GeForce GTX 295 vs Radeon RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 4000/5000)
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 4000/5000) with GeForce GTX 295, including specs and performance data.
RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 4000/5000) outperforms GTX 295 by a whopping 187% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 497 | 768 |
| Place by popularity | 31 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 0.14 |
| Power efficiency | 41.20 | 0.75 |
| Architecture | Vega (2017−2020) | Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013) |
| GPU code name | Vega | GT200B |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop |
| Release date | 7 January 2020 (5 years ago) | 8 January 2009 (16 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $500 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.
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 | 512 | 480 |
| CUDA cores per GPU | no data | 240 |
| Core clock speed | no data | 576 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 2100 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | no data | 1,400 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 7 nm | 55 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 15 Watt | 289 Watt |
| Maximum GPU temperature | no data | 105 °C |
| Texture fill rate | no data | 46.08 |
| Floating-point processing power | no data | 0.5962 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | no data | 28 |
| TMUs | no data | 80 |
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 | no data | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Length | no data | 267 mm |
| Height | no data | 4.376" (111 mm) (11.1 cm) |
| Width | no data | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin |
| SLI options | - | + |
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 | no data | GDDR3 |
| Maximum RAM amount | no data | 1792 MB |
| Standard memory config per GPU | no data | 896 MB |
| Memory bus width | no data | 896 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | no data | 999 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | no data | 223.8 GB/s |
| Memory interface width per GPU | no data | 448 Bit |
| 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 Connectors | no data | Two Dual Link DVIHDMI |
| Multi monitor support | no data | + |
| HDMI | - | + |
| Maximum VGA resolution | no data | 2048x1536 |
| Audio input for HDMI | no data | S/PDIF |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| High Dynamic-Range Lighting (HDRR) | no data | 128bit |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12_1 | 11.1 (10_0) |
| Shader Model | no data | 4.0 |
| OpenGL | no data | 2.1 |
| OpenCL | no data | 1.1 |
| Vulkan | - | N/A |
| CUDA | - | + |
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 HD | 23
+188%
| 8−9
−188%
|
| 1440p | 17
+240%
| 5−6
−240%
|
| 4K | 9
+200%
| 3−4
−200%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | no data | 62.50 |
| 1440p | no data | 100.00 |
| 4K | no data | 166.67 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 13
+225%
|
4−5
−225%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 19
+217%
|
6−7
−217%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 27−30
+190%
|
10−11
−190%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 9
+200%
|
3−4
−200%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 15
+200%
|
5−6
−200%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 32
+220%
|
10−11
−220%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 21
+200%
|
7−8
−200%
|
| Metro Exodus | 27
+200%
|
9−10
−200%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 33
+230%
|
10−11
−230%
|
| Valorant | 44
+214%
|
14−16
−214%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 27−30
+190%
|
10−11
−190%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 9
+200%
|
3−4
−200%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 11
+267%
|
3−4
−267%
|
| Dota 2 | 29
+190%
|
10−11
−190%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 30
+200%
|
10−11
−200%
|
| Fortnite | 50−55
+194%
|
18−20
−194%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 27
+200%
|
9−10
−200%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 13
+225%
|
4−5
−225%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 19
+217%
|
6−7
−217%
|
| Metro Exodus | 19
+217%
|
6−7
−217%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 57
+217%
|
18−20
−217%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 12
+200%
|
4−5
−200%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 27−30
+200%
|
9−10
−200%
|
| Valorant | 14
+250%
|
4−5
−250%
|
| World of Tanks | 48
+200%
|
16−18
−200%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 27−30
+190%
|
10−11
−190%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 16−18
+220%
|
5−6
−220%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 9
+200%
|
3−4
−200%
|
| Dota 2 | 48
+200%
|
16−18
−200%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 35−40
+208%
|
12−14
−208%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 23
+188%
|
8−9
−188%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 14
+250%
|
4−5
−250%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 70−75
+192%
|
24−27
−192%
|
| Valorant | 37
+208%
|
12−14
−208%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Dota 2 | 9
+200%
|
3−4
−200%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 9
+200%
|
3−4
−200%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 22
+214%
|
7−8
−214%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 7−8
+250%
|
2−3
−250%
|
| World of Tanks | 21
+200%
|
7−8
−200%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 16−18
+240%
|
5−6
−240%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 18−20
+217%
|
6−7
−217%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 16
+220%
|
5−6
−220%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 12−14
+225%
|
4−5
−225%
|
| Metro Exodus | 17
+240%
|
5−6
−240%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 12−14
+200%
|
4−5
−200%
|
| Valorant | 39
+225%
|
12−14
−225%
|
4K
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 10
+233%
|
3−4
−233%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 10
+233%
|
3−4
−233%
|
| Metro Exodus | 6
+200%
|
2−3
−200%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 13
+225%
|
4−5
−225%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 6−7
+200%
|
2−3
−200%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 10
+233%
|
3−4
−233%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 8−9
+300%
|
2−3
−300%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
+200%
|
1−2
−200%
|
| Dota 2 | 18
+200%
|
6−7
−200%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 10−12
+267%
|
3−4
−267%
|
| Fortnite | 9−10
+200%
|
3−4
−200%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 9
+200%
|
3−4
−200%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 6−7
+200%
|
2−3
−200%
|
| Valorant | 9−10
+200%
|
3−4
−200%
|
This is how RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 4000/5000) and GTX 295 compete in popular games:
- RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 4000/5000) is 188% faster in 1080p
- RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 4000/5000) is 240% faster in 1440p
- RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 4000/5000) is 200% faster in 4K
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 8.61 | 3.00 |
| Recency | 7 January 2020 | 8 January 2009 |
| Chip lithography | 7 nm | 55 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 15 Watt | 289 Watt |
RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 4000/5000) has a 187% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 10 years, a 685.7% more advanced lithography process, and 1826.7% lower power consumption.
The Radeon RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 4000/5000) is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTX 295 in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 4000/5000) is a notebook card while GeForce GTX 295 is a desktop one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
