Radeon RX 5300M vs R9 290

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon R9 290 with Radeon RX 5300M, including specs and performance data.

R9 290
2013, $399
4 GB GDDR5, 275 Watt
19.39
+50%

R9 290 outperforms 5300M by an impressive 50% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking324437
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation7.13no data
Power efficiency5.4811.82
ArchitectureGCN 2.0 (2013−2017)RDNA 1.0 (2019−2020)
GPU code nameHawaiiNavi 14
Market segmentDesktopLaptop
Release date5 November 2013 (12 years ago)13 November 2019 (6 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$399 no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

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

no data

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 cores25601408
Core clock speed947 MHz1000 MHz
Boost clock speedno data1445 MHz
Number of transistors6,200 million6,400 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm7 nm
Power consumption (TDP)275 Watt85 Watt
Texture fill rate151.5127.2
Floating-point processing power4.849 TFLOPS4.069 TFLOPS
ROPs6432
TMUs16088
L1 Cache640 KBno data
L2 Cache1024 KB1536 KB

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).

Laptop sizeno datamedium sized
InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16PCIe 4.0 x8
Length275 mmno data
Width2-slotno data
Supplementary power connectors1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pinNone

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 GB3 GB
Memory bus width512 Bit96 Bit
Memory clock speed1250 MHz1750 MHz
Memory bandwidth320.0 GB/s168.0 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 DisplayPortNo outputs
HDMI+-

API and SDK support

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

DirectX12 (12_0)12 (12_1)
Shader Model6.36.5
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL2.02.0
Vulkan1.2.1311.2.131

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 19.39
+50%
RX 5300M 12.93

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
+50%
Samples: 799
RX 5300M 5396
Samples: 31

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
+15.1%
RX 5300M 10306

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 HD90−95
+45.2%
62

Cost per frame, $

1080p4.43no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low

Atomic Heart 30−35 30−35
Counter-Strike 2 70−75 70−75
Cyberpunk 2077 27−30 27−30
Resident Evil 4 Remake 27−30 27−30

Full HD
Medium

Atomic Heart 30−35 30−35
Battlefield 5 92 92
Counter-Strike 2 70−75 70−75
Cyberpunk 2077 27−30 27−30
Far Cry 5 40−45 40−45
Fortnite 114 114
Forza Horizon 4 55−60 55−60
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 45−50 45−50
Valorant 110−120 110−120

Full HD
High

Atomic Heart 30−35 30−35
Battlefield 5 79 79
Counter-Strike 2 70−75 70−75
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 180−190 180−190
Cyberpunk 2077 27−30 27−30
Dota 2 98 98
Far Cry 5 40−45 40−45
Fortnite 82 82
Forza Horizon 4 55−60 55−60
Grand Theft Auto V 64 64
Metro Exodus 39 39
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 45−50 45−50
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 60 60
Valorant 110−120 110−120

Full HD
Ultra

Battlefield 5 71 71
Cyberpunk 2077 27−30 27−30
Dota 2 95 95
Far Cry 5 40−45 40−45
Forza Horizon 4 55−60 55−60
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 45−50 45−50
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 38 38
Valorant 110−120 110−120

Full HD
Epic

Fortnite 58 58

1440p
High

Counter-Strike 2 24−27 24−27
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 95−100 95−100
Grand Theft Auto V 20−22 20−22
Metro Exodus 16−18 16−18
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 90−95 90−95
Valorant 120−130 120−130

1440p
Ultra

Battlefield 5 35−40 35−40
Cyberpunk 2077 10−12 10−12
Far Cry 5 27−30 27−30
Forza Horizon 4 30−35 30−35
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 18−20 18−20

1440p
Epic

Fortnite 27−30 27−30

4K
High

Atomic Heart 10−11 10−11
Counter-Strike 2 9−10 9−10
Grand Theft Auto V 24−27 24−27
Metro Exodus 9−10 9−10
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 16−18 16−18
Valorant 60−65 60−65

4K
Ultra

Battlefield 5 18−20 18−20
Counter-Strike 2 9−10 9−10
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5 4−5
Dota 2 45−50 45−50
Far Cry 5 14−16 14−16
Forza Horizon 4 21−24 21−24
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 12−14 12−14

4K
Epic

Fortnite 12−14 12−14

This is how R9 290 and RX 5300M compete in popular games:

  • R9 290 is 45% faster in 1080p

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 62 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 19.39 12.93
Recency 5 November 2013 13 November 2019
Maximum RAM amount 4 GB 3 GB
Chip lithography 28 nm 7 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 275 Watt 85 Watt

R9 290 has a 50% higher aggregate performance score, and a 33% higher maximum VRAM amount.

RX 5300M, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 6 years, a 75% more advanced lithography process, and 69% lower power consumption.

The Radeon R9 290 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon RX 5300M in performance tests.

Be aware that Radeon R9 290 is a desktop graphics card while Radeon RX 5300M is a notebook one.

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
3.9 99 votes

Rate Radeon RX 5300M 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 Radeon RX 5300M, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.