AMD FireStream 9250 vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 295
We compared two Desktop platform GPUs: 1024MB VRAM FireStream 9250 and 896MB VRAM GeForce GTX 295 to see which GPU has better performance in key specifications, benchmark tests, power consumption, etc.
Main Differences
AMD FireStream 9250 's Advantages
More VRAM (1024GB vs 896GB)
560 additional rendering cores
Lower TDP (150W vs 289W)
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 295 's Advantages
Released 7 months late
Larger VRAM bandwidth (111.9GB/s vs 63.55GB/s)
Score
Benchmark
FP32 (float)
FireStream 9250
+67%
1 TFLOPS
GeForce GTX 295
0.596 TFLOPS
Graphics Card
Jun 2008
Release Date
Jan 2009
FireStream
Generation
GeForce 200
Desktop
Type
Desktop
PCIe 2.0 x16
Bus Interface
PCIe 2.0 x16
Clock Speeds
-
-
-
-
-
-
993 MHz
Memory Clock
999 MHz
Memory
1024MB
Memory Size
896MB
GDDR3
Memory Type
GDDR3
256bit
Memory Bus
448bit
63.55GB/s
Bandwidth
111.9GB/s
Render Config
10
Compute Units
-
-
SM Count
30
800
Shading Units
240
40
TMUs
80
16
ROPs
28
-
-
-
-
-
-
16 KB (per CU)
L1 Cache
-
256 KB
L2 Cache
224 KB
-
-
-
Theoretical Performance
10.00 GPixel/s
Pixel Rate
16.13 GPixel/s
25.00 GTexel/s
Texture Rate
46.08 GTexel/s
-
-
-
1000 GFLOPS
FP32 (float)
596.2 GFLOPS
200.0 GFLOPS
FP64 (double)
74.52 GFLOPS
Board Design
150W
TDP
289W
450 W
Suggested PSU
600 W
1x DVI
Outputs
2x DVI
1x HDMI
1x 6-pin
Power Connectors
1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin
Graphics Processor
RV770
GPU Name
GT200B
RV770 PRO
GPU Variant
G200-401-B3
TeraScale
Architecture
Tesla 2.0
TSMC
Foundry
TSMC
55 nm
Process Size
55 nm
0.956 billion
Transistors
1.4 billion
256 mm²
Die Size
470 mm²
Graphics Features
10.1 (10_1)
DirectX
11.1 (10_0)
3.3
OpenGL
3.3
1.1
OpenCL
1.1
N/A
Vulkan
N/A
-
CUDA
1.3
4.1
Shader Model
4.0
