NVIDIA GeForce GTX 850M vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 295

Comparative analysis of NVIDIA GeForce GTX 850M and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 295 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 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps), GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps), GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps), 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score.

NVIDIA GeForce GTX 850M

NVIDIA GeForce GTX 295

Differences

Reasons to consider the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 850M

Videocard is newer: launch date 5 year(s) 2 month(s) later
Around 33% higher pipelines: 640 vs 2x 240
A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running videocard: 28 nm vs 55 nm
6.4x lower typical power consumption: 45 Watt vs 289 Watt
Around 14% higher maximum memory size: 2 GB vs 1792 MB
2.1x better performance in PassMark - G3D Mark: 2516 vs 1206
2.2x better performance in PassMark - G2D Mark: 225 vs 103
Around 7% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 3685 vs 3443
Around 8% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 3353 vs 3107
Around 7% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 3685 vs 3443
Around 8% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 3353 vs 3107

Specifications (specs)
Launch date	12 March 2014 vs 8 January 2009
Pipelines	640 vs 2x 240
Manufacturing process technology	28 nm vs 55 nm
Thermal Design Power (TDP)	45 Watt vs 289 Watt
Maximum memory size	2 GB vs 1792 MB
Benchmarks
PassMark - G3D Mark	2516 vs 1206
PassMark - G2D Mark	225 vs 103
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames)	3685 vs 3443
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames)	3353 vs 3107
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps)	3685 vs 3443
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps)	3353 vs 3107

Reasons to consider the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 295

2.6x more texture fill rate: 92.2 billion / sec vs 36.08 GTexel / s
Around 3% better floating-point performance: 2x 596.2 gflops vs 1,155 gflops
2.2x better performance in Geekbench - OpenCL: 21048 vs 9705

Specifications (specs)
Texture fill rate	92.2 billion / sec vs 36.08 GTexel / s
Floating-point performance	2x 596.2 gflops vs 1,155 gflops
Benchmarks
Geekbench - OpenCL	21048 vs 9705

Compare benchmarks

GPU 1: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 850M
GPU 2: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 295

PassMark - G3D Mark

GPU 1

GPU 2

2516

1206

PassMark - G2D Mark

GPU 1

GPU 2

225

103

Geekbench - OpenCL

GPU 1

GPU 2

9705

21048

GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames)

GPU 1

GPU 2

3685

3443

GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames)

GPU 1

GPU 2

3353

3107

GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps)

GPU 1

GPU 2

3685

3443

GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps)

GPU 1

GPU 2

3353

3107

Name	NVIDIA GeForce GTX 850M	NVIDIA GeForce GTX 295
PassMark - G3D Mark	2516	1206
PassMark - G2D Mark	225	103
Geekbench - OpenCL	9705	21048
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s)	37.761
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s)	388.248
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s)	2.428
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s)	38.889
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s)	151.016
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames)	3817
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames)	3685	3443
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames)	3353	3107
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps)	3817
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps)	3685	3443
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps)	3353	3107
3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score	979

Compare specifications (specs)

	NVIDIA GeForce GTX 850M	NVIDIA GeForce GTX 295
Essentials
Architecture	Maxwell	Tesla 2.0
Code name	GM107	GT200B
Launch date	12 March 2014	8 January 2009
Place in performance rating	929	932
Type	Laptop	Desktop
Launch price (MSRP)		$500
Price now		$159.99
Value for money (0-100)		8.53
Technical info
CUDA cores	640	480
Floating-point performance	1,155 gflops	2x 596.2 gflops
Manufacturing process technology	28 nm	55 nm
Pipelines	640	2x 240
Texture fill rate	36.08 GTexel / s	92.2 billion / sec
Thermal Design Power (TDP)	45 Watt	289 Watt
Transistor count	1,870 million	1,400 million
Core clock speed		1242 MHz
CUDA cores per GPU		240
Maximum GPU temperature		105 °C
Video outputs and ports
7.1 channel HD audio on HDMI
Display Connectors	No outputs	2x DVI, 1x HDMI, Two Dual Link DVIHDMI
DisplayPort Multimode (DP++) support	Up to 3840x2160
eDP 1.2 signal support	Up to 3840x2160
HDCP content protection
HDMI
LVDS signal support	Up to 1920x1200
TrueHD and DTS-HD audio bitstreaming
VGA аnalog display support	Up to 2048x1536
Audio input for HDMI		S / PDIF
Maximum VGA resolution		2048x1536
Multi monitor support
Compatibility, dimensions and requirements
Bus support	PCI Express 2.0, PCI Express 3.0
Interface	PCIe 3.0 x16	PCIe 2.0 x16
Laptop size	medium sized
Height		4.376" (111 mm) (11.1 cm)
Length		10.5" (267 mm) (26.7 cm)
SLI options		Quad
Supplementary power connectors		6-pin & 8-pin
API support
DirectX	12.0 (11_0)	10.0
OpenCL	1.1
OpenGL	4.5	2.1
Memory
Maximum RAM amount	2 GB	1792 MB
Memory bandwidth	80.0 GB / s	223.8 GB / s
Memory bus width	128 Bit	896 Bit
Memory type	DDR3, GDDR5	GDDR3
Shared memory	0
Standard memory configuration	DDR3 or GDDR5
Memory clock speed		999 MHz
Memory interface width per GPU		448 Bit
Standard memory config per GPU		896 MB
Technologies
3D Blu-Ray
Adaptive VSync
Ansel
BatteryBoost
CUDA
Direct Compute
FXAA
GeForce Experience
GeForce ShadowPlay
GPU Boost
H.264, VC1, MPEG2 1080p video decoder
Optimus
SLI
TXAA
3D Vision
High Dynamic-Range Lighting (HDRR)		128bit