GPUBoss Review Our evaluation of R9 295X2 vs R9 290X 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

No winner declared

Too close to call

Cast your vote Do you agree or disagree with GPUBoss?

Thanks for adding your opinion. Follow us on Facebook to stay up to date with the latest news!
VS
Front view of Radeon R9 290X

AMD Radeon R9 290X

GPUBoss Winner

Differences What are the advantages of each

Front view of Radeon R9 295X2

Reasons to consider the
XFX Radeon R9 295X2

Report a correction
Is dual GPU Yes vs No About half of graphics cards are dual GPU
Much better floating-point performance 11,466 GFLOPS vs 5,632 GFLOPS More than 2x better floating-point performance
Much higher texture rate 358.4 GTexel/s vs 176 GTexel/s More than 2x higher texture rate
Significantly more memory 8,192 MB vs 4,096 MB 2x more memory
Much higher pixel rate 130.4 GPixel/s vs 64 GPixel/s More than 2x higher pixel rate
Many more shading units 5,632 vs 2,816 Twice as many shading units
Many more texture mapping units 352 vs 176 Twice as many texture mapping units
Many more render output processors 128 vs 64 Twice as many render output processors
Many more compute units 88 vs 44 Twice as many compute units
Much wider memory bus 1,024 bit vs 512 bit 2x wider memory bus
Better cloud gate factor score 24.18 vs 22.13 Around 10% better cloud gate factor score
Slightly better face detection score 116.41 mPixels/s vs 105.88 mPixels/s Around 10% better face detection score
Front view of Radeon R9 290X

Reasons to consider the
AMD Radeon R9 290X

Report a correction
Much lower TDP 300W vs 500W 40% lower TDP

Benchmarks Real world tests of Radeon R9 295X2 vs 290X

Bitcoin mining Data courtesy CompuBench

Radeon R9 295X2
614.07 mHash/s
Radeon R9 290X
625.33 mHash/s

Face detection Data courtesy CompuBench

Radeon R9 295X2
116.41 mPixels/s
Radeon R9 290X
105.88 mPixels/s

Ocean surface simulation Data courtesy CompuBench

Radeon R9 295X2
1,997.66 frames/s
Radeon R9 290X
2,415.99 frames/s

Particle simulation Data courtesy CompuBench

Radeon R9 295X2
651.4 mInteraction/s
Radeon R9 290X
821.28 mInteraction/s

T-Rex (Compubench 1.5) Data courtesy CompuBench

Radeon R9 295X2
10.68 frames/s
Radeon R9 290X
10.65 frames/s

Fire Strike Factor Data courtesy FutureMark

Sky Diver Factor Data courtesy FutureMark

Cloud Gate Factor Data courtesy FutureMark

Reviews Word on the street

Comments

Showing 10 comments.
With unreal engine it's more accurate -- games using unreal engine can only utilize one graphics card.
With unreal engine it's more accurate. Games using unreal engine can only utilize one graphics card...
With unreal engine it's more accurate. Games using unreal engine can only utilize one graphics card.
WTF did I just read?
what a shitty site
295x2 is two 290x and ovdrclocked in addition. i hate this site.
This website REALLY needs to stop using Passmark. It is HORRENDOUSLY biased towards intel and nvidia products, not to mention doesn't support dual GPU cards, which is exactly why it shows completely the wrong numbers here. Passmark combined with the obvious nvidia + intel bias in every single "benchmark" on this site and CPUBoss are the main reasons I will NEVER trust this website for any accurate comparison.
Yes
+1
These benchmarks don't make any sense. Actually they do make sense as these results are pretty similar to the r9 290x ones. Passmark just doesn't recognizes this card has a dual GPU and only uses half of it. Results should be 80% higher due to lower frequencies at high temperature.
comments powered by Disqus