GeForce GT 650M vs GeForce GTX 295

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 GeForce GT 650M is positioned at rank 188 and the GeForce GTX 295 is on rank 301, so the GeForce GT 650M offers better cost-efficiency for playing games.

MSRP is the manufacturer's suggested retail price.•
Avg price is the current average price collected from markets across the web.

Performance Per Dollar GeForce GT 650M

#178

Radeon RX 550X (móvel)

MSRP: $35|Avg: $35

366%

#180

GeForce GTX 1070 with Max-Q Design

MSRP: N/A|Avg: $150

332%

#181

GeForce GTX 1060 with Max-Q Design

MSRP: N/A|Avg: $100

331%

#185

GeForce GTX 1050 (Mobile)

MSRP: N/A|Avg: $50

301%

#186

Radeon RX 6300

MSRP: $60|Avg: $40

299%

#188

GeForce GT 650M

MSRP: N/A|Avg: N/A

100%

#195

GeForce GT625M

MSRP: N/A|Avg: $45

95%

#197

Qualcomm SD X Adreno X1-85 4.6 TFLOPS

MSRP: $250|Avg: $250

94%

#203

GeForce GT 730M

MSRP: N/A|Avg: $45

91%

Based on actual market prices and performance benchmarks.

Performance Per Dollar GeForce GTX 295

#1

GeForce RTX 3060 Ti

MSRP: $399|Avg: $280

3023%

#2

GeForce RTX 5060

MSRP: $299|Avg: $299

2904%

#3

Radeon RX 5600 XT

MSRP: $279|Avg: $180

2870%

#4

Radeon RX 9060

MSRP: $249|Avg: $249

2865%

#5

GeForce RTX 5050

MSRP: $249|Avg: $249

2859%

#6

GeForce RTX 3050 OEM

MSRP: $249|Avg: $150

2843%

#7

Arc A580

MSRP: $179|Avg: $179

2807%

#8

Radeon RX 9060 XT

MSRP: $299|Avg: $299

2797%

#9

Radeon RX 9060 XT 8GB

MSRP: $299|Avg: $299

2771%

#10

Radeon RX 7600

MSRP: $269|Avg: $250

2763%

#11

Radeon RX 6600

MSRP: $329|Avg: $180

2730%

#12

GeForce RTX 4060

MSRP: $299|Avg: $299

2724%

#13

Arc B570

MSRP: $219|Avg: $219

2675%

#14

Arc B580

MSRP: $249|Avg: $249

2673%

#286

Radeon R5 430 OEM

MSRP: N/A|Avg: $13

3333%

#301

GeForce GTX 295

MSRP: $499|Avg: $50

100%

#302

Radeon HD 4870 X2

MSRP: $550|Avg: $550

99%

#303

Radeon HD 3850 X2

MSRP: $349|Avg: $349

98%

#305

Radeon HD 4290

MSRP: $60|Avg: $10

98%

#306

Radeon HD 5450

MSRP: $60|Avg: $40

95%

#308

Radeon HD 3850

MSRP: $179|Avg: $179

93%

#309

Radeon HD 4200

MSRP: $50|Avg: $10

93%

#311

Radeon HD 4270

MSRP: $50|Avg: $10

92%

#312

Radeon E6460

MSRP: $150|Avg: $40

90%

#313

Radeon HD 6290

MSRP: $50|Avg: $50

88%

#314

GeForce GTX 280

MSRP: $649|Avg: $649

83%

#315

Radeon HD 3470

MSRP: $60|Avg: $15

81%

#316

Radeon HD 3000

MSRP: $50|Avg: $10

80%

Based on actual market prices and performance benchmarks.

Performance Comparison

About G3D Mark

🏆 Chipversus Verdict

🚀 Performance Leadership

The GeForce GTX 295 is the superior choice for raw performance. It leads with a 0.9% higher G3D Mark score. However, the GeForce GT 650M offers more VRAM, which may be beneficial for texture-heavy scenarios at higher resolutions.

Insight	GeForce GT 650M	GeForce GTX 295
Performance	❌Lower raw frame rates (-0.9%)	✅Leading raw performance (+0.9%)
Longevity	🛑Obsolete Architecture (2012 / Kepler (2012−2018))	🛑Obsolete Architecture (2009 / Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013))
Ecosystem	Supports FSR Upscaling	Supports FSR Upscaling
VRAM	✅ More VRAM (+14.3%)	❌ Less VRAM capacity
Efficiency	💡 Excellent Perf/Watt	⚡ Higher Power Consumption
Case Fit	—	Standard Size (267mm)

💎 Value Proposition

While current pricing data is unavailable, the GeForce GTX 295 remains the clear technical winner. Check real-time availability to determine if the performance gap justifies the market price.

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.

GeForce GT 650M Benchmark Check

GeForce GTX 295 Benchmark Check

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of GeForce GT 650M and GeForce GTX 295

GeForce GT 650M

The GeForce GT 650M is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in March 22 2012. It features the Kepler architecture. The core clock ranges from Up to 900 MHz to 950 MHz. It has 384 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 45W. Manufactured using 28 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 1,187 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 GeForce GT 650M scores 1,187 and the GeForce GTX 295 reaches 1,198 in the G3D Mark benchmark — just a 0.9% difference, making them near-identical in rasterization performance. The GeForce GT 650M is built on Kepler while the GeForce GTX 295 uses Tesla 2.0, both on 28 nm vs 55 nm. Shader units: 384 (GeForce GT 650M) vs 480 (GeForce GTX 295). Raw compute: 0.7296 TFLOPS (GeForce GT 650M) vs 0.5962 TFLOPS ×2 (GeForce GTX 295).

Feature	GeForce GT 650M	GeForce GTX 295
G3D Mark Score	1,187	1,198
Architecture	Kepler	Tesla 2.0
Process Node	28 nm	55 nm
Shading Units	384	480 ×2+25%
Compute (TFLOPS)	0.7296 TFLOPS+22%	0.5962 TFLOPS ×2
ROPs	16	28 ×2+75%
TMUs	32	80 ×2+150%
L2 Cache	256 KB+14%	224 KB

✨

Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)

Feature	GeForce GT 650M	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 GeForce GT 650M comes with 2 GB of VRAM, while the GeForce GTX 295 has 2 GB. The GeForce GT 650M offers 14.3% more capacity, crucial for higher resolutions and texture-heavy games. Bus width: 128-bit vs 128-bit. L2 Cache: 256 KB (GeForce GT 650M) vs 224 KB (GeForce GTX 295) — the GeForce GT 650M has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.

Feature	GeForce GT 650M	GeForce GTX 295
VRAM Capacity	2 GB+14%	1.75 GB
Memory Type	GDDR5	GDDR5
Memory Bandwidth	Unknown	Unknown
Bus Width	128-bit	128-bit
L2 Cache	256 KB+14%	224 KB

🖥️

Display & API Support

DirectX support: 12 (FL11_0) (GeForce GT 650M) vs 11.1 (10_0) (GeForce GTX 295). OpenGL: 4.5 vs 3.3. Maximum simultaneous displays: 4 vs 2.

Feature	GeForce GT 650M	GeForce GTX 295
DirectX	12 (FL11_0)+8%	11.1 (10_0)
OpenGL	4.5+36%	3.3
Max Displays	4+100%	2

🎬

Media & Encoding

Hardware encoder: NVENC (Kepler) (GeForce GT 650M) vs PureVideo HD VP2 (GeForce GTX 295). Decoder: VP5 vs PureVideo HD VP2. Supported codecs: H.264,VC-1,MPEG-4,MPEG-1/2 (GeForce GT 650M) vs H.264,VC-1,MPEG-2 (GeForce GTX 295).

Feature	GeForce GT 650M	GeForce GTX 295
Encoder	NVENC (Kepler)	PureVideo HD VP2
Decoder	VP5	PureVideo HD VP2
Codecs	H.264,VC-1,MPEG-4,MPEG-1/2	H.264,VC-1,MPEG-2

🔌

Power & Dimensions

The GeForce GT 650M draws 45W versus the GeForce GTX 295's 289W — a 146.1% difference. The GeForce GT 650M is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 350W (GeForce GT 650M) vs 680W (GeForce GTX 295). Power connectors: PCIe-powered vs 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin. Card length: 0mm vs 267mm, occupying 0 vs 2 slots. Typical load temperature: 85°C vs 95°C.

Feature	GeForce GT 650M	GeForce GTX 295
TDP	45W-84%	289W
Recommended PSU	350W-49%	680W
Power Connector	PCIe-powered	1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin
Length	0mm	267mm
Height	0mm	111mm
Slots	0-100%	2
Temp (Load)	85°C-11%	95°C
Perf/Watt	26.4+544%	4.1