GeForce GTX 295 vs NVS 810
GeForce GTX 295
Popular choices:
NVS 810
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 NVS 810 is on rank 309, 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 NVS 810
Performance Comparison
About G3D Mark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
⚠️ Generational Difference
The NVS 810 is significantly newer (2015 vs 2009). The NVS 810 likely supports modern features like Ray Tracing, Tensor Cores, and DLSS/FSR upscaling, which act as force multipliers for performance. The GeForce GTX 295 lacks this hardware feature set, limiting its longevity in modern titles despite any raw power similarities.
🚀 Performance Leadership
The GeForce GTX 295 is the superior choice for raw performance. It leads with a 0.5% higher G3D Mark score. However, the NVS 810 offers more VRAM, which may be beneficial for texture-heavy scenarios at higher resolutions.
| Insight | GeForce GTX 295 | NVS 810 |
|---|---|---|
| Performance | ✅Leading raw performance (+0.5%) | ❌Lower raw frame rates (-0.5%) |
| Longevity | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2009 / Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013)) | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2015 / Maxwell (2014−2017)) |
| Ecosystem | Supports FSR Upscaling | Supports FSR Upscaling |
| VRAM | ❌ Less VRAM capacity | ✅ More VRAM (+128.6%) |
| Efficiency | ⚡ Higher Power Consumption | 💡 Excellent Perf/Watt |
| Case Fit | Standard Size (267mm) | 📏 Compact / SFF Friendly |
💎 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 $80), it costs 38% less, resulting in a 60.8% higher cost efficiency score.
| Insight | GeForce GTX 295 | NVS 810 |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ✅Better overall value (+60.8%) | ❌Lower cost efficiency |
| Upfront Cost | ✅More affordable ($50) | ⚠️Higher upfront cost ($80) |
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 NVS 810
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.
NVS 810
The NVS 810 is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in November 4 2015. It features the Maxwell architecture. The core clock ranges from 902 MHz to 1033 MHz. It has 512 ×2 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 68W. Manufactured using 28 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 1,192 points.
Graphics Performance
The GeForce GTX 295 scores 1,198 and the NVS 810 reaches 1,192 in the G3D Mark benchmark — just a 0.5% difference, making them near-identical in rasterization performance. The GeForce GTX 295 is built on Tesla 2.0 while the NVS 810 uses Maxwell, both on 55 nm vs 28 nm. Shader units: 480 (GeForce GTX 295) vs 512 (NVS 810). Raw compute: 0.5962 TFLOPS ×2 (GeForce GTX 295) vs 1.058 TFLOPS ×2 (NVS 810).
| Feature | GeForce GTX 295 | NVS 810 |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 1,198 | 1,192 |
| Architecture | Tesla 2.0 | Maxwell |
| Process Node | 55 nm | 28 nm |
| Shading Units | 480 ×2 | 512 ×2+7% |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 0.5962 TFLOPS ×2 | 1.058 TFLOPS ×2+77% |
| ROPs | 28 ×2+75% | 16 ×2 |
| TMUs | 80 ×2+150% | 32 ×2 |
| L2 Cache | 0.22 MB | 1 MB+355% |
Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)
| Feature | GeForce GTX 295 | NVS 810 |
|---|---|---|
| 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 NVS 810 has 4 GB. The NVS 810 offers 128.6% more capacity, crucial for higher resolutions and texture-heavy games. Bus width: 128-bit vs 64-bit. L2 Cache: 0.22 MB (GeForce GTX 295) vs 1 MB (NVS 810) — the NVS 810 has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 295 | NVS 810 |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 1.75 GB | 4 GB+129% |
| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Bus Width | 128-bit+100% | 64-bit |
| L2 Cache | 0.22 MB | 1 MB+355% |
Display & API Support
DirectX support: 11.1 (10_0) (GeForce GTX 295) vs 12 (12_1) (NVS 810). OpenGL: 3.3 vs 4.6. Maximum simultaneous displays: 2 vs 8.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 295 | NVS 810 |
|---|---|---|
| DirectX | 11.1 (10_0) | 12 (12_1)+8% |
| OpenGL | 3.3 | 4.6+39% |
| Max Displays | 2 | 8+300% |
Media & Encoding
Hardware encoder: PureVideo HD VP2 (GeForce GTX 295) vs NVENC 5 (NVS 810). Decoder: PureVideo HD VP2 vs NVDEC 2. Supported codecs: H.264,VC-1,MPEG-2 (GeForce GTX 295) vs H.264,H.265 (NVS 810).
| Feature | GeForce GTX 295 | NVS 810 |
|---|---|---|
| Encoder | PureVideo HD VP2 | NVENC 5 |
| Decoder | PureVideo HD VP2 | NVDEC 2 |
| Codecs | H.264,VC-1,MPEG-2 | H.264,H.265 |
Power & Dimensions
The GeForce GTX 295 draws 289W versus the NVS 810's 68W — a 123.8% difference. The NVS 810 is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 680W (GeForce GTX 295) vs 350W (NVS 810). Power connectors: 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin vs PCIe-powered. Card length: 267mm vs 198mm, occupying 2 vs 1 slots. Typical load temperature: 95°C vs 80°C.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 295 | NVS 810 |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 289W | 68W-76% |
| Recommended PSU | 680W | 350W-49% |
| Power Connector | 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin | PCIe-powered |
| Length | 267mm | 198mm |
| Height | 111mm | 111mm |
| Slots | 2 | 1-50% |
| Temp (Load) | 95°C | 80°C-16% |
| Perf/Watt | 4.1 | 17.5+327% |
Value Analysis
The GeForce GTX 295 launched at $499 MSRP and currently averages $50, while the NVS 810 launched at $700 and now averages $80. The GeForce GTX 295 costs 37.5% less ($30 savings) at current market prices. Performance per dollar (G3D Mark / price): 24.0 (GeForce GTX 295) vs 14.9 (NVS 810) — the GeForce GTX 295 offers 61.1% better value. The NVS 810 is the newer GPU (2015 vs 2009).
| Feature | GeForce GTX 295 | NVS 810 |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $499-29% | $700 |
| Avg Price (30d) | $50-38% | $80 |
| Performance per Dollar | 24.0+61% | 14.9 |
| Codename | GT200B | GM107 |
| Release | January 8 2009 | November 4 2015 |
| Ranking | #816 | #826 |
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 NVS 810
