GeForce GTX 295 vs Radeon R9 M370X
In this comparison between GeForce GTX 295 and Radeon R9 M370X you will find out which graphics card performs better in today's games. Bear in mind that third-party versions may have more efficient cooling and higher clock speeds. This will increase cards' performance, though not by much. In addition to raw power you should also take into account the dimensions. Thicker models simply will not fit into a small mini-ITX case. The resolution of your monitor also affects the choice, since 4K gameplay requires a more powerful GPU. And don't overspend on the graphics card. Other parts of your build may also need to be upgraded, save some money for the CPU or power supply. For some people GeForce GTX 295 will be the best choice, for others Radeon R9 M370X will be their preference. Study the comparison tables below and make your choice.
GeForce GTX 295
Radeon R9 M370X is a Laptop Graphics Card
Note: Radeon R9 M370X is only used in laptop graphics. It has lower GPU clock speed compared to the desktop variant, which results in lower power consumption, but also 10-30% lower gaming performance. Check available laptop models with Radeon R9 M370X here:
Main Specs
| GeForce GTX 295 | Radeon R9 M370X | |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 289 Watt | |
| Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | |
| Supplementary power connectors | 6-pin & 8-pin | |
| Memory type | GDDR3 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1792 MB | 2 GB |
| Display Connectors | 2x DVI, 1x HDMI | |
| Check Price |
- GeForce GTX 295 has 1790 GB more memory, than Radeon R9 M370X.
- GeForce GTX 295 is used in Desktops, and Radeon R9 M370X - in Laptops.
- GeForce GTX 295 is build with Tesla 2.0 architecture, and Radeon R9 M370X - with GCN 1.0.
- Core clock speed of GeForce GTX 295 is 442 MHz higher, than Radeon R9 M370X.
- GeForce GTX 295 is manufactured by 55 nm process technology, and Radeon R9 M370X - by 28 nm process technology.
- Memory clock speed of Radeon R9 M370X is 3501 MHz higher, than GeForce GTX 295.
Game benchmarks
| high / 1080p | 3−4 | 3−4 |
| ultra / 1080p | 2−3 | 1−2 |
| QHD / 1440p | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| low / 720p | 14−16 | 14−16 |
| medium / 1080p | 5−6 | 6−7 |
| GeForce GTX 295 and Radeon R9 M370X have the same average FPS in Assassin's Creed Odyssey. | ||
| high / 1080p | − | 8−9 |
| ultra / 1080p | 7−8 | 6−7 |
| QHD / 1440p | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| low / 720p | 18−20 | 21−24 |
| medium / 1080p | 8−9 | 9−10 |
| The average gaming FPS of Radeon R9 M370X in Battlefield 5 is 9% more, than GeForce GTX 295. | ||
| low / 768p | 45−50 | 45−50 |
| high / 1080p | 30−35 | 40−45 |
| QHD / 1440p | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| The average gaming FPS of Radeon R9 M370X in Call of Duty: Warzone is 12% more, than GeForce GTX 295. | ||
| low / 768p | 120−130 | 120−130 |
| medium / 768p | 90−95 | 100−110 |
| ultra / 1080p | 40−45 | 50−55 |
| QHD / 1440p | 24−27 | 24−27 |
| 4K / 2160p | 18−20 | − |
| high / 768p | 65−70 | 75−80 |
| The average gaming FPS of Radeon R9 M370X in Counter-Strike: Global Offensive is 10% more, than GeForce GTX 295. | ||
| low / 768p | 80−85 | 70−75 |
| ultra / 1080p | 14−16 | 21−24 |
| medium / 1080p | 40−45 | 40−45 |
| The average gaming FPS of GeForce GTX 295 in Cyberpunk 2077 is 2% more, than Radeon R9 M370X. | ||
| low / 768p | 75−80 | 75−80 |
| medium / 768p | 50−55 | 55−60 |
| ultra / 1080p | 27−30 | 30−35 |
| The average gaming FPS of Radeon R9 M370X in Dota 2 is 5% more, than GeForce GTX 295. | ||
| high / 1080p | 5−6 | 4−5 |
| ultra / 1080p | − | 4−5 |
| 4K / 2160p | 2−3 | 1−2 |
| low / 720p | 14−16 | 14−16 |
| medium / 1080p | 6−7 | 6−7 |
| The average gaming FPS of GeForce GTX 295 in Far Cry 5 is 16% more, than Radeon R9 M370X. | ||
| high / 1080p | 12−14 | 12−14 |
| ultra / 1080p | 7−8 | 7−8 |
| QHD / 1440p | − | 4−5 |
| low / 720p | 50−55 | 60−65 |
| medium / 1080p | 14−16 | 18−20 |
| The average gaming FPS of Radeon R9 M370X in Fortnite is 13% more, than GeForce GTX 295. | ||
| high / 1080p | 7−8 | 8−9 |
| ultra / 1080p | − | 7−8 |
| QHD / 1440p | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| low / 720p | 20−22 | 21−24 |
| medium / 1080p | 9−10 | 10−11 |
| The average gaming FPS of Radeon R9 M370X in Forza Horizon 4 is 8% more, than GeForce GTX 295. | ||
| low / 768p | 45−50 | 50−55 |
| high / 1080p | 8−9 | 10−11 |
| ultra / 1080p | 5−6 | 4−5 |
| QHD / 1440p | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| medium / 720p | 40−45 | 40−45 |
| The average gaming FPS of Radeon R9 M370X in Grand Theft Auto V is 3% more, than GeForce GTX 295. | ||
| high / 1080p | 3−4 | 2−3 |
| ultra / 1080p | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| 4K / 2160p | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| low / 720p | 8−9 | 9−10 |
| medium / 1080p | 4−5 | 4−5 |
| GeForce GTX 295 and Radeon R9 M370X have the same average FPS in Metro Exodus. | ||
| low / 768p | 85−90 | 85−90 |
| high / 1080p | 85−90 | 70−75 |
| ultra / 1080p | 80−85 | − |
| medium / 1080p | 85−90 | − |
| The average gaming FPS of GeForce GTX 295 in Minecraft is 8% more, than Radeon R9 M370X. | ||
| ultra / 1080p | 12−14 | 12−14 |
| low / 720p | 27−30 | 30−35 |
| medium / 1080p | 14−16 | 14−16 |
| The average gaming FPS of Radeon R9 M370X in PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS is 11% more, than GeForce GTX 295. | ||
| high / 1080p | − | 7−8 |
| ultra / 1080p | 7−8 | 4−5 |
| QHD / 1440p | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| low / 720p | 8−9 | 8−9 |
| medium / 1080p | − | 8−9 |
| The average gaming FPS of GeForce GTX 295 in Red Dead Redemption 2 is 33% more, than Radeon R9 M370X. | ||
| low / 768p | 16−18 | 20−22 |
| medium / 768p | 12−14 | 12−14 |
| high / 1080p | 6−7 | 7−8 |
| ultra / 1080p | 5−6 | 5−6 |
| 4K / 2160p | − | 1−2 |
| The average gaming FPS of Radeon R9 M370X in The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt is 10% more, than GeForce GTX 295. | ||
| low / 768p | 70−75 | 75−80 |
| medium / 768p | 35−40 | 40−45 |
| ultra / 1080p | 16−18 | 18−20 |
| high / 768p | 30−35 | 30−35 |
| The average gaming FPS of Radeon R9 M370X in World of Tanks is 7% more, than GeForce GTX 295. | ||
Full Specs
| GeForce GTX 295 | Radeon R9 M370X | |
| Architecture | Tesla 2.0 | GCN 1.0 |
| Code name | GT200B | Cape Verde |
| Type | Desktop | Laptop |
| Release date | 8 January 2009 | 19 May 2015 |
| Pipelines | 240 | 640 |
| Core clock speed | 1242 MHz | 800 MHz |
| Transistor count | 1,400 million | 1500 Million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 55 nm | 28 nm |
| Texture fill rate | 92.2 billion/sec | |
| Floating-point performance | 2x 596.2 gflops | |
| Length | 10.5" (267 mm) (26.7 cm) | |
| Memory bus width | 896 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 999 MHz | 4500 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 223.8 GB/s | |
| Shared memory | - | |
| DirectX | 11.1 (10_0) | DirectX 12 (FL 11_1), Shader 5.0 |
| Shader Model | 4.0 | |
| OpenGL | 2.1 | |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | |
| Vulkan | N/A | |
| CUDA | + | |
| CUDA cores | 480 | |
| Height | 4.376" (111 mm) (11.1 cm) | |
| SLI options | + | |
| Multi monitor support | + | |
| HDMI | + | |
| Maximum VGA resolution | 2048x1536 | |
| Audio input for HDMI | S/PDIF | |
| Bitcoin / BTC (SHA256) | 125 Mh/s | |
| Laptop size | medium sized | |
| CUDA cores per GPU | 240 | |
| Standard memory config per GPU | 896 MB | |
| Memory interface width per GPU | 448 Bit | |
| High Dynamic-Range Lighting (HDRR) | 128bit | |
| Check Price |