GPUBoss Review Our evaluation of R9 380 vs R9 290 among GPUs between $200 and $400

Gaming

Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Bioshock Infinite and 21 more

Graphics

T-Rex, Manhattan, Sky Diver Factor and Fire Strike Factor

Computing

Face Detection, Ocean Surface Simulation and 3 more

Performance per Watt

Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Bioshock Infinite and 31 more

Value

Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Bioshock Infinite and 31 more

Noise and Power

TDP, Idle Power Consumption, Load Power Consumption and 2 more

7.8

Overall Score

Winner
AMD Radeon R9 290 

GPUBoss recommends the AMD Radeon R9 290  based on its benchmarks and compute performance.

See full details

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 290

AMD Radeon R9 290

GPUBoss Winner

Differences What are the advantages of each

Front view of Radeon R9 380

Reasons to consider the
AMD Radeon R9 380

Report a correction
Much better 3DMark 11 graphics score 31,844 vs 14,570 Around 2.2x better 3DMark 11 graphics score
Higher effective memory clock speed 5,500 MHz vs 5,000 MHz 10% higher effective memory clock speed
Higher memory clock speed 1,375 MHz vs 1,125 MHz More than 20% higher memory clock speed
Much lower TDP 190W vs 300W More than 35% lower TDP
Front view of Radeon R9 290

Reasons to consider the
AMD Radeon R9 290

Report a correction
Much better 3DMark06 score 32,300 vs 12,191 Around 2.8x better 3DMark06 score
Much higher memory bandwidth 320 GB/s vs 176 GB/s More than 80% higher memory bandwidth
Better 3DMark vantage graphics score 38,650 vs 31,181 Around 25% better 3DMark vantage graphics score
More memory 4,096 MB vs 2,048 MB 2x more memory
Better PassMark score 7,049 vs 6,049 More than 15% better PassMark score
Better floating-point performance 4,800 GFLOPS vs 3,476 GFLOPS Around 40% better floating-point performance
Higher pixel rate 60.6 GPixel/s vs 31.04 GPixel/s More than 95% higher pixel rate
Many more render output processors 64 vs 32 Twice as many render output processors
Higher texture rate 152 GTexel/s vs 108.6 GTexel/s Around 40% higher texture rate
Much wider memory bus 512 bit vs 256 bit 2x wider memory bus
More shading units 2,560 vs 1,792 768 more shading units
More texture mapping units 160 vs 112 48 more texture mapping units
More compute units 40 vs 28 12 more compute units
Better fire strike factor score 71.97 vs 57.51 More than 25% better fire strike factor score
Better face detection score 108.76 mPixels/s vs 85.82 mPixels/s More than 25% better face detection score
Higher BioShock infinite framerate 91.5 fps vs 80.8 fps Around 15% higher BioShock infinite framerate
Slightly better PassMark direct compute score 3,242 vs 2,938 More than 10% better PassMark direct compute score

Benchmarks Real world tests of Radeon R9 380 vs 290

Bitcoin mining Data courtesy CompuBench

Radeon R9 380
411.52 mHash/s
Radeon R9 290
547.72 mHash/s

Face detection Data courtesy CompuBench

Radeon R9 380
85.82 mPixels/s
Radeon R9 290
108.76 mPixels/s

Ocean surface simulation Data courtesy CompuBench

Radeon R9 380
1,504.46 frames/s
Radeon R9 290
1,366.31 frames/s

T-Rex (GFXBench 3.0) Data courtesy CompuBench

Radeon R9 380
3,360.76
Radeon R9 290
3,354.52

Manhattan (GFXBench 3.0) Data courtesy CompuBench

Radeon R9 380
3,719.28
Radeon R9 290
3,714.04

Fire Strike Factor Data courtesy FutureMark

Sky Diver Factor Data courtesy FutureMark

Cloud Gate Factor Data courtesy FutureMark

Read more

Comments

comments powered by Disqus