Radeon RX 7700 XT vs R9 290

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon R9 290 and Radeon RX 7700 XT, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.

R9 290
2013, $399
4 GB GDDR5, 275 Watt
19.43
RX 7700 XT
2023, $449
12 GB GDDR6, 245 Watt
54.62
+181%

7700 XT outperforms R9 290 by a whopping 181% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking32455
Place by popularitynot in top-10084
Cost-effectiveness evaluation7.1472.66
Power efficiency5.4817.28
ArchitectureGCN 2.0 (2013−2017)RDNA 3.0 (2022−2026)
GPU code nameHawaiiNavi 32
Market segmentDesktopDesktop
Release date5 November 2013 (12 years ago)25 August 2023 (3 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$399 $449

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

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

RX 7700 XT has 918% 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 cores25603456
Core clock speed947 MHz1435 MHz
Boost clock speedno data2544 MHz
Number of transistors6,200 million28,100 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm5 nm
Power consumption (TDP)275 Watt245 Watt
Texture fill rate151.5549.5
Floating-point processing power4.849 TFLOPS35.17 TFLOPS
ROPs6496
TMUs160216
Ray Tracing Coresno data54
L0 Cacheno data864 KB
L1 Cache640 KB768 KB
L2 Cache1024 KB2 MB
L3 Cacheno data48 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 mm267 mm
Width2-slot2-slot
Supplementary power connectors1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin2x 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 GB12 GB
Memory bus width512 Bit192 Bit
Memory clock speed1250 MHz2250 MHz
Memory bandwidth320.0 GB/s432.0 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 2.1a, 2x DisplayPort 2.1, 1x USB Type-C
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 Model6.36.8
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL2.02.2
Vulkan1.2.1311.3

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 19.43
RX 7700 XT 54.62
+181%

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: 799
RX 7700 XT 22756
+181%
Samples: 2949

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
RX 7700 XT 42801
+261%

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 HD65−70
−64.9%
185
1440p35−40
−65.7%
102
4K18−2159
+228%

Cost per frame, $

1080p6.142.43
+60.5%
1440p11.404.40
+61.4%
4K22.177.61
+65.7%
  • RX 7700 XT has 60% lower cost per frame in 1080p
  • RX 7700 XT has 61% lower cost per frame in 1440p
  • RX 7700 XT has 66% lower cost per frame in 4K

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low

Atomic Heart 265 265
Counter-Strike 2 351 351
Cyberpunk 2077 193 193
Resident Evil 4 Remake 229 229

Full HD
Medium

Atomic Heart 199 199
Battlefield 5 160−170 160−170
Counter-Strike 2 344 344
Cyberpunk 2077 158 158
Far Cry 5 188 188
Fortnite 240−250 240−250
Forza Horizon 4 278 278
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 170−180 170−180
Valorant 300−350 300−350

Full HD
High

Atomic Heart 119 119
Battlefield 5 160−170 160−170
Counter-Strike 2 243 243
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 270−280 270−280
Cyberpunk 2077 132 132
Far Cry 5 181 181
Fortnite 240−250 240−250
Forza Horizon 4 272 272
Grand Theft Auto V 166 166
Metro Exodus 152 152
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 170−180 170−180
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 295 295
Valorant 300−350 300−350

Full HD
Ultra

Battlefield 5 160−170 160−170
Cyberpunk 2077 122 122
Far Cry 5 167 167
Forza Horizon 4 231 231
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 170−180 170−180
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 168 168
Valorant 300−350 300−350

Full HD
Epic

Fortnite 240−250 240−250

1440p
High

Counter-Strike 2 127 127
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 400−450 400−450
Grand Theft Auto V 105 105
Metro Exodus 90 90
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 170−180 170−180
Valorant 350−400 350−400

1440p
Ultra

Battlefield 5 130−140 130−140
Cyberpunk 2077 80 80
Far Cry 5 157 157
Forza Horizon 4 197 197
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 120 120

1440p
Epic

Fortnite 150−160 150−160

4K
High

Atomic Heart 45−50 45−50
Counter-Strike 2 31 31
Grand Theft Auto V 112 112
Metro Exodus 57 57
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 89 89
Valorant 300−350 300−350

4K
Ultra

Battlefield 5 90−95 90−95
Counter-Strike 2 70−75 70−75
Cyberpunk 2077 36 36
Far Cry 5 82 82
Forza Horizon 4 134 134
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 95−100 95−100

4K
Epic

Fortnite 75−80 75−80

This is how R9 290 and RX 7700 XT compete in popular games:

  • RX 7700 XT is 185% faster in 1080p
  • RX 7700 XT is 191% faster in 1440p
  • RX 7700 XT is 228% faster in 4K

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 59 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 19.43 54.62
Recency 5 November 2013 25 August 2023
Maximum RAM amount 4 GB 12 GB
Chip lithography 28 nm 5 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 275 Watt 245 Watt

RX 7700 XT has a 181% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 9 years, a 200% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 82% more advanced lithography process, and 11% lower power consumption.

The Radeon RX 7700 XT 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
4.3 2916 votes

Rate Radeon RX 7700 XT 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 7700 XT, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.