ATI Radeon X1650 PRO vs Quadro NVS 295

Place in the ranking	1363	1374
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Power efficiency	0.72	0.34
Architecture	Tesla (2006−2010)	Ultra-Threaded SE (2005−2007)
GPU code name	G98	RV530
Market segment	Workstation	Desktop
Release date	7 May 2009 (15 years ago)	1 February 2007 (17 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	$54.50	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	8	no data
Core clock speed	540 MHz	600 MHz
Number of transistors	210 million	157 million
Manufacturing process technology	65 nm	90 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	23 Watt	44 Watt
Texture fill rate	4.320	2.400
Floating-point processing power	0.0208 TFLOPS	no data
ROPs	4	4
TMUs	8	4

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 1.0 x16	PCIe 1.0 x16
Length	168 mm	no data
Width	1-slot	1-slot
Supplementary power connectors	None	None

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	GDDR3
Maximum RAM amount	256 MB	256 MB
Memory bus width	64 Bit	128 Bit
Memory clock speed	695 MHz	700 MHz
Memory bandwidth	11.12 GB/s	22.4 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 Connectors

2x DisplayPort

1x DVI, 1x VGA, 1x S-Video

API compatibility

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

DirectX	11.1 (10_0)	9.0c (9_3)
Shader Model	4.0	3.0
OpenGL	3.3	2.1
OpenCL	1.1	N/A
Vulkan	N/A	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.

NVS 295 0.24
+9.1%

ATI X1650 PRO 0.22

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
+10.7%

ATI X1650 PRO 84

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	0.22
Recency	7 May 2009	1 February 2007
Chip lithography	65 nm	90 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	23 Watt	44 Watt

NVS 295 has a 9.1% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 2 years, a 38.5% more advanced lithography process, and 91.3% lower power consumption.

Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between Quadro NVS 295 and Radeon X1650 PRO.

Be aware that Quadro NVS 295 is a workstation graphics card while Radeon X1650 PRO is a desktop one.

Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.