GeForce GTX 295 vs FirePro 3D V8700
GeForce GTX 295
Popular choices:
FirePro 3D V8700
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 GeForce GTX 295 is positioned at rank 301 and the FirePro 3D V8700 is on rank 365, 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 GeForce GTX 295
Performance Per Dollar FirePro 3D V8700
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 | GeForce GTX 295 | FirePro 3D V8700 |
|---|---|---|
| Performance | ❌Lower raw frame rates (-0.7%) | ✅Leading raw performance (+0.7%) |
| Longevity | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2009 / Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013)) | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2014 / GCN 1.0 (2012−2020)) |
| Ecosystem | Supports FSR Upscaling | Supports FSR Upscaling |
| VRAM | ✅ More VRAM (+75%) | ❌ Less VRAM capacity |
| Efficiency | Normal Efficiency | Normal Efficiency |
| Case Fit | Standard Size (267mm) | Standard Size (254mm) |
💎 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 | GeForce GTX 295 | FirePro 3D V8700 |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ✅Better overall value (+2341.7%) | ❌Lower cost efficiency |
| Upfront Cost | ✅More affordable ($50) | ⚠️Higher upfront cost ($1,229) |
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 GeForce GTX 295 and FirePro 3D V8700
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.
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.
Graphics Performance
The GeForce GTX 295 scores 1,198 and the FirePro 3D V8700 reaches 1,206 in the G3D Mark benchmark — just a 0.7% difference, making them near-identical in rasterization performance. The GeForce GTX 295 is built on Tesla 2.0 while the FirePro 3D V8700 uses GCN 1.0, both on 55 nm vs 28 nm. Shader units: 480 (GeForce GTX 295) vs 2,048 (FirePro 3D V8700). Raw compute: 0.5962 TFLOPS ×2 (GeForce GTX 295) vs 3.482 TFLOPS (FirePro 3D V8700).
| Feature | GeForce GTX 295 | FirePro 3D V8700 |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 1,198 | 1,206 |
| Architecture | Tesla 2.0 | GCN 1.0 |
| Process Node | 55 nm | 28 nm |
| Shading Units | 480 ×2 | 2048+327% |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 0.5962 TFLOPS ×2 | 3.482 TFLOPS+484% |
| ROPs | 28 ×2 | 32+14% |
| TMUs | 80 ×2 | 128+60% |
| L2 Cache | 224 KB | 768 KB+243% |
Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)
| Feature | GeForce GTX 295 | FirePro 3D V8700 |
|---|---|---|
| Upscaling Tech | FSR 2.1 (Compatible) | FSR 1.0 (Software) |
| Frame Generation | FSR 3 (Compatible) | Not Supported |
| Ray Reconstruction | No | No |
| Low Latency | Standard | Standard |
Video Memory (VRAM)
The GeForce GTX 295 comes with 2 GB of VRAM, while the FirePro 3D V8700 has 1 GB. The GeForce GTX 295 offers 75% more capacity, crucial for higher resolutions and texture-heavy games. Bus width: 128-bit vs 64-bit. L2 Cache: 224 KB (GeForce GTX 295) vs 768 KB (FirePro 3D V8700) — the FirePro 3D V8700 has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 295 | FirePro 3D V8700 |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 1.75 GB+75% | 1 GB |
| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Bus Width | 128-bit+100% | 64-bit |
| L2 Cache | 224 KB | 768 KB+243% |
Display & API Support
DirectX support: 11.1 (10_0) (GeForce GTX 295) vs 10.1 (FirePro 3D V8700). OpenGL: 3.3 vs 3.3. Maximum simultaneous displays: 2 vs 2.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 295 | FirePro 3D V8700 |
|---|---|---|
| DirectX | 11.1 (10_0)+10% | 10.1 |
| OpenGL | 3.3 | 3.3 |
| Max Displays | 2 | 2 |
Media & Encoding
Hardware encoder: PureVideo HD VP2 (GeForce GTX 295) vs UVD 2 (FirePro 3D V8700). Decoder: PureVideo HD VP2 vs UVD 2. Supported codecs: H.264,VC-1,MPEG-2 (GeForce GTX 295) vs MPEG-2,H.264,VC-1 (FirePro 3D V8700).
| Feature | GeForce GTX 295 | FirePro 3D V8700 |
|---|---|---|
| Encoder | PureVideo HD VP2 | UVD 2 |
| Decoder | PureVideo HD VP2 | UVD 2 |
| Codecs | H.264,VC-1,MPEG-2 | MPEG-2,H.264,VC-1 |
Power & Dimensions
The GeForce GTX 295 draws 289W versus the FirePro 3D V8700's 274W — a 5.3% difference. The FirePro 3D V8700 is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 680W (GeForce GTX 295) vs 350W (FirePro 3D V8700). Power connectors: 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin vs PCIe-powered. Card length: 267mm vs 254mm, occupying 2 vs 2 slots. Typical load temperature: 95°C vs 70°C.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 295 | FirePro 3D V8700 |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 289W | 274W-5% |
| Recommended PSU | 680W | 350W-49% |
| Power Connector | 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin | PCIe-powered |
| Length | 267mm | 254mm |
| Height | 111mm | 111mm |
| Slots | 2 | 2 |
| Temp (Load) | 95°C | 70°C-26% |
| Perf/Watt | 4.1 | 4.4+7% |
Value Analysis
The GeForce GTX 295 launched at $499 MSRP and currently averages $50, while the FirePro 3D V8700 launched at $1499 and now averages $1229. The GeForce GTX 295 costs 95.9% less ($1179 savings) at current market prices. Performance per dollar (G3D Mark / price): 24.0 (GeForce GTX 295) vs 1.0 (FirePro 3D V8700) — the GeForce GTX 295 offers 2300% better value. The FirePro 3D V8700 is the newer GPU (2014 vs 2009).
| Feature | GeForce GTX 295 | FirePro 3D V8700 |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $499-67% | $1499 |
| Avg Price (30d) | $50-96% | $1229 |
| Performance per Dollar | 24.0+2300% | 1.0 |
| Codename | GT200B | Tahiti |
| Release | January 8 2009 | January 18 2014 |
| Ranking | #816 | #423 |
Top Performing GPUs
The most powerful gpus ranked by G3D Mark benchmark scores.
You May Also Compare
Similar GPU comparisons based on GeForce GTX 295 and FirePro 3D V8700
