Arc A770 vs Radeon R9 290

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon R9 290 and Arc A770, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.

R9 290
2013, $399
4 GB GDDR5, 275 Watt
19.34

A770 outperforms R9 290 by an impressive 65% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.

Place in the ranking326198
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation7.1147.01
Power efficiency5.4811.06
ArchitectureGCN 2.0 (2013−2017)Generation 12.7 (2022−2023)
GPU code nameHawaiiDG2-512
Market segmentDesktopDesktop
Release date5 November 2013 (12 years ago)12 October 2022 (4 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$399 $329

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.

Arc A770 has 561% better value for money than R9 290.

Performance to price scatter graph

Currently popular graphics cards are shown for comparison.

Detailed specifications

General parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. Real power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially if overclocked.

Pipelines / CUDA cores25604096
Core clock speed947 MHz2100 MHz
Boost clock speedno data2400 MHz
Number of transistors6,200 million21,700 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm6 nm
Power consumption (TDP)275 Watt225 Watt
Texture fill rate151.5614.4
Floating-point processing power4.849 TFLOPS19.66 TFLOPS
ROPs64128
TMUs160256
Tensor Coresno data512
Ray Tracing Coresno data32
L1 Cache640 KBno data
L2 Cache1024 KB16 MB

Form factor & compatibility

Information on compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For desktop graphics cards it's interface and bus (motherboard compatibility), additional power connectors (power supply compatibility).

InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16PCIe 4.0 x16
Length275 mmno data
Width2-slot2-slot
Supplementary power connectors1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin

VRAM capacity and type

Parameters of VRAM installed: its type, size, bus, clock and resulting bandwidth. Integrated GPUs have no dedicated video RAM and use a shared part of system RAM.

Memory typeGDDR5GDDR6
Maximum RAM amount4 GB16 GB
Memory bus width512 Bit256 Bit
Memory clock speed1250 MHz2000 MHz
Memory bandwidth320.0 GB/s512.0 GB/s
Shared memory--
Resizable BAR-+

Connectivity and outputs

This section shows the types and number of video connectors on each GPU. The data applies specifically to desktop reference models (for example, NVIDIA’s Founders Edition). OEM partners often modify both the number and types of ports. On notebook GPUs, video‐output options are determined by the laptop’s design rather than the graphics chip itself.

Display Connectors2x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort1x HDMI 2.1, 3x DisplayPort 2.0
HDMI++

API and SDK support

List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.

DirectX12 (12_0)12 Ultimate (12_2)
Shader Model6.36.6
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL2.03.0
Vulkan1.2.1311.3
DLSS-+

Synthetic benchmarks

Non-gaming benchmark results comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.


Combined synthetic benchmark score

This is our combined benchmark score.

R9 290 19.34
Arc A770 31.96
+65.3%

Passmark

This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark. It gives the graphics card a thorough evaluation under various types of load, providing four separate benchmarks for Direct3D versions 9, 10, 11 and 12 (the last being done in 4K resolution if possible), and few more tests engaging DirectCompute capabilities.

R9 290 8093
Samples: 800
Arc A770 13371
+65.2%
Samples: 1842

3DMark Fire Strike Graphics

Fire Strike is a DirectX 11 benchmark for gaming PCs. It features two separate tests displaying a fight between a humanoid and a fiery creature made of lava. Using 1920x1080 resolution, Fire Strike shows off some realistic graphics and is quite taxing on hardware.

R9 290 11860
Arc A770 30008
+153%

Gaming performance

Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.

Average FPS across all PC games

Here are the average frames per second in a large set of popular games across different resolutions:

Full HD60−65
−41.2%
102
1440p35−4059
+68.6%
4K21−2437
+76.2%

Cost per frame, $

1080p6.653.23
+51.5%
1440p11.405.58
+51.1%
4K19.008.89
+53.2%
  • Arc A770 has 51% lower cost per frame in 1080p
  • Arc A770 has 51% lower cost per frame in 1440p
  • Arc A770 has 53% lower cost per frame in 4K

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low

Counter-Strike 2 317 317
Cyberpunk 2077 78 78
Resident Evil 4 Remake 166 166

Full HD
Medium

Battlefield 5 110−120 110−120
Counter-Strike 2 270 270
Cyberpunk 2077 70 70
Far Cry 5 117 117
Fortnite 140−150 140−150
Forza Horizon 4 33 33
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 130−140 130−140
Valorant 200−210 200−210

Full HD
High

Battlefield 5 110−120 110−120
Counter-Strike 2 143 143
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 270−280 270−280
Cyberpunk 2077 61 61
Far Cry 5 109 109
Far Cry 6 117 117
Fortnite 140−150 140−150
Forza Horizon 4 31 31
Grand Theft Auto V 105 105
Metro Exodus 113 113
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 130−140 130−140
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 196 196
Valorant 200−210 200−210

Full HD
Ultra

Battlefield 5 110−120 110−120
Cyberpunk 2077 58 58
Far Cry 5 104 104
Forza Horizon 4 23 23
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 130−140 130−140
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 72 72
Valorant 200−210 200−210

Full HD
Epic

Fortnite 140−150 140−150

1440p
High

Counter-Strike 2 90 90
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 220−230 220−230
Far Cry 6 79 79
Grand Theft Auto V 45 45
Metro Exodus 71 71
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 170−180 170−180
Valorant 230−240 230−240

1440p
Ultra

Battlefield 5 85−90 85−90
Cyberpunk 2077 45 45
Far Cry 5 82 82
Forza Horizon 4 15 15
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 60 60

1440p
Epic

Fortnite 80−85 80−85

4K
High

Counter-Strike 2 28 28
Far Cry 6 49 49
Grand Theft Auto V 48 48
Metro Exodus 47 47
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 73 73
Valorant 190−200 190−200

4K
Ultra

Battlefield 5 50−55 50−55
Counter-Strike 2 35−40 35−40
Cyberpunk 2077 26 26
Far Cry 5 49 49
Forza Horizon 4 8 8
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 40−45 40−45

4K
Epic

Fortnite 40−45 40−45

This is how R9 290 and Arc A770 compete in popular games:

  • Arc A770 is 70% faster in 1080p
  • Arc A770 is 69% faster in 1440p
  • Arc A770 is 76% faster in 4K

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 58 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 19.34 31.96
Recency 5 November 2013 12 October 2022
Maximum RAM amount 4 GB 16 GB
Chip lithography 28 nm 6 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 275 Watt 225 Watt

Arc A770 has a 65% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 8 years, a 300% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 79% more advanced lithography process, and 18% lower power consumption.

The Arc A770 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon R9 290 in performance tests.

Other comparisons

We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.

Community ratings

Here you can see the user ratings of the compared graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.


4.1 628 votes

Rate Radeon R9 290 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4.7 5532 votes

Rate Arc A770 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about Radeon R9 290 or Arc A770, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.