Radeon PRO W7900 vs Quadro NVS 295

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Quadro NVS 295 and Radeon PRO W7900, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.

NVS 295
2009
256 MB GDDR3, 23 Watt
0.24

PRO W7900 outperforms NVS 295 by a whopping 31488% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking136413
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluationno data16.79
Power efficiency0.7217.61
ArchitectureTesla (2006−2010)RDNA 3.0 (2022−2024)
GPU code nameG98Navi 31
Market segmentWorkstationWorkstation
Release date7 May 2009 (15 years ago)13 April 2023 (1 year ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$54.50 $3,999

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 cores86144
Core clock speed540 MHz1855 MHz
Boost clock speedno data2495 MHz
Number of transistors210 million57,700 million
Manufacturing process technology65 nm5 nm
Power consumption (TDP)23 Watt295 Watt
Texture fill rate4.320958.1
Floating-point processing power0.0208 TFLOPS61.32 TFLOPS
ROPs4192
TMUs8384
Ray Tracing Coresno data96

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 1.0 x16PCIe 4.0 x16
Length168 mm280 mm
Width1-slot3-slot
Supplementary power connectorsNone2x 8-pin

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 typeGDDR3GDDR6
Maximum RAM amount256 MB48 GB
Memory bus width64 Bit384 Bit
Memory clock speed695 MHz2250 MHz
Memory bandwidth11.12 GB/s864.0 GB/s

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 Connectors2x DisplayPort3x DisplayPort 2.1, 1x mini-DisplayPort 2.1

API compatibility

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

DirectX11.1 (10_0)12 Ultimate (12_2)
Shader Model4.06.7
OpenGL3.34.6
OpenCL1.12.2
VulkanN/A1.3
CUDA1.1-

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.

NVS 295 0.24
PRO W7900 75.81
+31488%

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.

NVS 295 93
PRO W7900 29204
+31302%

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 0.24 75.81
Recency 7 May 2009 13 April 2023
Maximum RAM amount 256 MB 48 GB
Chip lithography 65 nm 5 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 23 Watt 295 Watt

NVS 295 has 1182.6% lower power consumption.

PRO W7900, on the other hand, has a 31487.5% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 13 years, a 19100% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 1200% more advanced lithography process.

The Radeon PRO W7900 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro NVS 295 in performance tests.


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 NVS 295
Quadro NVS 295
AMD Radeon PRO W7900
Radeon PRO W7900

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.


2.7 17 votes

Rate Quadro NVS 295 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4 75 votes

Rate Radeon PRO W7900 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.