GeForce GTX 780M vs GTX 295

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared GeForce GTX 295 with GeForce GTX 780M, including specs and performance data.

GTX 295
2009
1792 MB GDDR3, 289 Watt
3.13

GTX 780M outperforms GTX 295 by a whopping 215% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking754457
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation0.14no data
Power efficiency0.745.54
ArchitectureTesla 2.0 (2007−2013)Kepler (2012−2018)
GPU code nameGT200BGK104
Market segmentDesktopLaptop
Release date8 January 2009 (15 years ago)11 May 2013 (11 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$500 no data

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 cores4801536
CUDA cores per GPU240no data
Core clock speed576 MHz823 MHz
Boost clock speedno data797 MHz
Number of transistors1,400 million3,540 million
Manufacturing process technology55 nm28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)289 Watt122 Watt
Maximum GPU temperature105 °Cno data
Texture fill rate46.08102.0
Floating-point processing power0.5962 TFLOPS2.448 TFLOPS
ROPs2832
TMUs80128

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 sizeno datalarge
Bus supportno dataPCI Express 3.0, PCI Express 2.0
InterfacePCIe 2.0 x16MXM-B (3.0)
Length267 mmno data
Height4.376" (111 mm) (11.1 cm)no data
Width2-slotno data
Supplementary power connectors1x 6-pin + 1x 8-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 typeGDDR3GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount1792 MB4 GB
Standard memory configurationno dataGDDR5
Standard memory config per GPU896 MBno data
Memory bus width896 Bit256 Bit
Memory clock speed999 MHz2500 MHz
Memory bandwidth223.8 GB/s160.0 GB/s
Memory interface width per GPU448 Bitno 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 ConnectorsTwo Dual Link DVIHDMINo outputs
Multi monitor support+no data
eDP 1.2 signal supportno dataUp to 3840x2160
LVDS signal supportno dataUp to 1920x1200
VGA аnalog display supportno dataUp to 2048x1536
DisplayPort Multimode (DP++) supportno dataUp to 3840x2160
HDMI++
HDCP content protection-+
Maximum VGA resolution2048x1536no data
Audio input for HDMIS/PDIFno data
7.1 channel HD audio on HDMI-+
TrueHD and DTS-HD audio bitstreaming-+

Supported technologies

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

High Dynamic-Range Lighting (HDRR)128bitno data
Blu-Ray 3D Support-+
H.264, VC1, MPEG2 1080p video decoder-+
Optimus-+
3D Vision / 3DTV Play-+

API compatibility

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

DirectX11.1 (10_0)12 API
Shader Model4.05.1
OpenGL2.14.5
OpenCL1.11.1
VulkanN/A1.1.126
CUDA++

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
GTX 780M 9.86
+215%

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
GTX 780M 3797
+215%

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 HD18−21
−261%
65
+261%

Cost per frame, $

1080p27.78no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Battlefield 5 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 20−22
+0%
20−22
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Far Cry 5 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 65−70
+0%
65−70
+0%
Hitman 3 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%
Metro Exodus 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 60−65
+0%
60−65
+0%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Battlefield 5 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 20−22
+0%
20−22
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Far Cry 5 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 65−70
+0%
65−70
+0%
Hitman 3 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%
Metro Exodus 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 60−65
+0%
60−65
+0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 20−22
+0%
20−22
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Far Cry 5 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 65−70
+0%
65−70
+0%
Hitman 3 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 17
+0%
17
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 60−65
+0%
60−65
+0%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Far Cry 5 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
Hitman 3 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Metro Exodus 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 60−65
+0%
60−65
+0%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Hitman 3 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
Metro Exodus 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Far Cry 5 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%

This is how GTX 295 and GTX 780M compete in popular games:

  • GTX 780M is 261% faster in 1080p

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 72 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 3.13 9.86
Recency 8 January 2009 11 May 2013
Maximum RAM amount 1792 MB 4 GB
Chip lithography 55 nm 28 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 289 Watt 122 Watt

GTX 780M has a 215% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 4 years, a 128.6% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 96.4% more advanced lithography process, and 136.9% lower power consumption.

The GeForce GTX 780M is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTX 295 in performance tests.

Be aware that GeForce GTX 295 is a desktop card while GeForce GTX 780M is a notebook 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 295
GeForce GTX 295
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780M
GeForce GTX 780M

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.


3.9 84 votes

Rate GeForce GTX 295 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4.1 110 votes

Rate GeForce GTX 780M 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.