	no data
Core clock speed	576 MHz	1228 MHz
Boost clock speed	no data	1468 MHz
Number of transistors	1,400 million	1,800 million
Manufacturing process technology	55 nm	14 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	289 Watt	30 Watt
Maximum GPU temperature	105 °C	no data
Texture fill rate	46.08	35.23
Floating-point processing power	0.5962 TFLOPS	1.127 TFLOPS
ROPs	28	16
TMUs	80	24

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	PCIe 2.0 x16	PCIe 3.0 x4
Length	267 mm	145 mm
Height	4.376" (111 mm) (11.1 cm)	no data
Width	2-slot	1-slot
Supplementary power connectors	1x 6-pin + 1x 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	GDDR3	GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount	1792 MB	4 GB
Standard memory config per GPU	896 MB	no data
Memory bus width	896 Bit	64 Bit
Memory clock speed	999 MHz	1502 MHz
Memory bandwidth	223.8 GB/s	48.06 GB/s
Memory interface width per GPU	448 Bit	no data
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 Connectors	Two Dual Link DVIHDMI	1x DVI, 1x HDMI
Multi monitor support	+	no data
HDMI	+	+
Maximum VGA resolution	2048x1536	no data
G-SYNC support	-	+
Audio input for HDMI	S/PDIF	no data

Supported technologies

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

High Dynamic-Range Lighting (HDRR)	128bit	no data
VR Ready	no data	+

API compatibility

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

DirectX	11.1 (10_0)	12 (12_1)
Shader Model	4.0	6.4
OpenGL	2.1	4.6
OpenCL	1.1	1.2
Vulkan	N/A	1.2.131
CUDA	+	6.1

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 295 3.13

GT 1030 6.37
+104%

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 295 1206

GT 1030 2456
+104%

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	10−12 −140%	24 +140%
1440p	8−9 −113%	17 +113%
4K	3−4 −167%	8 +167%

Cost per frame, $

1080p	50.00	3.29
1440p	62.50	4.65
4K	166.67	9.88

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	18 +0%	18 +0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	8−9 +0%	8−9 +0%
Battlefield 5	22 +0%	22 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	18 +0%	18 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	11 +0%	11 +0%
Far Cry 5	21 +0%	21 +0%
Far Cry New Dawn	27 +0%	27 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	93 +0%	93 +0%
Hitman 3	16 +0%	16 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	152 +0%	152 +0%
Metro Exodus	26 +0%	26 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	31 +0%	31 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	37 +0%	37 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	93 +0%	93 +0%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	24 +0%	24 +0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	8−9 +0%	8−9 +0%
Battlefield 5	18−20 +0%	18−20 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	16 +0%	16 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	7 +0%	7 +0%
Far Cry 5	14−16 +0%	14−16 +0%
Far Cry New Dawn	20 +0%	20 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	84 +0%	84 +0%
Hitman 3	15 +0%	15 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	123 +0%	123 +0%
Metro Exodus	20 +0%	20 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	15 +0%	15 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	19 +0%	19 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	20−22 +0%	20−22 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	84 +0%	84 +0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	7 +0%	7 +0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	8−9 +0%	8−9 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	5 +0%	5 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	10−11 +0%	10−11 +0%
Far Cry 5	14−16 +0%	14−16 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	16 +0%	16 +0%
Hitman 3	12−14 +0%	12−14 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	19 +0%	19 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	16 +0%	16 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	12 +0%	12 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	6 +0%	6 +0%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

+0%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5	12−14 +0%	12−14 +0%
Far Cry New Dawn	10−11 +0%	10−11 +0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	6−7 +0%	6−7 +0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	6−7 +0%	6−7 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	3−4 +0%	3−4 +0%
Far Cry 5	7−8 +0%	7−8 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	20−22 +0%	20−22 +0%
Hitman 3	10−11 +0%	10−11 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	14 +0%	14 +0%
Metro Exodus	6−7 +0%	6−7 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	11 +0%	11 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	5−6 +0%	5−6 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	48 +0%	48 +0%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

10−12

+0%

10−12

+0%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5	5−6 +0%	5−6 +0%
Far Cry New Dawn	4 +0%	4 +0%
Hitman 3	3−4 +0%	3−4 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	16−18 +0%	16−18 +0%
Metro Exodus	3−4 +0%	3−4 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	3−4 +0%	3−4 +0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	1 +0%	1 +0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	3−4 +0%	3−4 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	3−4 +0%	3−4 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	0−1	0−1
Far Cry 5	3−4 +0%	3−4 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	7 +0%	7 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	6 +0%	6 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

7−8

+0%

7−8

+0%

This is how GTX 295 and GT 1030 compete in popular games:

GT 1030 is 140% faster in 1080p
GT 1030 is 113% faster in 1440p
GT 1030 is 167% faster in 4K

All in all, in popular games:

there's a draw in 71 test (100%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	3.13	6.37
Recency	8 January 2009	17 May 2017
Maximum RAM amount	1792 MB	4 GB
Chip lithography	55 nm	14 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	289 Watt	30 Watt

GT 1030 has a 103.5% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 8 years, a 128.6% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 292.9% more advanced lithography process, and 863.3% lower power consumption.

The GeForce GT 1030 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTX 295 in performance tests.

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