GeForce GTX 295 vs Radeon RX Vega 6 Ryzen 2000 3000
In this comparison between GeForce GTX 295 and Radeon RX Vega 6 Ryzen 2000 3000 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 RX Vega 6 Ryzen 2000 3000 will be their preference. Study the comparison tables below and make your choice.
GeForce GTX 295
Radeon RX Vega 6 Ryzen 2000 3000 is a Laptop Graphics Card
Note: Radeon RX Vega 6 Ryzen 2000 3000 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 RX Vega 6 Ryzen 2000 3000 here:
Main Specs
GeForce GTX 295 | Radeon RX Vega 6 Ryzen 2000 3000 | |
Power consumption (TDP) | 289 Watt | |
Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | |
Supplementary power connectors | 6-pin & 8-pin | |
Memory type | GDDR3 | |
Maximum RAM amount | 1792 MB | |
Display Connectors | 2x DVI, 1x HDMI | |
Check Price |
- GeForce GTX 295 is used in Desktops, and Radeon RX Vega 6 Ryzen 2000 3000 - in Laptops.
- GeForce GTX 295 is build with Tesla 2.0 architecture, and Radeon RX Vega 6 Ryzen 2000 3000 - with Vega.
- GeForce GTX 295 is manufactured by 55 nm process technology, and Radeon RX Vega 6 Ryzen 2000 3000 - by 14 nm process technology.
Game benchmarks
high / 1080p | 3−4 | 10−11 |
ultra / 1080p | 2−3 | 6−7 |
QHD / 1440p | 0−1 | 0−1 |
low / 720p | 14−16 | 21−24 |
medium / 1080p | 5−6 | 12−14 |
The average gaming FPS of Radeon RX Vega 6 Ryzen 2000 3000 in Assassin's Creed Odyssey is 116% more, than GeForce GTX 295. | ||
high / 1080p | − | 16−18 |
ultra / 1080p | 7−8 | 14−16 |
QHD / 1440p | 0−1 | 0−1 |
low / 720p | 18−20 | 35−40 |
medium / 1080p | 8−9 | 18−20 |
The average gaming FPS of Radeon RX Vega 6 Ryzen 2000 3000 in Battlefield 5 is 109% more, than GeForce GTX 295. | ||
low / 768p | 45−50 | 45−50 |
high / 1080p | 30−35 | − |
QHD / 1440p | 0−1 | 0−1 |
GeForce GTX 295 and Radeon RX Vega 6 Ryzen 2000 3000 have the same average FPS in Call of Duty: Warzone. | ||
low / 768p | 120−130 | 170−180 |
medium / 768p | 90−95 | 140−150 |
ultra / 1080p | 40−45 | 70−75 |
QHD / 1440p | 24−27 | 40−45 |
4K / 2160p | 18−20 | 30−33 |
high / 768p | 65−70 | 100−110 |
The average gaming FPS of Radeon RX Vega 6 Ryzen 2000 3000 in Counter-Strike: Global Offensive is 53% more, than GeForce GTX 295. | ||
low / 768p | 80−85 | 55−60 |
ultra / 1080p | 14−16 | 27−30 |
medium / 1080p | 40−45 | 45−50 |
The average gaming FPS of GeForce GTX 295 in Cyberpunk 2077 is 4% more, than Radeon RX Vega 6 Ryzen 2000 3000. | ||
low / 768p | 75−80 | 90−95 |
medium / 768p | 50−55 | 75−80 |
ultra / 1080p | 27−30 | 45−50 |
The average gaming FPS of Radeon RX Vega 6 Ryzen 2000 3000 in Dota 2 is 38% more, than GeForce GTX 295. | ||
high / 1080p | 5−6 | 12−14 |
ultra / 1080p | − | 10−12 |
4K / 2160p | 2−3 | 4−5 |
low / 720p | 14−16 | 27−30 |
medium / 1080p | 6−7 | 12−14 |
The average gaming FPS of Radeon RX Vega 6 Ryzen 2000 3000 in Far Cry 5 is 100% more, than GeForce GTX 295. | ||
high / 1080p | 12−14 | 18−20 |
ultra / 1080p | 7−8 | 14−16 |
low / 720p | 50−55 | 75−80 |
medium / 1080p | 14−16 | 35−40 |
The average gaming FPS of Radeon RX Vega 6 Ryzen 2000 3000 in Fortnite is 68% more, than GeForce GTX 295. | ||
high / 1080p | 7−8 | 16−18 |
ultra / 1080p | − | 14−16 |
QHD / 1440p | 0−1 | 4−5 |
low / 720p | 20−22 | 35−40 |
medium / 1080p | 9−10 | 20−22 |
The average gaming FPS of Radeon RX Vega 6 Ryzen 2000 3000 in Forza Horizon 4 is 108% more, than GeForce GTX 295. | ||
low / 768p | 45−50 | 65−70 |
medium / 768p | − | 55−60 |
high / 1080p | 8−9 | 18−20 |
ultra / 1080p | 5−6 | 8−9 |
QHD / 1440p | 0−1 | 0−1 |
medium / 720p | 40−45 | − |
The average gaming FPS of Radeon RX Vega 6 Ryzen 2000 3000 in Grand Theft Auto V is 55% more, than GeForce GTX 295. | ||
high / 1080p | 3−4 | 6−7 |
ultra / 1080p | 1−2 | 5−6 |
4K / 2160p | 0−1 | 1−2 |
low / 720p | 8−9 | 18−20 |
medium / 1080p | 4−5 | 9−10 |
The average gaming FPS of Radeon RX Vega 6 Ryzen 2000 3000 in Metro Exodus is 150% more, than GeForce GTX 295. | ||
low / 768p | 85−90 | 100−110 |
high / 1080p | 85−90 | − |
ultra / 1080p | 80−85 | 90−95 |
medium / 1080p | 85−90 | 95−100 |
The average gaming FPS of Radeon RX Vega 6 Ryzen 2000 3000 in Minecraft is 15% more, than GeForce GTX 295. | ||
high / 1080p | − | 18−20 |
ultra / 1080p | 12−14 | 14−16 |
low / 720p | 27−30 | 40−45 |
medium / 1080p | 14−16 | 20−22 |
The average gaming FPS of Radeon RX Vega 6 Ryzen 2000 3000 in PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS is 44% more, than GeForce GTX 295. | ||
high / 1080p | − | 12−14 |
ultra / 1080p | 7−8 | 8−9 |
QHD / 1440p | 0−1 | 0−1 |
low / 720p | 8−9 | 18−20 |
medium / 1080p | − | 12−14 |
The average gaming FPS of Radeon RX Vega 6 Ryzen 2000 3000 in Red Dead Redemption 2 is 62% more, than GeForce GTX 295. | ||
low / 768p | 16−18 | 35−40 |
medium / 768p | 12−14 | 21−24 |
high / 1080p | 6−7 | 12−14 |
ultra / 1080p | 5−6 | 8−9 |
4K / 2160p | − | 7−8 |
The average gaming FPS of Radeon RX Vega 6 Ryzen 2000 3000 in The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt is 100% more, than GeForce GTX 295. | ||
low / 768p | 70−75 | 90−95 |
medium / 768p | 35−40 | 50−55 |
ultra / 1080p | 16−18 | 24−27 |
high / 768p | 30−35 | 45−50 |
The average gaming FPS of Radeon RX Vega 6 Ryzen 2000 3000 in World of Tanks is 38% more, than GeForce GTX 295. |
Full Specs
GeForce GTX 295 | Radeon RX Vega 6 Ryzen 2000 3000 | |
Architecture | Tesla 2.0 | Vega |
Code name | GT200B | Vega Raven Ridge |
Type | Desktop | Laptop |
Release date | 8 January 2009 | 7 January 2018 |
Pipelines | 240 | 384 |
Core clock speed | 1242 MHz | |
Boost Clock | 1100 MHz | |
Transistor count | 1,400 million | |
Manufacturing process technology | 55 nm | 14 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 | |
Memory clock speed | 999 MHz | |
Memory bandwidth | 223.8 GB/s | |
Shared memory | - | |
DirectX | 11.1 (10_0) | DirectX 12_1 |
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 | |
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 |
Similar compares
- GeForce GTX 295 vs Radeon HD 4850 X2
- GeForce GTX 295 vs Radeon R9 M275
- Radeon RX Vega 6 Ryzen 2000 3000 vs Radeon HD 4850 X2
- Radeon RX Vega 6 Ryzen 2000 3000 vs Radeon R9 M275
- GeForce GTX 295 vs Quadro K4000M
- GeForce GTX 295 vs FirePro M5100
- Radeon RX Vega 6 Ryzen 2000 3000 vs Quadro K4000M
- Radeon RX Vega 6 Ryzen 2000 3000 vs FirePro M5100