GeForce GTX 295 vs Radeon R7 +8G

CPU

GPU

GeForce GTX 295

2009Core: 576 MHz

Buy on Amazon

Radeon R7 +8G

2015Core: 900 MHzBoost: 915 MHz

Buy on Amazon

GeForce GTX 295 vs Radeon R7 +8G Performance Spectrum

GeForce GTX 295

1.75 GB 289

1,198

+0.6%

GeForce GTX 1050 Ti (móvel)

GeForce GTX 1070 (móvel)

GeForce RTX 2080 (Mobile)

GeForce RTX 4060

Radeon R7 +8G

0.5 GB 30

1,191

0.0%

Radeon HD 2900 XT

Radeon R7 A8-7680

Radeon R7 PRO A10-9700E

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.

GeForce GTX 295 vs Radeon R7 +8G FPS Benchmarks

Predicted gaming performance across popular games. Tested paired with Ryzen 7 9800X3D to isolate GPU performance.

Search any supported game below to compare 1080p FPS for both components.

GeForce GTX 295 vs Radeon R7 +8G: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

See where each GPU makes more sense in practice: raw FPS, VRAM, features, power draw, pricing, and long-term headroom.

GeForce GTX 295

2009

Why buy it

✅44.0% more average FPS across 50 tracked games in our benchmark data.
✅250% more VRAM for high-resolution textures and newer games (2 GB vs 512 MB).

Trade-offs

❌2009 hardware with 2 GB of VRAM is already well past its comfortable zone for modern gaming, so it is hard to recommend now.
❌
918.4% HIGHER MSRP
$499 MSRPvs$49 MSRP
❌Lower G3D Mark per dollar, at 2.4 vs 24.3 G3D/$ ($499 MSRP vs $49 MSRP).
❌863.3% higher power demand at 289W vs 30W.
❌58.9% longer card at 267mm vs 168mm.

Radeon R7 +8G

2015

Why buy it

✅Costs $450 less on MSRP ($49 MSRP vs $499 MSRP).
✅Delivers 912.4% more G3D Mark for each dollar spent, at 24.3 vs 2.4 G3D/$ ($49 MSRP vs $499 MSRP).
✅Draws 30W instead of 289W, a 259W reduction.
✅Measures 168mm instead of 267mm, a 99mm shorter card that is more SFF-friendly.

Trade-offs

❌Lower average FPS than GeForce GTX 295 across 50 tracked games in our benchmark data.
❌Less VRAM, with 512 MB vs 2 GB for high-resolution textures and newer games.
❌2015 hardware with 512 MB of VRAM is already well past its comfortable zone for modern gaming, so it is hard to recommend now.

Quick Answers

Which GPU is faster for gaming right now?

GeForce GTX 295 is the faster gaming card right now. In our data, it leads by 44.0% in average FPS across 50 tracked games in our benchmark data and by 0.6% in PassMark G3D (1,198 vs 1,191), so the answer here is pretty clean.

Which GPU is the safer long-term pick for 2026 and beyond?

GeForce GTX 295 is the safer long-term pick for 2026 and beyond. The case is simple: 2 GB vs 512 MB of VRAM. That gives it more room for heavier textures and higher settings over time.

Which GPU is the better buy today?

Radeon R7 +8G makes the most sense to buy today. It is $450 cheaper on MSRP at $49 vs $499, and it leads G3D-per-dollar by 912.4% (24.3 vs 2.4), which is enough to swing the recommendation its way. If you are mainly targeting 1080p and some 1440p, Radeon R7 +8G is the easier value choice. If you care more about 1080p and some 1440p headroom, GeForce GTX 295 has the stronger long-term case.

GeForce GTX 295 vs Radeon R7 +8G Technical Specifications

Side-by-side specs, architecture details, clocks, memory, power, and platform differences.

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.

Radeon R7 +8G

The Radeon R7 +8G is manufactured by AMD. It was released in May 5 2015. It features the GCN 1.0 architecture. The core clock ranges from 900 MHz to 915 MHz. It has 640 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 30W. Manufactured using 28 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 1,191 points.

⚡

Graphics Performance

The GeForce GTX 295 scores 1,198 and the Radeon R7 +8G reaches 1,191 in the G3D Mark benchmark — just a 0.6% difference, making them near-identical in rasterization performance. The GeForce GTX 295 is built on Tesla 2.0 while the Radeon R7 +8G uses GCN 1.0, both on 55 nm vs 28 nm. Shader units: 480 (GeForce GTX 295) vs 640 (Radeon R7 +8G). Raw compute: 0.5962 TFLOPS ×2 (GeForce GTX 295) vs 1.171 TFLOPS (Radeon R7 +8G).

Feature	GeForce GTX 295	Radeon R7 +8G
G3D Mark Score	1,198	1,191
Architecture	Tesla 2.0	GCN 1.0
Process Node	55 nm	28 nm
Shading Units	480 ×2	640+33%
Compute (TFLOPS)	0.5962 TFLOPS ×2	1.171 TFLOPS+96%
ROPs	28 ×2+75%	16
TMUs	80 ×2+100%	40
L2 Cache	224 KB	256 KB+14%

✨

Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)

The GeForce GTX 295 gets NVIDIA DLSS, which still tends to look cleaner in motion. The Radeon R7 +8G leans on FSR, which is flexible and widely supported, but usually a bit rougher at the same settings.

Feature	GeForce GTX 295	Radeon R7 +8G
Upscaling Tech	Upscaling support	FSR Upscaling / FSR 4
Frame Generation	Not Supported	Not Supported
Ray Reconstruction	No	No
Low Latency	NVIDIA Reflex	AMD Anti-Lag

💾

Video Memory (VRAM)

The GeForce GTX 295 has 2 GB of VRAM, while the Radeon R7 +8G carries 512 MB. GeForce GTX 295 gives you 250% more memory capacity, which matters more once you move into heavier textures, mods, or higher resolutions. Memory bus width is 128-bit on the GeForce GTX 295 and 128-bit on the Radeon R7 +8G. L2 Cache: 224 KB (GeForce GTX 295) vs 256 KB (Radeon R7 +8G) — the Radeon R7 +8G has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.

Feature	GeForce GTX 295	Radeon R7 +8G
VRAM Capacity	1.75 GB+250%	0.5 GB
Memory Type	GDDR5	GDDR5
Memory Bandwidth	Unknown	Unknown
Bus Width	128-bit	128-bit
L2 Cache	224 KB	256 KB+14%

🖥️

Display & API Support

DirectX support: 11.1 (10_0) (GeForce GTX 295) vs 12 (11_1) (Radeon R7 +8G). OpenGL: 3.3 vs 4.6. Maximum simultaneous displays: 2 vs 2.

Feature	GeForce GTX 295	Radeon R7 +8G
DirectX	11.1 (10_0)	12 (11_1)+8%
OpenGL	3.3	4.6+39%
Max Displays	2	2

🎬

Media & Encoding

Hardware encoder: PureVideo HD VP2 (GeForce GTX 295) vs VCE 2.0 (Radeon R7 +8G). Decoder: PureVideo HD VP2 vs UVD 4.0. Supported codecs: H.264,VC-1,MPEG-2 (GeForce GTX 295) vs H.264,MPEG-4,VC-1,MPEG-2 (Radeon R7 +8G).

Feature	GeForce GTX 295	Radeon R7 +8G
Encoder	PureVideo HD VP2	VCE 2.0
Decoder	PureVideo HD VP2	UVD 4.0
Codecs	H.264,VC-1,MPEG-2	H.264,MPEG-4,VC-1,MPEG-2

🔌

Power & Dimensions

The GeForce GTX 295 draws 289W versus the Radeon R7 +8G's 30W — a 162.4% difference. The Radeon R7 +8G is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 680W (GeForce GTX 295) vs 350W (Radeon R7 +8G). Power connectors: 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin vs PCIe-powered. Card length: 267mm vs 168mm, occupying 2 vs 1 slots. Typical load temperature: 95°C vs 75.

Feature	GeForce GTX 295	Radeon R7 +8G
TDP	289W	30W-90%
Recommended PSU	680W	350W-49%
Power Connector	1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin	PCIe-powered
Length	267mm	168mm
Height	111mm	111mm
Slots	2	1-50%
Temp (Load)	95°C	75-21%
Perf/Watt	4.1	39.7+868%

💰

Value Analysis

At launch, the GeForce GTX 295 came in at $499, while the Radeon R7 +8G launched at $49. On MSRP, Radeon R7 +8G was 90.2% cheaper ($450 less). Performance per dollar on MSRP (G3D Mark / MSRP): 2.4 (GeForce GTX 295) vs 24.3 (Radeon R7 +8G) — the Radeon R7 +8G offers 912.5% better value. The newer card here is Radeon R7 +8G (2015 vs 2009).

Feature	GeForce GTX 295	Radeon R7 +8G
MSRP	$499	$49-90%
Performance per Dollar	2.4	24.3+913%
Codename	GT200B	Tropo
Release	January 8 2009	May 5 2015
Ranking	#816	#737

Search GeForce GTX 295 on Amazon

Search Radeon R7 +8G on Amazon

Affiliate Disclosure

ChipVERSUS is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to Amazon.com. We may earn a commission on qualifying purchases made through our links. This comes at no additional cost to you and helps support our work in providing comprehensive PC building guides and tools.

Amazon and the Amazon logo are trademarks of Amazon.com, Inc. or its affiliates.