Radeon RX 6750 XT vs Quadro NVS 295

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Quadro NVS 295 with Radeon RX 6750 XT, including specs and performance data.

NVS 295
2009
256 MB GDDR3, 23 Watt
0.24

RX 6750 XT outperforms NVS 295 by a whopping 22421% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking136747
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluationno data51.13
Power efficiency0.7214.88
ArchitectureTesla (2006−2010)RDNA 2.0 (2020−2024)
GPU code nameG98Navi 22
Market segmentWorkstationDesktop
Release date7 May 2009 (15 years ago)3 March 2022 (2 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$54.50 $549

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 cores82560
Core clock speed540 MHz2150 MHz
Boost clock speedno data2600 MHz
Number of transistors210 million17,200 million
Manufacturing process technology65 nm7 nm
Power consumption (TDP)23 Watt250 Watt
Texture fill rate4.320416.0
Floating-point processing power0.0208 TFLOPS13.31 TFLOPS
ROPs464
TMUs8160
Ray Tracing Coresno data40

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 mm267 mm
Width1-slot2-slot
Supplementary power connectorsNone1x 6-pin + 1x 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 MB12 GB
Memory bus width64 Bit192 Bit
Memory clock speed695 MHz2250 MHz
Memory bandwidth11.12 GB/s432.0 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 DisplayPort1x HDMI 2.1, 3x DisplayPort 1.4a
HDMI-+

API compatibility

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

DirectX11.1 (10_0)12 Ultimate (12_2)
Shader Model4.06.5
OpenGL3.34.6
OpenCL1.12.1
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
RX 6750 XT 54.05
+22421%

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
RX 6750 XT 20778
+22242%

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 HD0−1165
1440p-0−187
4K-0−151

Cost per frame, $

1080pno data3.33
1440pno data6.31
4Kno data10.76

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2 166
+0%
166
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 165
+0%
165
+0%
Elden Ring 197
+0%
197
+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5 110−120
+0%
110−120
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 130
+0%
130
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 64
+0%
64
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 368
+0%
368
+0%
Metro Exodus 150
+0%
150
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 100−105
+0%
100−105
+0%
Valorant 230−240
+0%
230−240
+0%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5 110−120
+0%
110−120
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 109
+0%
109
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 54
+0%
54
+0%
Dota 2 159
+0%
159
+0%
Elden Ring 66
+0%
66
+0%
Far Cry 5 49
+0%
49
+0%
Fortnite 210−220
+0%
210−220
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 304
+0%
304
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 162
+0%
162
+0%
Metro Exodus 120
+0%
120
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 210−220
+0%
210−220
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 100−105
+0%
100−105
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 170−180
+0%
170−180
+0%
Valorant 230−240
+0%
230−240
+0%
World of Tanks 270−280
+0%
270−280
+0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 110−120
+0%
110−120
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 96
+0%
96
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 49
+0%
49
+0%
Dota 2 131
+0%
131
+0%
Far Cry 5 110−120
+0%
110−120
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 260
+0%
260
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 210−220
+0%
210−220
+0%
Valorant 230−240
+0%
230−240
+0%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2 106
+0%
106
+0%
Elden Ring 126
+0%
126
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 106
+0%
106
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 170−180
+0%
170−180
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 60−65
+0%
60−65
+0%
World of Tanks 300−350
+0%
300−350
+0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 85−90
+0%
85−90
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 57
+0%
57
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 30
+0%
30
+0%
Far Cry 5 160−170
+0%
160−170
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 186
+0%
186
+0%
Metro Exodus 126
+0%
126
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 100−110
+0%
100−110
+0%
Valorant 190−200
+0%
190−200
+0%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2 33
+0%
33
+0%
Dota 2 104
+0%
104
+0%
Elden Ring 59
+0%
59
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 104
+0%
104
+0%
Metro Exodus 47
+0%
47
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 180−190
+0%
180−190
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 104
+0%
104
+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 65−70
+0%
65−70
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 60−65
+0%
60−65
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 13
+0%
13
+0%
Dota 2 101
+0%
101
+0%
Far Cry 5 90−95
+0%
90−95
+0%
Fortnite 90−95
+0%
90−95
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 99
+0%
99
+0%
Valorant 110−120
+0%
110−120
+0%

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 63 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 0.24 54.05
Recency 7 May 2009 3 March 2022
Maximum RAM amount 256 MB 12 GB
Chip lithography 65 nm 7 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 23 Watt 250 Watt

NVS 295 has 987% lower power consumption.

RX 6750 XT, on the other hand, has a 22420.8% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 12 years, a 4700% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 828.6% more advanced lithography process.

The Radeon RX 6750 XT is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro NVS 295 in performance tests.

Be aware that Quadro NVS 295 is a workstation graphics card while Radeon RX 6750 XT is a desktop 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 NVS 295
Quadro NVS 295
AMD Radeon RX 6750 XT
Radeon RX 6750 XT

Other comparisons

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
4.4 2665 votes

Rate Radeon RX 6750 XT 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.