Radeon Picasso vs GeForce GTX 295

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking751not rated
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation0.12no data
Power efficiency0.75no data
ArchitectureTesla 2.0 (2007−2013)GCN 5.0 (2017−2020)
GPU code nameGT200BPicasso
Market segmentDesktopDesktop
Release date8 January 2009 (15 years ago)no data (2024 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 cores480640
CUDA cores per GPU240no data
Core clock speed576 MHz300 MHz
Boost clock speedno data1301 MHz
Number of transistors1,400 million4,940 million
Manufacturing process technology55 nm14 nm
Power consumption (TDP)289 Watt10 Watt
Maximum GPU temperature105 °Cno data
Texture fill rate46.0852.04
Floating-point processing power0.5962 TFLOPS1.665 TFLOPS
ROPs288
TMUs8040

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 x16IGP
Length267 mmno data
Height4.376" (111 mm) (11.1 cm)no data
Width2-slotIGP
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 typeGDDR3System Shared
Maximum RAM amount1792 MBSystem Shared
Standard memory config per GPU896 MBno data
Memory bus width896 BitSystem Shared
Memory clock speed999 MHzSystem Shared
Memory bandwidth223.8 GB/sno data
Memory interface width per GPU448 Bitno data

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
HDMI+-
Maximum VGA resolution2048x1536no data
Audio input for HDMIS/PDIFno 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)128bitno data

API compatibility

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

DirectX11.1 (10_0)12 (12_1)
Shader Model4.0no data
OpenGL2.14.6
OpenCL1.1no data
VulkanN/A-
CUDA+-

Pros & cons summary


Chip lithography 55 nm 14 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 289 Watt 10 Watt

Picasso has a 292.9% more advanced lithography process, and 2790% lower power consumption.

We couldn't decide between GeForce GTX 295 and Radeon Picasso. We've got no test results to judge.


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
AMD Radeon Picasso
Radeon Picasso

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 80 votes

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4.3 3 votes

Rate Radeon Picasso 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.