GeForce GTX 295 vs Quadro M500M
GeForce GTX 295
Popular choices:
Quadro M500M
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 Quadro M500M is on rank 31, so the Quadro M500M 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 Quadro M500M
Performance Comparison
About G3D Mark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
⚠️ Generational Difference
The Quadro M500M is significantly newer (2016 vs 2009). The Quadro M500M 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 2.2% higher G3D Mark score. However, the Quadro M500M offers more VRAM, which may be beneficial for texture-heavy scenarios at higher resolutions.
| Insight | GeForce GTX 295 | Quadro M500M |
|---|---|---|
| Performance | ✅Leading raw performance (+2.2%) | ❌Lower raw frame rates (-2.2%) |
| Longevity | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2009 / Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013)) | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2016 / Maxwell (2014−2017)) |
| Ecosystem | Supports FSR Upscaling | Supports FSR Upscaling |
| VRAM | ❌ Less VRAM capacity | ✅ More VRAM (+14.3%) |
| Efficiency | ⚡ Higher Power Consumption | 💡 Excellent Perf/Watt |
| 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.
Technical Specifications
Side-by-side comparison of GeForce GTX 295 and Quadro M500M
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.
Quadro M500M
The Quadro M500M is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in April 27 2016. It features the Maxwell architecture. The core clock ranges from 1029 MHz to 1124 MHz. It has 384 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 30W. Manufactured using 28 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 1,172 points.
Graphics Performance
The GeForce GTX 295 scores 1,198 and the Quadro M500M reaches 1,172 in the G3D Mark benchmark — just a 2.2% difference, making them near-identical in rasterization performance. The GeForce GTX 295 is built on Tesla 2.0 while the Quadro M500M uses Maxwell, both on 55 nm vs 28 nm. Shader units: 480 (GeForce GTX 295) vs 384 (Quadro M500M). Raw compute: 0.5962 TFLOPS ×2 (GeForce GTX 295) vs 0.8632 TFLOPS (Quadro M500M).
| Feature | GeForce GTX 295 | Quadro M500M |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 1,198+2% | 1,172 |
| Architecture | Tesla 2.0 | Maxwell |
| Process Node | 55 nm | 28 nm |
| Shading Units | 480 ×2+25% | 384 |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 0.5962 TFLOPS ×2 | 0.8632 TFLOPS+45% |
| ROPs | 28 ×2+250% | 8 |
| TMUs | 80 ×2+400% | 16 |
| L2 Cache | 0.22 MB | 1 MB+355% |
Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)
| Feature | GeForce GTX 295 | Quadro M500M |
|---|---|---|
| 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 Quadro M500M has 2 GB. The Quadro M500M offers 14.3% 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 (Quadro M500M) — the Quadro M500M has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 295 | Quadro M500M |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 1.75 GB | 2 GB+14% |
| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Bus Width | 128-bit+100% | 64-bit |
| L2 Cache | 0.22 MB | 1 MB+355% |
Power & Dimensions
The GeForce GTX 295 draws 289W versus the Quadro M500M's 30W — a 162.4% difference. The Quadro M500M is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 680W (GeForce GTX 295) vs 350W (Quadro M500M). Power connectors: 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin vs PCIe-powered.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 295 | Quadro M500M |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 289W | 30W-90% |
| Recommended PSU | 680W | 350W-49% |
| Power Connector | 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin | PCIe-powered |
| Length | 267mm | — |
| Height | 111mm | — |
| Slots | 2 | — |
| Temp (Load) | 95°C | — |
| Perf/Watt | 4.1 | 39.1+854% |
Value Analysis
The Quadro M500M is the newer GPU (2016 vs 2009).
| Feature | GeForce GTX 295 | Quadro M500M |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $499 | — |
| Avg Price (30d) | $50 | — |
| Codename | GT200B | GM108 |
| Release | January 8 2009 | April 27 2016 |
| Ranking | #816 | #833 |
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 Quadro M500M
