NVS 810 vs GeForce GTX 295
NVS 810
Popular choices:
GeForce GTX 295
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 NVS 810 is positioned at rank 309 and the GeForce GTX 295 is on rank 301, 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 NVS 810
Performance Per Dollar GeForce GTX 295
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 | NVS 810 | GeForce GTX 295 |
|---|---|---|
| Performance | ❌Lower raw frame rates (-0.5%) | ✅Leading raw performance (+0.5%) |
| Longevity | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2015 / Maxwell (2014−2017)) | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2009 / Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013)) |
| Ecosystem | Supports FSR Upscaling | Supports FSR Upscaling |
| VRAM | ✅ More VRAM (+128.6%) | ❌ Less VRAM capacity |
| Efficiency | 💡 Excellent Perf/Watt | ⚡ Higher Power Consumption |
| Case Fit | 📏 Compact / SFF Friendly | Standard Size (267mm) |
💎 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 | NVS 810 | GeForce GTX 295 |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ❌Lower cost efficiency | ✅Better overall value (+60.8%) |
| Upfront Cost | ⚠️Higher upfront cost ($80) | ✅More affordable ($50) |
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 NVS 810 and GeForce GTX 295
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.
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.
Graphics Performance
The NVS 810 scores 1,192 and the GeForce GTX 295 reaches 1,198 in the G3D Mark benchmark — just a 0.5% difference, making them near-identical in rasterization performance. The NVS 810 is built on Maxwell while the GeForce GTX 295 uses Tesla 2.0, both on 28 nm vs 55 nm. Shader units: 512 (NVS 810) vs 480 (GeForce GTX 295). Raw compute: 1.058 TFLOPS ×2 (NVS 810) vs 0.5962 TFLOPS ×2 (GeForce GTX 295).
| Feature | NVS 810 | GeForce GTX 295 |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 1,192 | 1,198 |
| Architecture | Maxwell | Tesla 2.0 |
| Process Node | 28 nm | 55 nm |
| Shading Units | 512 ×2+7% | 480 ×2 |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 1.058 TFLOPS ×2+77% | 0.5962 TFLOPS ×2 |
| ROPs | 16 ×2 | 28 ×2+75% |
| TMUs | 32 ×2 | 80 ×2+150% |
| L2 Cache | 1 MB+355% | 0.22 MB |
Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)
| Feature | NVS 810 | GeForce GTX 295 |
|---|---|---|
| Upscaling Tech | FSR 1.0 (Software) | FSR 2.1 (Compatible) |
| Frame Generation | Not Supported | FSR 3 (Compatible) |
| Ray Reconstruction | No | No |
| Low Latency | Standard | Standard |
Video Memory (VRAM)
The NVS 810 comes with 4 GB of VRAM, while the GeForce GTX 295 has 2 GB. The NVS 810 offers 128.6% more capacity, crucial for higher resolutions and texture-heavy games. Bus width: 64-bit vs 128-bit. L2 Cache: 1 MB (NVS 810) vs 0.22 MB (GeForce GTX 295) — the NVS 810 has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.
| Feature | NVS 810 | GeForce GTX 295 |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 4 GB+129% | 1.75 GB |
| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Bus Width | 64-bit | 128-bit+100% |
| L2 Cache | 1 MB+355% | 0.22 MB |
Display & API Support
DirectX support: 12 (12_1) (NVS 810) vs 11.1 (10_0) (GeForce GTX 295). OpenGL: 4.6 vs 3.3. Maximum simultaneous displays: 8 vs 2.
| Feature | NVS 810 | GeForce GTX 295 |
|---|---|---|
| DirectX | 12 (12_1)+8% | 11.1 (10_0) |
| OpenGL | 4.6+39% | 3.3 |
| Max Displays | 8+300% | 2 |
Media & Encoding
Hardware encoder: NVENC 5 (NVS 810) vs PureVideo HD VP2 (GeForce GTX 295). Decoder: NVDEC 2 vs PureVideo HD VP2. Supported codecs: H.264,H.265 (NVS 810) vs H.264,VC-1,MPEG-2 (GeForce GTX 295).
| Feature | NVS 810 | GeForce GTX 295 |
|---|---|---|
| Encoder | NVENC 5 | PureVideo HD VP2 |
| Decoder | NVDEC 2 | PureVideo HD VP2 |
| Codecs | H.264,H.265 | H.264,VC-1,MPEG-2 |
Power & Dimensions
The NVS 810 draws 68W versus the GeForce GTX 295's 289W — a 123.8% difference. The NVS 810 is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 350W (NVS 810) vs 680W (GeForce GTX 295). Power connectors: PCIe-powered vs 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin. Card length: 198mm vs 267mm, occupying 1 vs 2 slots. Typical load temperature: 80°C vs 95°C.
| Feature | NVS 810 | GeForce GTX 295 |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 68W-76% | 289W |
| Recommended PSU | 350W-49% | 680W |
| Power Connector | PCIe-powered | 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin |
| Length | 198mm | 267mm |
| Height | 111mm | 111mm |
| Slots | 1-50% | 2 |
| Temp (Load) | 80°C-16% | 95°C |
| Perf/Watt | 17.5+327% | 4.1 |
Value Analysis
The NVS 810 launched at $700 MSRP and currently averages $80, while the GeForce GTX 295 launched at $499 and now averages $50. The GeForce GTX 295 costs 37.5% less ($30 savings) at current market prices. Performance per dollar (G3D Mark / price): 14.9 (NVS 810) vs 24.0 (GeForce GTX 295) — the GeForce GTX 295 offers 61.1% better value. The NVS 810 is the newer GPU (2015 vs 2009).
| Feature | NVS 810 | GeForce GTX 295 |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $700 | $499-29% |
| Avg Price (30d) | $80 | $50-38% |
| Performance per Dollar | 14.9 | 24.0+61% |
| Codename | GM107 | GT200B |
| Release | November 4 2015 | January 8 2009 |
| Ranking | #826 | #816 |
Top Performing GPUs
The most powerful gpus ranked by G3D Mark benchmark scores.
You May Also Compare
Similar GPU comparisons based on NVS 810 and GeForce GTX 295
