0 Comments
| | Radeon R9 290 vs 280X |
Released November, 2013
AMD Radeon R9 290
- 947 MHz
- 4 GB GDDR5
by techPowerUp!NVIDIA's GTX 780, which has seen a price drop down to $500 last week suddenly looks really expensive, but it does run cooler and quieter; not sure if that's worth the extra $100.
VS
Released October, 2013
Generic Radeon R9 280X
- 850 MHz
- 3 GB GDDR5
by techPowerUp!One memory chip remains uncooled, but its position is covered by the airflow the cooling assembly produces.
GPUBoss Review Our evaluation of R9 290 vs R9 280X
Gaming | |
Real world tests using the latest 3D games | |
| Radeon R9 290 N/A Radeon R9 280X N/A | |
| crysis: warhead (2013), Crysis: Warhead (2012), Batman: Arkham City and 6 more | |
Benchmarks | |
Synthetic tests to measure overall performance | |
| Radeon R9 290 8.8 Radeon R9 280X 8.3 | |
| 3DMark 11 Graphics, 3DMark Vantage Graphics and 3DMark06 | |
Compute Performance | |
General computing tests executed on the GPU | |
| Radeon R9 290 9.4 Radeon R9 280X 9.0 | |
| Civilization 5 Texture Decomposition (2013) | |
Noise and Power | |
How loud and hot does the card run idle and under load | |
| Radeon R9 290 5.3 Radeon R9 280X 5.4 | |
| TDP | |
No winner declared
Too close to call
Cast your vote Do you agree or disagree with GPUBoss?
VS
Differences What are the advantages of each
| |||||||
| Higher clock speed | 947 MHz | vs | 850 MHz | More than 10% higher clock speed | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Significantly higher pixel rate | 60.6 GPixel/s | vs | 27.2 GPixel/s | Around 2.2x higher pixel rate | |||
| More memory | 4,096 MB | vs | 3,072 MB | Around 35% more memory | |||
| Better 3DMark 11 graphics score | 14,570 | vs | 10,792 | More than 35% better 3DMark 11 graphics score | |||
| Better floating-point performance | 4,800 GFLOPS | vs | 3,482 GFLOPS | Around 40% better floating-point performance | |||
| Better 3DMark06 score | 32,300 | vs | 28,452 | Around 15% better 3DMark06 score | |||
| Significantly more render output processors | 64 | vs | 32 | Twice as many render output processors | |||
| More shading units | 2,560 | vs | 2,048 | 512 more shading units | |||
| Higher BioShock infinite framerate | 91.5 fps | vs | 73.9 fps | Around 25% higher BioShock infinite framerate | |||
| More texture mapping units | 160 | vs | 128 | 32 more texture mapping units | |||
| Wider memory bus | 512 bit | vs | 384 bit | Around 35% wider memory bus | |||
| More compute units | 40 | vs | 32 | 8 more compute units | |||
| Better civilization 5 texture decomposition (2013) score | 367 | vs | 339.1 | Around 10% better civilization 5 texture decomposition (2013) score | |||
| |||||||
| Higher effective memory clock speed | 6,000 MHz | vs | 5,000 MHz | 20% higher effective memory clock speed | |||
| Significantly higher memory clock speed | 1,500 MHz | vs | 1,125 MHz | Around 35% higher memory clock speed | |||
| Higher turbo clock speed | 1,000 MHz | vs | 947 MHz | More than 5% higher turbo clock speed | |||
| Lower TDP | 250W | vs | 300W | More than 15% lower TDP | |||
Benchmarks Real world tests of Radeon R9 290 vs 280X
3DMark 11 Graphics Industry standard benchmark that tests DirectX 11 GPU performance
Radeon R9 290
14,570
Radeon R9 280X
10,792
3DMark Vantage Graphics Industry standard benchmark that tests DirectX 10 GPU performance
Radeon R9 290
38,650
Radeon R9 280X
36,241
3DMark06 Industry standard benchmark that tests DirectX 9 GPU performance
Radeon R9 290
32,300
Radeon R9 280X
28,452
BioShock Infinite 1920 x 1080 - Ultra preset + DX11 (DDOF)
Radeon R9 290
91.5 fps
Radeon R9 280X
73.9 fps
Civilization 5 Texture Decomp (2013) Using the newest graphics cards Civ V can speed screen transitions by reducing texture sizes
Radeon R9 290
367
Radeon R9 280X
339.1
Reviews Word on the street
| Radeon R9 290 | vs | 280X | ||
| 9.4 | 8.5 | Radeon R9 290 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|





