OVERALL
ALTERNATIVES
SPECS
VS AVERAGE
REVIEWS
Scored using Graphics cards Methodology v3.0
Graphics cards Methodology v3.0
Mathematical & Unbiased Scoring
Products in this category are scored under Frontum Graphics cards Methodology v3.0: the technical score from the specifications is the base, and independent expert and video reviews (up to ±0.5 points), owner opinions (up to ±0.3) and best-of lists (up to +0.3) move it up or down.
Explore Graphics cards Methodology v3.0

ASUS GeForce GTX 950 review: 117 specs compared

Avg. price:~£160VRAM:2 GBMemory bus width:128 bitThermal Design Power (TDP):90 W

ASUS GeForce GTX 950 Review: Compare 117 technical specifications and 16 expert and video reviews to see how this product ranks in the Graphics cards category and whether it is worth buying.

ASUS GeForce GTX 950
6.2/10

Overall score

Score
6.2/ 10
✕
What it is
Our main score for this model, 1–10. It combines specs, expert reviews, best-of lists and owners.
How we count it
Parts: Technical score 40%, Reviews score 25%, List score 25%, Sentiment score 10%
Marks: Each part gets a mark out of 10. For reviews, lists and owners, a typical model in this category gets about 8 and the best one gets 10.
No data yet: A part with no data shows "?". It counts as the mark of a weaker model in this category (4 in 5 models with data score higher). This way, models with reviews, lists and owners usually come out ahead.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 85% of models
Score components

40%

3.6

Technical score

25%

8.3

Reviews score

25%

?

List scoreNot enough data yet, so we use 7.5, the mark of a weaker model in this category

10%

8.7

Sentiment score

â–¼Worse than 85% of graphics cards
7.3

Value for money

Value for money
7.3/ 10
✕
What it is
An indicator that combines the graphics card's overall rating with its cost.
When it matters
When you are looking for a graphics card that offers a strong balance of performance, features, and price.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 62% of models
Score components

70%

6.2

Overall score

30%

9.7

Price

â–¼Worse than 62%
3.6

Technical score

Technical score
3.6/ 10
✕
What it is
How good the specs are compared with the other models in this category, 1–10.
How we count it
Areas: We rate the specs in each area against the other models in this category.
Weighting: The areas that matter most to buyers count more. The shares are shown under Score components.
Share: The technical score is 40% of the overall score.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 98% of models
Score components

44%

1.7

Performance

24%

1.7

Memory

12%

8.9

Power

11%

6.0

Features

5%

8.9

Design

4%

6.8

Connectivity

â–¼Worse than 98%
8.3

Reviews score

Reviews score
8.3/ 10
✕
What it is
Average grade from independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers, 1–10.
How we count it
Grades: Each review's own score is converted to 1–10; without one, we grade the review ourselves. Big test sites count more, short reviews half as much as full tests. A video review counts half.
Score: The average grade is 80% of the review mark; the number of reviews is the other 20% (1 review = 5, the typical number in this category = 8, the most-reviewed model = 10).
Enough data: With few reviews, the average grade is pulled toward the typical grade of this category. No reviews yet: 7.6 for now.
Share: Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–² Better than 77% of models

80%

8.1

Average grade

20%

8.9

Popularity

Grades by review (16)
8 reviews: 3 with a printed score, 5 estimated from the review. 8 video reviews, each counting half as much as a written test. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
â–²Better than 77%
?

List score

List score
7.5/ 10
✕
What it is
How often independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers put this model in their best-of lists for this category.
How we count it
Points: The model in the most lists of this category gets 10; the others get 8 to 10 in proportion. In no list yet: 7.5. Lists count 25% of the overall score.
Enough data: Every list counts, even a single one. With fewer than 5 best-of lists in the category, this part is left out.
Lists with this model (0)
Not in any best-of list yet, so this part counts as 7.5. Models in a list get 8 to 10.
Not in any best-of list yet
  • asus-geforce-gtx-950
  • asus-geforce-gtx-950
  • asus-geforce-gtx-950
  • asus-geforce-gtx-950
  • asus-geforce-gtx-950
asus-geforce-gtx-950
asus-geforce-gtx-950
asus-geforce-gtx-950
asus-geforce-gtx-950
asus-geforce-gtx-950
Where to buy
*As an Amazon Associate, we earn from qualifying purchases.
Best rankings
Available: ranking among products currently available (including other versions of this product).All: ranking among all products in the database.

What reviewers say about the ASUS GeForce GTX 950

Based on 8 · 8

Reviewers love how quiet, cool and efficient it is with solid gaming performance, but many feel rival cards offer more.
Praised
Mixed views
Criticised
Pick a topic to see who said what

What owners say about the ASUS GeForce GTX 950

Based on 201 owners sharing their experience in online comments

75%positive16%mixed9%negative

Owners praise its gaming speed and overclocking, while limited VRAM and weaker performance in newer games draw the most complaints.

What owners dislike

  • Newer demanding games need low settings or 720p to 900p resolution, and some titles like Battlefield 2042 will not run.17
  • The 2 GB of VRAM causes big frame drops in newer games like Black Ops 3, Shadow of the Tomb Raider and GTA 5 at high textures.10
  • Frame rates can drop to near zero or freeze for seconds during fights, especially when VRAM is full, and some owners see stutter after long play.6

Points mentioned by at least 3 owners, most mentioned first.

Loading category ranking...

Technical Specifications of graphics card ASUS GeForce GTX 950

Technical score
Technical score
3.6/ 10
✕
What it is
How good the specs are compared with the other models in this category, 1–10.
How we count it
Areas: We rate the specs in each area against the other models in this category.
Weighting: The areas that matter most to buyers count more. The shares are shown under Score components.
Share: The technical score is 40% of the overall score.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 98% of models
Score components:

44%

1.7

Performance

24%

1.7

Memory

12%

8.9

Power

11%

6.0

Features

5%

8.9

Design

4%

6.8

Connectivity

3.6
Reviews score
8.3
List score
?
Value for money
Value for money
7.3/ 10
✕
What it is
An indicator that combines the graphics card's overall rating with its cost.
When it matters
When you are looking for a graphics card that offers a strong balance of performance, features, and price.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 62% of models
Score components:

70%

6.2

Overall score

30%

9.7

Price

7.3
3DMark Time Spy benchmark score
2,200 points
Market range: <4.1k points – >30.1k points
This graphics card scores 2,200 points in 3DMark Time Spy, which is lower than 95.1% of graphics cards and equal to 0.1% of graphics cards.
3DMark Port Royal score
0 points
Market range: <0 points – >22.4k points
This graphics card scores 0 points in 3DMark Port Royal, which is lower than 83.1% of graphics cards and equal to 16.9% of graphics cards.
PassMark (G3D) result
5,357 points
Market range: <7.7k points – >36k points
This graphics card scores 5,357 points in PassMark G3D, which is lower than 93.1% of graphics cards and equal to 0.1% of graphics cards.
PassMark (DirectCompute) result
3,173 points
Market range: <3.1k points – >26.3k points
This graphics card scores 3,173 points in PassMark DirectCompute, which is lower than 89.3% of graphics cards.
FP32 performance
1.82 TFLOPS
Market range: <3.94 TFLOPS – >56.3 TFLOPS
This graphics card delivers 1.82 TFLOPS FP32 performance, which is lower than that of 94.9% of graphics cards.
Show more
What reviewers say
VRAM
2 GB
Market range: <4 GB – >16 GB
This graphics card has 2 GB of VRAM, which is less than 94.3% of graphics cards and equal to 3.9% of graphics cards.
Memory type
GDDR5
This graphics card uses GDDR5 memory, which is older than on 85.4% of graphics cards and equal to 13.2% of graphics cards.
Memory bus width
128 bit
Market range: <128 bit – >384 bit
This graphics card uses a 128 bit memory bus, which is narrower than that of 68.6% of graphics cards and equal to that of 26.7% of graphics cards.
Maximum memory bandwidth
105.8 GB/s
Market range: <168 GB/s – >960 GB/s
This graphics card reaches 105.8 GB/s memory bandwidth, which is lower than that of 95.8% of graphics cards and equal to that of 0.1% of graphics cards.
Effective memory speed
6,612 MHz
Market range: <7k MHz – >28k MHz
This graphics card reaches an effective memory speed of 6,612 MHz, which is slower than that of 93% of graphics cards and equal to that of 0.1% of graphics cards.
Show more
What reviewers say
PCI Express (PCIe) version
3
This graphics card supports PCIe 3, which is older than on 77.6% of graphics cards and equal to 20.1% of graphics cards.
PCIe lanes
x16
This graphics card uses x16 PCIe lanes, which is more than 24.1% of graphics cards and equal to 75.9% of graphics cards.
DirectX version
12
This graphics card supports DirectX 12, which is older than on 81.8% of graphics cards and equal to 17% of graphics cards.
Vulkan version
1.4
This graphics card supports Vulkan 1.4, which is more advanced than on 20.8% of graphics cards and equal to 79.2% of graphics cards.
vendor-name or prompt-tail contamination removed; Vulkan version unresolved.
OpenGL version
4.6
This graphics card supports OpenGL 4.6, which is more advanced than on 2% of graphics cards and equal to 98% of graphics cards.
Show more
Max displays supported
4
Market range: <4 – >4
This graphics card supports up to 4 displays, which is more than 9% of graphics cards and equal to 88.2% of graphics cards.
Max digital resolution
4096x2160
This graphics card supports a maximum digital resolution of 4096x2160, which is lower than that of 92.4% of graphics cards and equal to that of 4.6% of graphics cards.
DisplayPort outputs
1
Market range: <1 – >3
This graphics card offers 1 DisplayPort outputs, which is fewer than 88.1% of graphics cards and equal to 8.7% of graphics cards.
DisplayPort version
1.2
This graphics card supports DisplayPort 1.2, which is older than on 93.9% of graphics cards and equal to 5.1% of graphics cards.
DisplayPort link rates
5.4 Gbps
Market range: <5.4 Gbps – >80 Gbps
This graphics card supports DisplayPort link rates up to 5.4 Gbps, which is slower than on 87.9% of graphics cards and equal to 6% of graphics cards.
Show more
What reviewers say
Thermal Design Power (TDP)
90 W
Market range: <86 W – >360 W
This graphics card has a TDP of 90 W, which is lower than that of 89.5% of graphics cards and equal to that of 0.1% of graphics cards.
Power consumption while under peak load
90 W
Market range: <106 W – >365 W
This graphics card draws 90 W under peak load, which is lower than 91% of graphics cards and equal to 0.1% of graphics cards.
Recommended PSU wattage
350 W
Market range: <450 W – >850 W
This graphics card recommends a 350 W PSU, which is lower than that of 92.7% of graphics cards and equal to that of 1.3% of graphics cards.
Board power limit
75 W
Market range: <107 W – >400 W
This graphics card has a board power limit of 75 W, which is lower than that of 91.9% of graphics cards and equal to that of 2.2% of graphics cards.
PCIe power spec
75 W
Show more
What reviewers say
Size
211x 115x 35 mm
Length
211 mm
Market range: <200 mm – >337 mm
This graphics card is 211 mm long, which is shorter than 86.3% of graphics cards and equal in length to 0.1% of graphics cards.
Height
111.8 mm
Market range: <109 mm – >146 mm
This graphics card is 111.8 mm tall, which is shorter than 79.9% of graphics cards and equal in height to 0.2% of graphics cards.
Slot width
2 slot/s
Market range: <2 slot/s – >3.25 slot/s
This graphics card occupies 2 slot/s, which is slimmer than 52.4% of graphics cards and equal in width to 43.4% of graphics cards.
Weight
816 g
Market range: <541 g – >2k g
This graphics card weighs 816 g, which is lighter than 69.3% of Graphics cards and equal to 0.1% of Graphics cards.
Show more
What reviewers say

ASUS GeForce GTX 950 vs the average graphics card

246810TotalPerformanceMemoryFeaturesConnectivityPowerDesign
  • 58.1% lower TDP
    This graphics card has a lower TDP than the average graphics card (90 W vs 215 W). The average graphics card has a TDP of 215 W.
    90 W vs 215 W
  • 46.2% lower PSU requirement
    This graphics card has a lower PSU requirement than the average graphics card (350 W vs 650 W). The average graphics card has a PSU requirement of 650 W.
    350 W vs 650 W
  • 71.2 mm shorter card length
    This graphics card is shorter than the average graphics card (211 mm vs 282.2 mm). The average graphics card has a length of 282.2 mm.
    211 mm vs 282.2 mm
  • 15.3% higher review score
    Reviews score
    8.3/ 10
    ✕
    What it is
    Average grade from independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers, 1–10.
    How we count it
    Grades: Each review's own score is converted to 1–10; without one, we grade the review ourselves. Big test sites count more, short reviews half as much as full tests. A video review counts half.
    Score: The average grade is 80% of the review mark; the number of reviews is the other 20% (1 review = 5, the typical number in this category = 8, the most-reviewed model = 10).
    Enough data: With few reviews, the average grade is pulled toward the typical grade of this category. No reviews yet: 7.6 for now.
    Share: Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    Score distribution
    â–¼
    <55-66-77-88-99-10
    â–² Better than 77% of models

    80%

    8.1

    Average grade

    20%

    8.9

    Popularity

    Grades by review (16)
    8 reviews: 3 with a printed score, 5 estimated from the review. 8 video reviews, each counting half as much as a written test. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
    8.3 vs 7.2
  • 65.9% lower board power limit
    This graphics card has a lower board power limit than the average graphics card (75 W vs 220 W). The average graphics card has a board power limit of 220 W.
    75 W vs 220 W
  • 13.2 mm lower card height
    This graphics card is shorter than the average graphics card (111.8 mm vs 125 mm). The average graphics card has a height of 125 mm.
    111.8 mm vs 125 mm
  • 0.5 slot/s slimmer design
    This graphics card occupies fewer slots than the average graphics card (2 slot/s vs 2.5 slot/s). The average graphics card occupies 2.5 slot/s.
    2 slot/s vs 2.5 slot/s
  • 2 more GPUs supported
    This graphics card supports more GPUs in multi-GPU mode than the average graphics card (2 vs 0). The average graphics card supports 0 GPUs in multi-GPU mode.
    2 vs 0
  • 15.3% higher review score
    Reviews score
    8.3/ 10
    ✕
    What it is
    Average grade from independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers, 1–10.
    How we count it
    Grades: Each review's own score is converted to 1–10; without one, we grade the review ourselves. Big test sites count more, short reviews half as much as full tests. A video review counts half.
    Score: The average grade is 80% of the review mark; the number of reviews is the other 20% (1 review = 5, the typical number in this category = 8, the most-reviewed model = 10).
    Enough data: With few reviews, the average grade is pulled toward the typical grade of this category. No reviews yet: 7.6 for now.
    Share: Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    Score distribution
    â–¼
    <55-66-77-88-99-10
    â–² Better than 77% of models

    80%

    8.1

    Average grade

    20%

    8.9

    Popularity

    Grades by review (16)
    8 reviews: 3 with a printed score, 5 estimated from the review. 8 video reviews, each counting half as much as a written test. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
    8.3 vs 7.2
  • 3.25x cheaper
    ASUS GeForce GTX 950 is cheaper than the average graphics card (£160 vs £520).
    £160 vs £520
  • 2 more GPUs supported
    This graphics card supports more GPUs in multi-GPU mode than the average graphics card (2 vs 0). The average graphics card supports 0 GPUs in multi-GPU mode.
    2 vs 0
  • Supports multi-GPU linking
    This graphics card supports multi-GPU linking, the average graphics card does not.
  • Supports NVLink
    This graphics card supports NVLink, the average graphics card does not.
  • 1 more DVI outputs
    This graphics card has more DVI outputs than the average graphics card (1 vs 0). The average graphics card has 0 DVI outputs.
    1 vs 0
  • 58.1% lower TDP
    This graphics card has a lower TDP than the average graphics card (90 W vs 215 W). The average graphics card has a TDP of 215 W.
    90 W vs 215 W
  • 46.2% lower PSU requirement
    This graphics card has a lower PSU requirement than the average graphics card (350 W vs 650 W). The average graphics card has a PSU requirement of 650 W.
    350 W vs 650 W
  • 65.9% lower board power limit
    This graphics card has a lower board power limit than the average graphics card (75 W vs 220 W). The average graphics card has a board power limit of 220 W.
    75 W vs 220 W
  • 59.1% lower peak power draw
    This graphics card has a lower peak power draw than the average graphics card (90 W vs 220 W). The average graphics card has a peak power draw of 220 W.
    90 W vs 220 W
  • 71.2 mm shorter card length
    This graphics card is shorter than the average graphics card (211 mm vs 282.2 mm). The average graphics card has a length of 282.2 mm.
    211 mm vs 282.2 mm
  • 13.2 mm lower card height
    This graphics card is shorter than the average graphics card (111.8 mm vs 125 mm). The average graphics card has a height of 125 mm.
    111.8 mm vs 125 mm
  • 0.5 slot/s slimmer design
    This graphics card occupies fewer slots than the average graphics card (2 slot/s vs 2.5 slot/s). The average graphics card occupies 2.5 slot/s.
    2 slot/s vs 2.5 slot/s
  • 52.5% lower boost clock speed
    This graphics card has a lower boost GPU clock than the average graphics card (1,190 MHz vs 2,505 MHz). The average graphics card has a boost GPU clock of 2,505 MHz.
    1,190 MHz vs 2,505 MHz
  • 10 GB less VRAM
    This graphics card has fewer VRAM than the average graphics card (2 GB vs 12 GB). The average graphics card has 12 GB VRAM.
    2 GB vs 12 GB
  • 34 fewer compute units
    This graphics card has fewer compute units than the average graphics card (6 vs 40). The average graphics card has 40 compute units.
    6 vs 40
  • 40 fewer ray tracing cores
    This graphics card has fewer ray tracing cores than the average graphics card (0 vs 40). The average graphics card has 40 ray tracing cores.
    0 vs 40
  • 5.6x larger process node
    This graphics card uses a larger manufacturing process than the average graphics card (28 nm vs 5 nm). The average graphics card uses a manufacturing process of 5 nm.
    28 nm vs 5 nm
  • Less advanced frame generation
    This graphics card has less advanced frame generation than the average graphics card (no vs multi frame generation).
  • 46.6% lower base clock speed
    This graphics card has a lower base GPU clock than the average graphics card (1,026 MHz vs 1920 MHz). The average graphics card has a base GPU clock of 1920 MHz.
    1,026 MHz vs 1,920 MHz
  • 136 fewer TMUs
    This graphics card has fewer TMUs than the average graphics card (48 vs 184). The average graphics card has 184 TMUs.
    48 vs 184
  • 52.5% lower boost clock speed
    This graphics card has a lower boost GPU clock than the average graphics card (1,190 MHz vs 2,505 MHz). The average graphics card has a boost GPU clock of 2,505 MHz.
    1,190 MHz vs 2,505 MHz
  • 34 fewer compute units
    This graphics card has fewer compute units than the average graphics card (6 vs 40). The average graphics card has 40 compute units.
    6 vs 40
  • 40 fewer ray tracing cores
    This graphics card has fewer ray tracing cores than the average graphics card (0 vs 40). The average graphics card has 40 ray tracing cores.
    0 vs 40
  • 46.6% lower base clock speed
    This graphics card has a lower base GPU clock than the average graphics card (1,026 MHz vs 1920 MHz). The average graphics card has a base GPU clock of 1920 MHz.
    1,026 MHz vs 1,920 MHz
  • 136 fewer TMUs
    This graphics card has fewer TMUs than the average graphics card (48 vs 184). The average graphics card has 184 TMUs.
    48 vs 184
  • 87% lower texture rate
    This graphics card has a lower texture rate than the average graphics card (49.2 GTexel/s vs 378 GTexel/s). The average graphics card has a texture rate of 378 GTexel/s.
    49.2 GTexel/s vs 378 GTexel/s
  • 76.4% lower pixel rate
    This graphics card has a lower pixel rate than the average graphics card (38.1 GPixel/s vs 161.3 GPixel/s). The average graphics card has a pixel rate of 161.3 GPixel/s.
    38.08 GPixel/s vs 161.3 GPixel/s
  • 144 fewer AI cores
    This graphics card has fewer AI cores than the average graphics card (0 vs 144). The average graphics card has 144 AI cores.
    0 vs 144
  • 32 fewer ROPs
    This graphics card has fewer ROPs than the average graphics card (32 vs 64). The average graphics card has 64 ROPs.
    32 vs 64
  • 91.9% lower FP32 performance
    This graphics card has a lower FP32 performance than the average graphics card (1.8 TFLOPS vs 22.6 TFLOPS). The average graphics card has FP32 performance of 22.6 TFLOPS.
    1.82 TFLOPS vs 22.6 TFLOPS
  • 8 years older
    This graphics card was released earlier than the average graphics card (2015 vs 2023).
    August 2015
    2015 vs 2023
  • 76.3% lower PassMark score
    This graphics card has a lower PassMark score than the average graphics card (5,357 points vs 22,638 points). The average graphics card has a PassMark score of 22,638 points.
    5,357 points vs 22,638 points
  • 85.1% lower gaming score
    This graphics card has a lower gaming score than the average graphics card (2,200 points vs 14,779 points). The average graphics card has a gaming score of 14,779 points.
    2,200 points vs 14,779 points
  • 87.5% lower FP64 performance
    This graphics card has a lower FP64 performance than the average graphics card (0.1 TFLOPS vs 0.48 TFLOPS). The average graphics card has FP64 performance of 0.48 TFLOPS.
    0.06 TFLOPS vs 0.48 TFLOPS
  • 73.7% lower compute score
    This graphics card has a lower compute score than the average graphics card (3,173 points vs 12,70.5 points). The average graphics card has a compute score of 12,070.5 points.
    3,173 points vs 12,070.5 points
  • 3,584 fewer FP32 units
    This graphics card has fewer FP32 units than the average graphics card (768 vs 4,352). The average graphics card has 4,352 FP32 units.
    768 vs 4,352
  • 10 GB less VRAM
    This graphics card has fewer VRAM than the average graphics card (2 GB vs 12 GB). The average graphics card has 12 GB VRAM.
    2 GB vs 12 GB
  • 76.4% lower memory bandwidth
    This graphics card has a lower memory bandwidth than the average graphics card (105.8 GB/s vs 448 GB/s). The average graphics card has a memory bandwidth of 448 GB/s.
    105.8 GB/s vs 448 GB/s
  • 65.2% slower memory speed
    This graphics card has a lower effective memory speed than the average graphics card (6,612 MHz vs 19,000 MHz). The average graphics card reaches an effective memory speed of 19,000 MHz.
    6,612 MHz vs 19,000 MHz
  • 64 bit narrower memory bus
    This graphics card has a narrower memory bus than the average graphics card (128 bit vs 192 bit). The average graphics card has a memory bus width of 192 bit.
    128 bit vs 192 bit
  • 62.5% smaller L1 cache
    This graphics card has fewer L1 cache than the average graphics card (48 KB vs 128 KB). The average graphics card has 128 KB L1 cache.
    48 KB vs 128 KB
  • 5.5% slower VRAM clock
    This graphics card has a lower VRAM clock than the average graphics card (1,653 MHz vs 1,750 MHz). The average graphics card runs its VRAM at 1,750 MHz.
    1,653 MHz vs 1,750 MHz
  • 5.6x larger process node
    This graphics card uses a larger manufacturing process than the average graphics card (28 nm vs 5 nm). The average graphics card uses a manufacturing process of 5 nm.
    28 nm vs 5 nm
  • Less advanced frame generation
    This graphics card has less advanced frame generation than the average graphics card (no vs multi frame generation).
  • No DLSS support
    This graphics card does not support DLSS, the average graphics card does.
  • No ray tracing
    This graphics card does not support ray tracing, the average graphics card does.
  • No FSR support
    This graphics card does not support FSR, the average graphics card does.
  • Older PCIe version
    This graphics card supports an older PCIe version than the average graphics card (3 vs 4).
    3 vs 4
  • No AI upscalers
    This graphics card does not support AI upscalers, the average graphics card does.
  • No XeSS support
    This graphics card does not support XeSS, the average graphics card does.
  • No mesh shaders
    This graphics card does not support mesh shaders, the average graphics card does.
  • No DirectStorage support
    This graphics card does not support DirectStorage, the average graphics card does.
  • No Resizable BAR
    This graphics card does not support Resizable BAR, while the average graphics card does. 76.4% of Graphics cards support it.
  • Older DirectX version
    This graphics card supports an older DirectX version than the average graphics card (12 vs 12 Ultimate).
    12 vs 12 Ultimate
  • Older OpenCL version
    This graphics card supports an older OpenCL version than the average graphics card (1.2 vs 3).
    1.2 vs 3
  • No sampler feedback
    This graphics card does not support sampler feedback, the average graphics card does.
  • 87.2% fewer transistors
    This graphics card has fewer transistors than the average graphics card (2,940 million vs 22,900 million). The average graphics card has 22,900 million transistors.
    2,940 million vs 22,900 million
  • Older FSR version
    This graphics card supports an older FSR version than the average graphics card (1 vs 3.1).
    1 vs 3.1
  • 2 fewer DisplayPort outputs
    This graphics card has fewer DisplayPort outputs than the average graphics card (1 vs 3). The average graphics card has 3 DisplayPort outputs.
    1 vs 3
  • Older HDMI version
    This graphics card supports an older HDMI version than the average graphics card (2 vs 2.1a).
    2.0 vs 2.1a
  • No AV1 encoding
    This graphics card does not support AV1 encoding, the average graphics card does.
  • No AV1 decoding
    This graphics card does not support AV1 decoding, the average graphics card does.
  • No DSC support
    This graphics card does not support DSC, the average graphics card does.
  • Older DisplayPort version
    This graphics card supports an older DisplayPort version than the average graphics card (1.2 vs 1.4a).
    1.2 vs 1.4a
  • More basic codec support
    This graphics card encodes more basic formats than the average graphics card (H.264/H.265 vs H.264/H.265/AV1/VP9).
    H.264/H.265 vs H.264/H.265/AV1/VP9
  • Lower display resolution
    This graphics card supports a lower maximum digital resolution than the average graphics card (4096x2160 vs 7680x4320). The average graphics card supports a maximum digital resolution of 7680x4320.
    4096x2160 vs 7680x4320
  • Not VR ready
    This graphics card is not VR ready, while the average graphics card is.
  • Older HDCP version
    This graphics card supports an older HDCP version than the average graphics card (2.2 vs 2.3).
    2.2 vs 2.3
  • 2 fewer monitors per output type
    This graphics card supports fewer monitors per output type than the average graphics card (1 vs 3). The average graphics card supports 3 monitors per output type.
    1 vs 3
  • Older NVDEC generation
    This graphics card has a lower NVDEC generation than the average graphics card (2 vs 6). The average graphics card offers NVDEC generation 6.
    2 vs 6
  • 75% lower DisplayPort bandwidth
    This graphics card has a lower DisplayPort bandwidth than the average graphics card (5.4 Gbps vs 21.6 Gbps). The average graphics card has DisplayPort bandwidth of 21.6 Gbps.
    5.4 Gbps vs 21.6 Gbps
  • 1 fewer fans
    This graphics card has fewer fans than the average graphics card (2 vs 3).
    2 vs 3
  • No dual BIOS
    This graphics card does not include dual BIOS, the average graphics card does.
  • No backplate
    This graphics card does not include a backplate, the average graphics card does.
  • No RGB lighting
    This graphics card does not include RGB lighting, the average graphics card does.

Video reviews

Hands-on testing, unboxing, and real-world video evaluations

9.0
Vortez
≈ estimated
13/05/2016
Hands-on review · game benchmarks, noise and temperature tests
Verdict
ASUS GeForce GTX 950 is a clear win for 1080p gaming: quiet, and powered entirely from the motherboard slot.
8.0
GLOCO
≈ estimated
18/01/2016
Hands-on review · FPS benchmarks and vsync tests
Verdict
ASUS GeForce GTX 950 is powerful and an especially good fit for budget MOBA gaming.
8.0
Linus Tech Tips
≈ estimated
14/09/2015
Comparison review · benchmarks and boost clock tests
Verdict
ASUS GeForce GTX 950 is a solid, compact budget card, but trails the EVGA model slightly on boost clocks.
Overview video
Not graded
Overview video
Hands-on video, no verdict
Overview video

Expert reviews

In-depth analysis and verdict from leading tech publications

10
techpowerup.com
✓ explicit
20/08/2015
Benchmark review · Entry-level card
Verdict
The ASUS GeForce GTX 950 STRIX is a very quiet, low-power card for 900p and lower-detail 1080p gaming, with a factory overclock that adds a little speed.
9.0
tomshardware.com
≈ estimated
20/08/2015
Review · Entry-level card
Verdict
The Asus GTX 950 is a nearly silent, cool-running card that handles 1080p gaming well, though its 2GB of memory is the main limitation.
9.5
babeltechreviews.com
≈ estimated
20/08/2015
Full review · Entry-level card
Verdict
The ASUS GTX 950 STRIX is a short, quiet card that overclocks well and fits small cases, though its bundle is sparse and it has no backplate.
8.0
techadvisor.com
✓ explicit
01/12/2015
Hands-on review · 1080p gaming card
Verdict
The Asus Strix GTX 950 is a quiet, cool 1080p card that runs most games near 60fps, but its 2GB of memory will limit newer titles.
8.0
guru3d.com
≈ estimated
20/08/2015
Benchmark review · 1080p card
Verdict
The ASUS GTX 950 STRIX is a quiet, cool card that suits 1080p gaming, though its 2GB of memory is short for newer games.
7.0
gamersnexus.net
≈ estimated
20/08/2015
Benchmark review · 1080p comparison
Verdict
The GeForce GTX 950 is a solid 1080p card that draws only about 90 watts, but it is too slow for high settings in The Witcher 3.
9.0
sea.ign.com
✓ explicit
21/08/2015
Hands-on review · Overclocking test
Verdict
The Asus Strix GTX 950 is a cool, quiet card that overclocks well and has useful recording tools, but it needs lower graphics settings than the GTX 960.
6.0
pcgameshardware.de
≈ estimated
20/08/2015
Benchmark review · Efficient 1080p card
Verdict
The GeForce GTX 950 is a quiet, low-power 1080p card for occasional gaming and media, though the Radeon R9 270X gives more gaming performance.

Third-party reviews

What customers like about ASUS GeForce GTX 950

  • Excellent 1080p gaming performance for entry-level builds, easily surpassing the previous GTX 750 Ti.
  • Superior power efficiency with low TDP; the 'Unplugged' version runs entirely off the PCIe slot without needing a 6-pin connector.
  • Remarkably quiet operation, especially the STRIX model where fans turn off during idle or light tasks.
  • Solid overclocking potential, with many users reporting easy gains of 10% or more using Use code with caution.jsonASUS GPU Tweak IIUse code with caution.json.
  • Modern feature support for its era, including HDMI 2.0 for 4K/60Hz output and HEVC encoding/decoding.
  • Compact physical design makes it a 'hassle-free' upgrade for small form factor (SFF) or OEM pre-built systems.

What customers don't like about ASUS GeForce GTX 950

  • The 2GB VRAM is a significant bottleneck for modern AAA titles, often requiring settings to be dropped to low or 720p resolution.
  • Poor value proposition at launch relative to the GTX 960 or AMD R9 380, which offered better performance for a small price increase.
  • Limited longevity as driver support for the Maxwell architecture has officially ended.
  • Occasional reports of coil whine under high load scenarios.
  • Aesthetic choices on some models, like the lack of a backplate or specific white/blue color schemes, may not match all builds.

Verdict

The Asus GeForce GTX 950 is an entry-level graphics card based on the 28nm Maxwell 2.0 architecture, specifically utilizing the GM206 graphics processor with 768 CUDA cores, 48 texture mapping units, and 32 ROPs. It features 2GB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus with a bandwidth of 105.8 GB/s, typically operating at a base clock of 1024 MHz and a boost clock of 1188 MHz. Main characteristics include DirectX 12 support, a 90W TDP requiring a single 6-pin power connector (though some 'Unplugged' variants run solely on 75W PCIe slot power), and triple DisplayPort 1.2, HDMI 2.0, and DVI-I outputs. Key pros are its low power consumption, exceptionally quiet operation, and solid 1080p performance for budget gaming and MOBA titles. Notable cons include its limited 2GB VRAM capacity, which struggles with modern high-resolution textures, and its aging performance relative to newer entry-level GPUs.

Compare ASUS GeForce GTX 950 with other products in the Graphics cards category

1Product to compare no. 1
VS
2Product to compare no. 2
VS
3Product to compare no. 3 (optional)

Graphic comparison of ASUS GeForce GTX 950 and other products in the Graphics cards category

No results found