Quadro NVS 295 vs Quadro K1100M

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Quadro K1100M with Quadro NVS 295, including specs and performance data.

K1100M
2013
2 GB GDDR5, 45 Watt
2.83
+1079%

K1100M outperforms NVS 295 by a whopping 1079% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking7961364
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation1.06no data
Power efficiency4.310.72
ArchitectureKepler (2012−2018)Tesla (2006−2010)
GPU code nameGK107G98
Market segmentMobile workstationWorkstation
Release date23 July 2013 (11 years ago)7 May 2009 (15 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$109.94 $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 cores3848
Core clock speed706 MHz540 MHz
Number of transistors1,270 million210 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm65 nm
Power consumption (TDP)45 Watt23 Watt
Texture fill rate22.594.320
Floating-point processing power0.5422 TFLOPS0.0208 TFLOPS
ROPs164
TMUs328

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 sizemedium sizedno data
InterfaceMXM-A (3.0)PCIe 1.0 x16
Lengthno data168 mm
Widthno data1-slot
Supplementary power connectorsno dataNone

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 amount2 GB256 MB
Memory bus width128 Bit64 Bit
Memory clock speed700 MHz695 MHz
Memory bandwidth44.8 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 ConnectorsNo outputs2x DisplayPort
Display Port1.2no data

Supported technologies

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

Optimus+-
3D Vision Pro+no data
Mosaic+no data
nView Display Management+no data
Optimus+no data

API compatibility

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

DirectX1211.1 (10_0)
Shader Model5.14.0
OpenGL4.53.3
OpenCL1.21.1
Vulkan+N/A
CUDA+1.1

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.

K1100M 2.83
+1079%
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.

K1100M 1090
+1072%
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 HD17
+1600%
1−2
−1600%

Cost per frame, $

1080p6.4754.50

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 5−6 0−1

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 9−10 0−1
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 1−2 0−1
Battlefield 5 4−5 0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 7−8 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 5−6 0−1
Far Cry 5 5−6 0−1
Far Cry New Dawn 8−9 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 14−16
+1400%
1−2
−1400%
Hitman 3 8−9 0−1
Horizon Zero Dawn 21−24
+2100%
1−2
−2100%
Metro Exodus 3−4 0−1
Red Dead Redemption 2 7−8 0−1
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 12−14
+1100%
1−2
−1100%
Watch Dogs: Legion 35−40
+1167%
3−4
−1167%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 9−10 0−1
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 1−2 0−1
Battlefield 5 4−5 0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 7−8 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 5−6 0−1
Far Cry 5 5−6 0−1
Far Cry New Dawn 8−9 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 14−16
+1400%
1−2
−1400%
Hitman 3 8−9 0−1
Horizon Zero Dawn 21−24
+2100%
1−2
−2100%
Metro Exodus 3−4 0−1
Red Dead Redemption 2 7−8 0−1
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 12−14
+1100%
1−2
−1100%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 23
+2200%
1−2
−2200%
Watch Dogs: Legion 35−40
+1167%
3−4
−1167%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 9−10 0−1
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 1−2 0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 7−8 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 5−6 0−1
Far Cry 5 5−6 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 14−16
+1400%
1−2
−1400%
Hitman 3 8−9 0−1
Horizon Zero Dawn 21−24
+2100%
1−2
−2100%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 12−14
+1100%
1−2
−1100%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 4 0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion 35−40
+1167%
3−4
−1167%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 7−8 0−1

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 5−6 0−1
Far Cry New Dawn 4−5 0−1

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 2−3 0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2−3 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2 0−1
Far Cry 5 3−4 0−1
Hitman 3 8−9 0−1
Horizon Zero Dawn 7−8 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 2−3 0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion 16−18
+1600%
1−2
−1600%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 6−7 0−1

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5 1−2 0−1
Far Cry New Dawn 2−3 0−1

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 2−3 0−1
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 1−2 0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 1−2 0−1
Far Cry 5 1−2 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 0−1 0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion 1−2 0−1

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 4−5 0−1

This is how K1100M and NVS 295 compete in popular games:

  • K1100M is 1600% faster in 1080p

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 2.83 0.24
Recency 23 July 2013 7 May 2009
Maximum RAM amount 2 GB 256 MB
Chip lithography 28 nm 65 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 45 Watt 23 Watt

K1100M has a 1079.2% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 4 years, a 700% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 132.1% more advanced lithography process.

NVS 295, on the other hand, has 95.7% lower power consumption.

The Quadro K1100M is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro NVS 295 in performance tests.

Be aware that Quadro K1100M is a mobile workstation 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 Quadro K1100M
Quadro K1100M
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.


3.1 223 votes

Rate Quadro K1100M 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.