FirePro 3D V8700 vs GeForce GTX 295
FirePro 3D V8700
Popular choices:
GeForce GTX 295
Popular choices:
Performance Spectrum - GPU
About G3D Mark
G3D Mark is a standard benchmark that measures graphics performance in real-world gaming scenarios. It simplifies comparing cards from different brands, where higher scores directly correlate with better fps and smoother gaming experiences.
Value Upgrade Path
This is the official ChipVERSUS Value Rating, comparing raw performance (G3D Mark) per dollar. Components placed above yours deliver better value for money. The FirePro 3D V8700 is positioned at rank 365 and the GeForce GTX 295 is on rank 301, so the GeForce GTX 295 offers better cost-efficiency for playing games.
Avg price is the current average price collected from markets across the web.
Performance Per Dollar FirePro 3D V8700
Performance Per Dollar GeForce GTX 295
Performance Comparison
About G3D Mark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
🚀 Performance Leadership
The FirePro 3D V8700 is the superior choice for raw performance. It leads with a 0.7% higher G3D Mark score. However, the GeForce GTX 295 offers more VRAM, which may be beneficial for texture-heavy scenarios at higher resolutions.
| Insight | FirePro 3D V8700 | GeForce GTX 295 |
|---|---|---|
| Performance | ✅Leading raw performance (+0.7%) | ❌Lower raw frame rates (-0.7%) |
| Longevity | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2014 / GCN 1.0 (2012−2020)) | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2009 / Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013)) |
| Ecosystem | Supports FSR Upscaling | Supports FSR Upscaling |
| VRAM | ❌ Less VRAM capacity | ✅ More VRAM (+75%) |
| Efficiency | Normal Efficiency | Normal Efficiency |
| Case Fit | Standard Size (254mm) | Standard Size (267mm) |
💎 Value Proposition
The GeForce GTX 295 offers a compelling cost-to-performance ratio. While both GPUs are considered legacy components by modern standards, the GeForce GTX 295 holds the technical lead. Priced at $50 (vs $1,229), it costs 96% less, resulting in a 2341.7% higher cost efficiency score.
| Insight | FirePro 3D V8700 | GeForce GTX 295 |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ❌Lower cost efficiency | ✅Better overall value (+2341.7%) |
| Upfront Cost | ⚠️Higher upfront cost ($1,229) | ✅More affordable ($50) |
Performance Check
Real-world benchmarks and performance projections based on comprehensive hardware analysis and comparative metrics. Values represent expected performance on High/Ultra settings at 1080p, 1440p, and 4K. Modeled using a Ryzen 7 7800X3D reference profile to minimize specific CPU bottlenecks.
Note: Performance behavior can vary per game. Specific architectures may perform better or worse depending on game engine optimizations and API implementation.
Technical Specifications
Side-by-side comparison of FirePro 3D V8700 and GeForce GTX 295
FirePro 3D V8700
The FirePro 3D V8700 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in January 18 2014. It features the GCN 1.0 architecture. The core clock speed is 850 MHz. It has 2048 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 274W. Manufactured using 28 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 1,206 points.
GeForce GTX 295
The GeForce GTX 295 is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in January 8 2009. It features the Tesla 2.0 architecture. The core clock speed is 576 MHz. It has 480 ×2 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 289W. Manufactured using 55 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 1,198 points. Launch price was $500.
Graphics Performance
The FirePro 3D V8700 scores 1,206 and the GeForce GTX 295 reaches 1,198 in the G3D Mark benchmark — just a 0.7% difference, making them near-identical in rasterization performance. The FirePro 3D V8700 is built on GCN 1.0 while the GeForce GTX 295 uses Tesla 2.0, both on 28 nm vs 55 nm. Shader units: 2,048 (FirePro 3D V8700) vs 480 (GeForce GTX 295). Raw compute: 3.482 TFLOPS (FirePro 3D V8700) vs 0.5962 TFLOPS ×2 (GeForce GTX 295).
| Feature | FirePro 3D V8700 | GeForce GTX 295 |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 1,206 | 1,198 |
| Architecture | GCN 1.0 | Tesla 2.0 |
| Process Node | 28 nm | 55 nm |
| Shading Units | 2048+327% | 480 ×2 |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 3.482 TFLOPS+484% | 0.5962 TFLOPS ×2 |
| ROPs | 32+14% | 28 ×2 |
| TMUs | 128+60% | 80 ×2 |
| L2 Cache | 768 KB+243% | 224 KB |
Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)
| Feature | FirePro 3D V8700 | GeForce GTX 295 |
|---|---|---|
| Upscaling Tech | FSR 1.0 (Software) | FSR 2.1 (Compatible) |
| Frame Generation | Not Supported | FSR 3 (Compatible) |
| Ray Reconstruction | No | No |
| Low Latency | Standard | Standard |
Video Memory (VRAM)
The FirePro 3D V8700 comes with 1 GB of VRAM, while the GeForce GTX 295 has 2 GB. The GeForce GTX 295 offers 75% more capacity, crucial for higher resolutions and texture-heavy games. Bus width: 64-bit vs 128-bit. L2 Cache: 768 KB (FirePro 3D V8700) vs 224 KB (GeForce GTX 295) — the FirePro 3D V8700 has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.
| Feature | FirePro 3D V8700 | GeForce GTX 295 |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 1 GB | 1.75 GB+75% |
| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Bus Width | 64-bit | 128-bit+100% |
| L2 Cache | 768 KB+243% | 224 KB |
Display & API Support
DirectX support: 10.1 (FirePro 3D V8700) vs 11.1 (10_0) (GeForce GTX 295). OpenGL: 3.3 vs 3.3. Maximum simultaneous displays: 2 vs 2.
| Feature | FirePro 3D V8700 | GeForce GTX 295 |
|---|---|---|
| DirectX | 10.1 | 11.1 (10_0)+10% |
| OpenGL | 3.3 | 3.3 |
| Max Displays | 2 | 2 |
Media & Encoding
Hardware encoder: UVD 2 (FirePro 3D V8700) vs PureVideo HD VP2 (GeForce GTX 295). Decoder: UVD 2 vs PureVideo HD VP2. Supported codecs: MPEG-2,H.264,VC-1 (FirePro 3D V8700) vs H.264,VC-1,MPEG-2 (GeForce GTX 295).
| Feature | FirePro 3D V8700 | GeForce GTX 295 |
|---|---|---|
| Encoder | UVD 2 | PureVideo HD VP2 |
| Decoder | UVD 2 | PureVideo HD VP2 |
| Codecs | MPEG-2,H.264,VC-1 | H.264,VC-1,MPEG-2 |
Power & Dimensions
The FirePro 3D V8700 draws 274W versus the GeForce GTX 295's 289W — a 5.3% difference. The FirePro 3D V8700 is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 350W (FirePro 3D V8700) vs 680W (GeForce GTX 295). Power connectors: PCIe-powered vs 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin. Card length: 254mm vs 267mm, occupying 2 vs 2 slots. Typical load temperature: 70°C vs 95°C.
| Feature | FirePro 3D V8700 | GeForce GTX 295 |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 274W-5% | 289W |
| Recommended PSU | 350W-49% | 680W |
| Power Connector | PCIe-powered | 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin |
| Length | 254mm | 267mm |
| Height | 111mm | 111mm |
| Slots | 2 | 2 |
| Temp (Load) | 70°C-26% | 95°C |
| Perf/Watt | 4.4+7% | 4.1 |
Value Analysis
The FirePro 3D V8700 launched at $1499 MSRP and currently averages $1229, while the GeForce GTX 295 launched at $499 and now averages $50. The GeForce GTX 295 costs 95.9% less ($1179 savings) at current market prices. Performance per dollar (G3D Mark / price): 1.0 (FirePro 3D V8700) vs 24.0 (GeForce GTX 295) — the GeForce GTX 295 offers 2300% better value. The FirePro 3D V8700 is the newer GPU (2014 vs 2009).
| Feature | FirePro 3D V8700 | GeForce GTX 295 |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $1499 | $499-67% |
| Avg Price (30d) | $1229 | $50-96% |
| Performance per Dollar | 1.0 | 24.0+2300% |
| Codename | Tahiti | GT200B |
| Release | January 18 2014 | January 8 2009 |
| Ranking | #423 | #816 |
Top Performing GPUs
The most powerful gpus ranked by G3D Mark benchmark scores.
You May Also Compare
Similar GPU comparisons based on FirePro 3D V8700 and GeForce GTX 295
