AMD Radeon R9 M295X vs NVIDIA GRID K240Q
Comparative analysis of AMD Radeon R9 M295X and NVIDIA GRID K240Q videocards for all known characteristics in the following categories: Essentials, Technical info, Video outputs and ports, Compatibility, dimensions and requirements, API support, Memory, Technologies. Benchmark videocards performance analysis: PassMark - G3D Mark, PassMark - G2D Mark, Geekbench - OpenCL, CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s), GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps), GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps), GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps).
Differences
Reasons to consider the AMD Radeon R9 M295X
- Videocard is newer: launch date 1 year(s) 4 month(s) later
- Around 33% higher pipelines: 2048 vs 1536
- Around 29% better floating-point performance: 2,961 gflops vs 2,289 gflops
- 2x better performance in PassMark - G3D Mark: 5150 vs 2541
- 3.9x better performance in PassMark - G2D Mark: 832 vs 212
Specifications (specs) | |
Launch date | 23 November 2014 vs 28 June 2013 |
Pipelines | 2048 vs 1536 |
Floating-point performance | 2,961 gflops vs 2,289 gflops |
Benchmarks | |
PassMark - G3D Mark | 5150 vs 2541 |
PassMark - G2D Mark | 832 vs 212 |
Reasons to consider the NVIDIA GRID K240Q
- Around 3% higher core clock speed: 745 MHz vs 723 MHz
- Around 3% higher texture fill rate: 95.36 GTexel / s vs 92.54 GTexel / s
- Around 11% lower typical power consumption: 225 Watt vs 250 Watt
- Around 93% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 3938 vs 2045
- Around 17% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 3667 vs 3144
- Around 93% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 3938 vs 2045
- Around 17% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 3667 vs 3144
Specifications (specs) | |
Core clock speed | 745 MHz vs 723 MHz |
Texture fill rate | 95.36 GTexel / s vs 92.54 GTexel / s |
Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 225 Watt vs 250 Watt |
Benchmarks | |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3938 vs 2045 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3667 vs 3144 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3938 vs 2045 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3667 vs 3144 |
Compare benchmarks
GPU 1: AMD Radeon R9 M295X
GPU 2: NVIDIA GRID K240Q
PassMark - G3D Mark |
|
|
||||
PassMark - G2D Mark |
|
|
||||
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) |
|
|
||||
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) |
|
|
||||
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) |
|
|
||||
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) |
|
|
Name | AMD Radeon R9 M295X | NVIDIA GRID K240Q |
---|---|---|
PassMark - G3D Mark | 5150 | 2541 |
PassMark - G2D Mark | 832 | 212 |
Geekbench - OpenCL | 26896 | |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 65.777 | |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 820.138 | |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 7.142 | |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 68.754 | |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 386.418 | |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 2045 | 3938 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3144 | 3667 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 2045 | 3938 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3144 | 3667 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 6935 | |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 6935 |
Compare specifications (specs)
AMD Radeon R9 M295X | NVIDIA GRID K240Q | |
---|---|---|
Essentials |
||
Architecture | GCN 3.0 | Kepler |
Code name | Amethyst | GK104 |
Design | AMD Radeon R9 200 Series | |
Launch date | 23 November 2014 | 28 June 2013 |
Place in performance rating | 495 | 497 |
Type | Desktop | Workstation |
Launch price (MSRP) | $469 | |
Technical info |
||
Core clock speed | 723 MHz | 745 MHz |
Floating-point performance | 2,961 gflops | 2,289 gflops |
Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 28 nm |
Pipelines | 2048 | 1536 |
Texture fill rate | 92.54 GTexel / s | 95.36 GTexel / s |
Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 250 Watt | 225 Watt |
Transistor count | 5,000 million | 3,540 million |
Video outputs and ports |
||
Display Connectors | No outputs | No outputs |
Compatibility, dimensions and requirements |
||
Bus support | PCIe 3.0 | |
Interface | MXM-B (3.0) | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
Laptop size | large | |
Supplementary power connectors | None | |
API support |
||
DirectX | Not Listed | 12.0 (11_0) |
Mantle | ||
OpenCL | Not Listed | |
OpenGL | 4.4 | 4.6 |
Memory |
||
Memory bandwidth | 160.0 GB / s | 160.0 GB / s |
Memory type | Not Listed | GDDR5 |
Shared memory | 0 | |
Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | |
Memory bus width | 256 Bit | |
Memory clock speed | 5000 MHz | |
Technologies |
||
DualGraphics | ||
FreeSync | ||
HD3D | ||
PowerTune | ||
Switchable graphics | ||
ZeroCore |