Quadro M500M vs GeForce GTX 295
Quadro M500M
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 Quadro M500M is positioned at rank 31 and the GeForce GTX 295 is on rank 301, 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 Quadro M500M
Performance Per Dollar GeForce GTX 295
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 | Quadro M500M | GeForce GTX 295 |
|---|---|---|
| Performance | ❌Lower raw frame rates (-2.2%) | ✅Leading raw performance (+2.2%) |
| Longevity | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2016 / Maxwell (2014−2017)) | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2009 / Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013)) |
| Ecosystem | Supports FSR Upscaling | Supports FSR Upscaling |
| VRAM | ✅ More VRAM (+14.3%) | ❌ Less VRAM capacity |
| Efficiency | 💡 Excellent Perf/Watt | ⚡ Higher Power Consumption |
| 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 Quadro M500M and GeForce GTX 295
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.
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 Quadro M500M scores 1,172 and the GeForce GTX 295 reaches 1,198 in the G3D Mark benchmark — just a 2.2% difference, making them near-identical in rasterization performance. The Quadro M500M is built on Maxwell while the GeForce GTX 295 uses Tesla 2.0, both on 28 nm vs 55 nm. Shader units: 384 (Quadro M500M) vs 480 (GeForce GTX 295). Raw compute: 0.8632 TFLOPS (Quadro M500M) vs 0.5962 TFLOPS ×2 (GeForce GTX 295).
| Feature | Quadro M500M | GeForce GTX 295 |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 1,172 | 1,198+2% |
| Architecture | Maxwell | Tesla 2.0 |
| Process Node | 28 nm | 55 nm |
| Shading Units | 384 | 480 ×2+25% |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 0.8632 TFLOPS+45% | 0.5962 TFLOPS ×2 |
| ROPs | 8 | 28 ×2+250% |
| TMUs | 16 | 80 ×2+400% |
| L2 Cache | 1 MB+355% | 0.22 MB |
Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)
| Feature | Quadro M500M | 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 Quadro M500M comes with 2 GB of VRAM, while the GeForce GTX 295 has 2 GB. The Quadro M500M offers 14.3% more capacity, crucial for higher resolutions and texture-heavy games. Bus width: 64-bit vs 128-bit. L2 Cache: 1 MB (Quadro M500M) vs 0.22 MB (GeForce GTX 295) — the Quadro M500M has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.
| Feature | Quadro M500M | GeForce GTX 295 |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 2 GB+14% | 1.75 GB |
| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Bus Width | 64-bit | 128-bit+100% |
| L2 Cache | 1 MB+355% | 0.22 MB |
Power & Dimensions
The Quadro M500M draws 30W versus the GeForce GTX 295's 289W — a 162.4% difference. The Quadro M500M is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 350W (Quadro M500M) vs 680W (GeForce GTX 295). Power connectors: PCIe-powered vs 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin.
| Feature | Quadro M500M | GeForce GTX 295 |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 30W-90% | 289W |
| Recommended PSU | 350W-49% | 680W |
| Power Connector | PCIe-powered | 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin |
| Length | — | 267mm |
| Height | — | 111mm |
| Slots | — | 2 |
| Temp (Load) | — | 95°C |
| Perf/Watt | 39.1+854% | 4.1 |
Value Analysis
The Quadro M500M is the newer GPU (2016 vs 2009).
| Feature | Quadro M500M | GeForce GTX 295 |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | — | $499 |
| Avg Price (30d) | — | $50 |
| Codename | GM108 | GT200B |
| Release | April 27 2016 | January 8 2009 |
| Ranking | #833 | #816 |
Top Performing GPUs
The most powerful gpus ranked by G3D Mark benchmark scores.
You May Also Compare
Similar GPU comparisons based on Quadro M500M and GeForce GTX 295
