Winner
AMD Radeon R9 290
GPUBoss recommends the AMD Radeon R9 290 based on its benchmarks.
See full details Radeon R9 290 vs 280X |
VS
GPUBoss Review Our evaluation of R9 290 vs R9 280X among Desktop GPUs
Gaming | |
| | |
| Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Bioshock Infinite and 21 more | |
Graphics | |
| | |
| T-Rex, Manhattan, Cloud Gate Factor, Sky Diver Factor and 1 more | |
Computing | |
| | |
| Face Detection, Ocean Surface Simulation and 3 more | |
Performance per Watt | |
| | |
| Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Bioshock Infinite and 32 more | |
Value | |
| | |
| Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Bioshock Infinite and 32 more | |
Noise and Power | |
| | |
| TDP, Idle Power Consumption, Load Power Consumption and 2 more | |
| 6.6 | Overall Score |
| | |
 | Winner |
Cast your vote Do you agree or disagree with GPUBoss?
VS
Differences What are the advantages of each
| |||||||
| Much better 3DMark vantage graphics score | 38,650 | vs | 11,255 | Around 3.5x better 3DMark vantage graphics score | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Better 3DMark06 score | 32,300 | vs | 28,452 | Around 15% better 3DMark06 score | |||
| Better PassMark score | 7,049 | vs | 5,809 | More than 20% better PassMark score | |||
| Better 3DMark 11 graphics score | 14,570 | vs | 10,792 | More than 35% better 3DMark 11 graphics score | |||
| Higher pixel rate | 60.6 GPixel/s | vs | 32 GPixel/s | Around 90% higher pixel rate | |||
| Higher clock speed | 947 MHz | vs | 850 MHz | More than 10% higher clock speed | |||
| Significantly more render output processors | 64 | vs | 32 | Twice as many render output processors | |||
| Higher memory bandwidth | 320 GB/s | vs | 288 GB/s | More than 10% higher memory bandwidth | |||
| More memory | 4,096 MB | vs | 3,072 MB | Around 35% more memory | |||
| Better floating-point performance | 4,800 GFLOPS | vs | 4,096 GFLOPS | More than 15% better floating-point performance | |||
| Higher texture rate | 152 GTexel/s | vs | 128 GTexel/s | Around 20% higher texture rate | |||
| Significantly higher crysis 3 framerate | 51 | vs | 25.8 | Around 2x higher crysis 3 framerate | |||
| More shading units | 2,560 | vs | 2,048 | 512 more shading units | |||
| 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 fire strike factor score | 71.97 | vs | 62.73 | Around 15% better fire strike factor score | |||
| Higher BioShock infinite framerate | 91.5 fps | vs | 73.9 fps | Around 25% higher BioShock infinite framerate | |||
| Better face detection score | 108.61 mPixels/s | vs | 95.62 mPixels/s | Around 15% better face detection 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 | |||
| Better PassMark direct compute score | 3,677 | vs | 3,242 | Around 15% better PassMark direct compute score | |||
| Lower TDP | 250W | vs | 300W | More than 15% lower TDP | |||
Report a correction
Benchmarks Real world tests of Radeon R9 290 vs 280X
Bitcoin mining Data courtesy CompuBench
Face detection Data courtesy CompuBench
Ocean surface simulation Data courtesy CompuBench
T-Rex (GFXBench 3.0) Data courtesy CompuBench
Manhattan (GFXBench 3.0) Data courtesy CompuBench
Fire Strike Factor Data courtesy FutureMark
Sky Diver Factor Data courtesy FutureMark
Crysis 3
Reviews Word on the street
Follow us
Compare
Related Comparisons
Popular Comparisons
Read more
Comments
Showing 2 comments.
