Radeon RX 7900 XTX vs Quadro NVS 295

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Quadro NVS 295 with Radeon RX 7900 XTX, including specs and performance data.

NVS 295
2009
256 MB GDDR3, 23 Watt
0.29

RX 7900 XTX outperforms NVS 295 by a whopping 27693% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking13489
Place by popularitynot in top-10053
Cost-effectiveness evaluationno data34.85
Power efficiency0.8715.59
ArchitectureTesla (2006−2010)RDNA 3.0 (2022−2025)
GPU code nameG98Navi 31
Market segmentWorkstationDesktop
Release date7 May 2009 (15 years ago)3 November 2022 (2 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$54.50 $999

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.

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 MHz1929 MHz
Boost clock speedno data2498 MHz
Number of transistors210 million57,700 million
Manufacturing process technology65 nm5 nm
Power consumption (TDP)23 Watt355 Watt
Texture fill rate4.320959.2
Floating-point processing power0.0208 TFLOPS61.39 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 mm287 mm
Width1-slot2-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 MB24 GB
Memory bus width64 Bit384 Bit
Memory clock speed695 MHz2500 MHz
Memory bandwidth11.12 GB/s960.0 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 Connectors2x DisplayPort1x HDMI 2.1a, 2x DisplayPort 2.1, 1x USB Type-C
HDMI-+

API and SDK 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.

NVS 295 0.29
RX 7900 XTX 80.60
+27693%

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 295 111
RX 7900 XTX 31053
+27876%

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 HD0−1243
1440p0−1164
4K-0−1101

Cost per frame, $

1080pno data4.11
1440pno data6.09
4Kno data9.89

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Atomic Heart 359
+0%
359
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 214
+0%
214
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 250
+0%
250
+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Atomic Heart 290
+0%
290
+0%
Battlefield 5 190−200
+0%
190−200
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 241
+0%
241
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 240
+0%
240
+0%
Far Cry 5 212
+0%
212
+0%
Fortnite 300−350
+0%
300−350
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 338
+0%
338
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 269
+0%
269
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 170−180
+0%
170−180
+0%
Valorant 450−500
+0%
450−500
+0%

Full HD
High Preset

Atomic Heart 199
+0%
199
+0%
Battlefield 5 190−200
+0%
190−200
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 220
+0%
220
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 270−280
+0%
270−280
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 217
+0%
217
+0%
Dota 2 197
+0%
197
+0%
Far Cry 5 205
+0%
205
+0%
Fortnite 300−350
+0%
300−350
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 330
+0%
330
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 254
+0%
254
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 175
+0%
175
+0%
Metro Exodus 239
+0%
239
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 170−180
+0%
170−180
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 545
+0%
545
+0%
Valorant 450−500
+0%
450−500
+0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 190−200
+0%
190−200
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 206
+0%
206
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 207
+0%
207
+0%
Dota 2 178
+0%
178
+0%
Far Cry 5 189
+0%
189
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 295
+0%
295
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 170−180
+0%
170−180
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 298
+0%
298
+0%
Valorant 450−500
+0%
450−500
+0%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Fortnite 300−350
+0%
300−350
+0%

1440p
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2 90−95
+0%
90−95
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 500−550
+0%
500−550
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 165
+0%
165
+0%
Metro Exodus 161
+0%
161
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 170−180
+0%
170−180
+0%
Valorant 450−500
+0%
450−500
+0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 190−200
+0%
190−200
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 146
+0%
146
+0%
Far Cry 5 187
+0%
187
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 290
+0%
290
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 242
+0%
242
+0%

1440p
Epic Preset

Fortnite 150−160
+0%
150−160
+0%

4K
High Preset

Atomic Heart 75−80
+0%
75−80
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 60−65
+0%
60−65
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 186
+0%
186
+0%
Metro Exodus 108
+0%
108
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 200
+0%
200
+0%
Valorant 300−350
+0%
300−350
+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 130−140
+0%
130−140
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 55
+0%
55
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 73
+0%
73
+0%
Dota 2 159
+0%
159
+0%
Far Cry 5 159
+0%
159
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 227
+0%
227
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 95−100
+0%
95−100
+0%

4K
Epic Preset

Fortnite 75−80
+0%
75−80
+0%

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 64 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 0.29 80.60
Recency 7 May 2009 3 November 2022
Maximum RAM amount 256 MB 24 GB
Chip lithography 65 nm 5 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 23 Watt 355 Watt

NVS 295 has 1443.5% lower power consumption.

RX 7900 XTX, on the other hand, has a 27693.1% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 13 years, a 9500% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 1200% more advanced lithography process.

The Radeon RX 7900 XTX 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 7900 XTX is a desktop one.

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 7900 XTX
Radeon RX 7900 XTX

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
4.1 4124 votes

Rate Radeon RX 7900 XTX on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can give us your opinion about Quadro NVS 295 or Radeon RX 7900 XTX, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.