RTX PRO 2000 Blackwell Embedded vs Radeon R9 M290X Crossfire

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon R9 M290X Crossfire with RTX PRO 2000 Blackwell Embedded, including specs and performance data.

R9 M290X Crossfire
2014
2x 4 GB GDDR5, 200 Watt
17.35
RTX PRO 2000 Blackwell Embedded
8 GB GDDR7, 45 Watt
38.99
+125%

RTX PRO 2000 Blackwell Embedded outperforms R9 M290X Crossfire by a whopping 125% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking356131
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiency6.7167.03
ArchitectureGCN (2012−2015)Blackwell 2.0 (2025−2026)
GPU code nameNeptune CFGB206
Market segmentLaptopMobile workstation
Release date1 March 2014 (12 years ago)no data

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 cores25603328
Core clock speed850 MHz2160 MHz
Boost clock speed900 MHz2662 MHz
Number of transistors2x 2800 Million21,900 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm5 nm
Power consumption (TDP)200 Watt45 Watt
Texture fill rateno data276.8
Floating-point processing powerno data17.72 TFLOPS
ROPsno data32
TMUsno data104
Tensor Coresno data104
Ray Tracing Coresno data26
L1 Cacheno data3.3 MB
L2 Cacheno data32 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).

Laptop sizelargeno data
Interfaceno dataPCIe 5.0 x16
Supplementary power connectorsno dataNone

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 typeGDDR5GDDR7
Maximum RAM amount2x 4 GB8 GB
Memory bus width2x 256 Bit128 Bit
Memory clock speed4800 MHz1500 MHz
Memory bandwidthno data384.0 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 Connectorsno dataPortable Device Dependent

API and SDK support

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

DirectX12 (FL 11_1)12 Ultimate (12_2)
Shader Modelno data6.8
OpenGLno data4.6
OpenCLno data3.0
Vulkan-1.4
CUDA-12.0
DLSS-+

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 HD62
−110%
130−140
+110%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low

Counter-Strike 2 95−100
−122%
220−230
+122%
Cyberpunk 2077 35−40
−116%
80−85
+116%
Palworld 40−45
−114%
90−95
+114%
Resident Evil 4 Remake 35−40
−118%
85−90
+118%

Full HD
Medium

Battlefield 5 70−75
−116%
160−170
+116%
Counter-Strike 2 95−100
−122%
220−230
+122%
Cyberpunk 2077 35−40
−116%
80−85
+116%
Far Cry 5 55−60
−124%
130−140
+124%
Fortnite 95−100
−121%
210−220
+121%
Forza Horizon 4 70−75
−122%
160−170
+122%
Palworld 40−45
−114%
90−95
+114%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 65−70
−112%
140−150
+112%
Valorant 130−140
−121%
300−310
+121%

Full HD
High

Battlefield 5 70−75
−116%
160−170
+116%
Counter-Strike 2 95−100
−122%
220−230
+122%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 220−230
−105%
450−500
+105%
Cyberpunk 2077 35−40
−116%
80−85
+116%
Dota 2 100−110
−121%
230−240
+121%
Far Cry 5 55−60
−124%
130−140
+124%
Fortnite 95−100
−121%
210−220
+121%
Forza Horizon 4 70−75
−122%
160−170
+122%
Grand Theft Auto V 65−70
−112%
140−150
+112%
Metro Exodus 35−40
−124%
85−90
+124%
Palworld 40−45
−114%
90−95
+114%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 65−70
−112%
140−150
+112%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 45−50
−108%
100−105
+108%
Valorant 130−140
−121%
300−310
+121%

Full HD
Ultra

Battlefield 5 70−75
−116%
160−170
+116%
Cyberpunk 2077 35−40
−116%
80−85
+116%
Dota 2 100−110
−121%
230−240
+121%
Far Cry 5 55−60
−124%
130−140
+124%
Forza Horizon 4 70−75
−122%
160−170
+122%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 65−70
−112%
140−150
+112%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 45−50
−108%
100−105
+108%
Valorant 130−140
−121%
300−310
+121%

Full HD
Epic

Fortnite 95−100
−121%
210−220
+121%
Palworld 40−45
−114%
90−95
+114%

1440p
High

Counter-Strike 2 35−40
−114%
75−80
+114%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 120−130
−119%
280−290
+119%
Grand Theft Auto V 30−33
−117%
65−70
+117%
Metro Exodus 21−24
−105%
45−50
+105%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 160−170
−119%
350−400
+119%
Valorant 150−160
−122%
350−400
+122%

1440p
Ultra

Battlefield 5 50−55
−120%
110−120
+120%
Cyberpunk 2077 16−18
−119%
35−40
+119%
Far Cry 5 35−40
−118%
85−90
+118%
Forza Horizon 4 40−45
−116%
95−100
+116%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 24−27
−112%
55−60
+112%

1440p
Epic

Fortnite 40−45
−113%
85−90
+113%
Palworld 24−27
−108%
50−55
+108%

4K
High

Counter-Strike 2 14−16
−100%
30−33
+100%
Grand Theft Auto V 30−35
−119%
70−75
+119%
Metro Exodus 14−16
−114%
30−33
+114%
Palworld 14−16
−114%
30−33
+114%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 24−27
−120%
55−60
+120%
Valorant 90−95
−122%
200−210
+122%

4K
Ultra

Battlefield 5 24−27
−112%
55−60
+112%
Counter-Strike 2 14−16
−100%
30−33
+100%
Cyberpunk 2077 7−8
−100%
14−16
+100%
Dota 2 60−65
−110%
130−140
+110%
Far Cry 5 18−20
−111%
40−45
+111%
Forza Horizon 4 30−35
−110%
65−70
+110%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 16−18
−106%
35−40
+106%

4K
Epic

Fortnite 18−20
−122%
40−45
+122%
Palworld 14−16
−114%
30−33
+114%

This is how R9 M290X Crossfire and RTX PRO 2000 Blackwell Embedded compete in popular games:

  • RTX PRO 2000 Blackwell Embedded is 110% faster in 1080p

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 17.35 38.99
Chip lithography 28 nm 5 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 200 Watt 45 Watt

RTX PRO 2000 Blackwell Embedded has a 125% higher aggregate performance score, a 460% more advanced lithography process, and 344% lower power consumption.

The RTX PRO 2000 Blackwell Embedded is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon R9 M290X Crossfire in performance tests.

Be aware that Radeon R9 M290X Crossfire is a notebook graphics card while RTX PRO 2000 Blackwell Embedded is a mobile workstation 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.


2.7 11 votes

Rate Radeon R9 M290X Crossfire on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

No user ratings yet.

Rate RTX PRO 2000 Blackwell Embedded on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about Radeon R9 M290X Crossfire or RTX PRO 2000 Blackwell Embedded, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.