GeForce GTX 295 vs Radeon R7 +8G
GeForce GTX 295
Popular choices:
Radeon R7 +8G
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 Radeon R7 +8G is on rank 217, so the Radeon R7 +8G 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 Radeon R7 +8G
Performance Comparison
About G3D Mark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
⚠️ Generational Difference
The Radeon R7 +8G is significantly newer (2015 vs 2009). The Radeon R7 +8G 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 0.6% higher G3D Mark score and 250% more VRAM (2 GB vs 512 MB). This advantage makes it significantly better for higher resolutions (1440p/4K) and graphic-intensive titles compared to the Radeon R7 +8G.
| Insight | GeForce GTX 295 | Radeon R7 +8G |
|---|---|---|
| Performance | ✅Leading raw performance (+0.6%) | ❌Lower raw frame rates (-0.6%) |
| Longevity | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2009 / Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013)) | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2015 / GCN 1.0 (2012−2020)) |
| Ecosystem | Supports FSR Upscaling | Supports FSR Upscaling |
| VRAM | ✅ More VRAM (+250%) | ❌ Less VRAM capacity |
| Efficiency | ⚡ Higher Power Consumption | 💡 Excellent Perf/Watt |
| Case Fit | Standard Size (267mm) | 📏 Compact / SFF Friendly |
💎 Value Proposition
The Radeon R7 +8G offers a compelling cost-to-performance ratio. While both GPUs are considered legacy components by modern standards, the Radeon R7 +8G holds the technical lead. Priced at $20 (vs $50), it costs 60% less, resulting in a 148.5% higher cost efficiency score.
| Insight | GeForce GTX 295 | Radeon R7 +8G |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ❌Lower cost efficiency | ✅Better overall value (+148.5%) |
| Upfront Cost | ⚠️Higher upfront cost ($50) | ✅More affordable ($20) |
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 Radeon R7 +8G
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)
| Feature | GeForce GTX 295 | Radeon R7 +8G |
|---|---|---|
| Upscaling Tech | FSR 2.1 (Compatible) | FSR 1.0 (Software) |
| Frame Generation | FSR 3 (Compatible) | Not Supported |
| Ray Reconstruction | No | No |
| Low Latency | Standard | AMD Anti-Lag |
Video Memory (VRAM)
The GeForce GTX 295 comes with 2 GB of VRAM, while the Radeon R7 +8G has 512 MB. The GeForce GTX 295 offers 250% more capacity, crucial for higher resolutions and texture-heavy games. Bus width: 128-bit vs 128-bit. 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
The GeForce GTX 295 launched at $499 MSRP and currently averages $50, while the Radeon R7 +8G launched at $49 and now averages $20. The Radeon R7 +8G costs 60% less ($30 savings) at current market prices. Performance per dollar (G3D Mark / price): 24.0 (GeForce GTX 295) vs 59.5 (Radeon R7 +8G) — the Radeon R7 +8G offers 147.9% better value. The Radeon R7 +8G is the newer GPU (2015 vs 2009).
| Feature | GeForce GTX 295 | Radeon R7 +8G |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $499 | $49-90% |
| Avg Price (30d) | $50 | $20-60% |
| Performance per Dollar | 24.0 | 59.5+148% |
| Codename | GT200B | Tropo |
| Release | January 8 2009 | May 5 2015 |
| Ranking | #816 | #737 |
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 Radeon R7 +8G
