Radeon R7 350 vs GeForce GTX 295

Place in the ranking	748	597
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	0.12	no data
Power efficiency	0.75	7.03
Architecture	Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013)	GCN 1.0 (2011−2020)
GPU code name	GT200B	Cape Verde
Market segment	Desktop	Desktop
Release date	8 January 2009 (15 years ago)	6 July 2016 (8 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 cores	480	512
CUDA cores per GPU	240	no data
Core clock speed	576 MHz	800 MHz
Number of transistors	1,400 million	1,500 million
Manufacturing process technology	55 nm	28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	289 Watt	55 Watt
Maximum GPU temperature	105 °C	no data
Texture fill rate	46.08	25.60
Floating-point processing power	0.5962 TFLOPS	0.8192 TFLOPS
ROPs	28	16
TMUs	80	32

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 x16
Length	267 mm	168 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	2 GB
Standard memory config per GPU	896 MB	no data
Memory bus width	896 Bit	128 Bit
Memory clock speed	999 MHz	1125 MHz
Memory bandwidth	223.8 GB/s	72 GB/s
Memory interface width per GPU	448 Bit	no 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 Connectors	Two Dual Link DVIHDMI	1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort
Multi monitor support	+	no data
HDMI	+	+
Maximum VGA resolution	2048x1536	no data
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

API compatibility

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

DirectX	11.1 (10_0)	12 (11_1)
Shader Model	4.0	5.1
OpenGL	2.1	4.6
OpenCL	1.1	1.2
Vulkan	N/A	1.2.131
CUDA	+	-

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	3.13	5.58
Recency	8 January 2009	6 July 2016
Maximum RAM amount	1792 MB	2 GB
Chip lithography	55 nm	28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	289 Watt	55 Watt

R7 350 has a 78.3% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 7 years, a 14.3% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 96.4% more advanced lithography process, and 425.5% lower power consumption.

The Radeon R7 350 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.