Radeon HD 7290 vs ATI FirePro M7740
Aggregate performance score
We've compared FirePro M7740 with Radeon HD 7290, including specs and performance data.
M7740 outperforms HD 7290 by a whopping 654% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Contents
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 931 | 1410 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 2.53 | 1.12 |
| Architecture | TeraScale (2005−2013) | TeraScale 2 (2009−2015) |
| GPU code name | M97 | Loveland |
| Market segment | Mobile workstation | Laptop |
| Release date | 4 August 2009 (16 years ago) | 6 June 2012 (13 years ago) |
Detailed specifications
General parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 640 | 80 |
| Core clock speed | 650 MHz | 400 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 400 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 826 million | 450 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 60 Watt | 18 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 20.80 | 3.200 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.832 TFLOPS | 0.064 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 16 | 4 |
| TMUs | 32 | 8 |
| L1 Cache | 128 KB | no data |
| L2 Cache | 128 KB | no data |
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 size | large | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | IGP |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | no data |
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 type | GDDR5 | System Shared |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | System Shared |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | System Shared |
| Memory clock speed | 846 MHz | System Shared |
| Memory bandwidth | 54.14 GB/s | no data |
| Shared memory | - | + |
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 Connectors | No outputs | No outputs |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 10.1 (10_1) | 11.2 (11_0) |
| Shader Model | 4.1 | 5.0 |
| OpenGL | 3.3 | 4.4 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | N/A | N/A |
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.
3DMark Vantage Performance
3DMark Vantage is an outdated DirectX 10 benchmark using 1280x1024 screen resolution. It taxes the graphics card with two scenes, one depicting a girl escaping some militarized base located within a sea cave, the other displaying a space fleet attack on a defenseless planet. It was discontinued in April 2017, and Time Spy benchmark is now recommended to be used instead.
Gaming performance
Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 4−5 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
+300%
|
1−2
−300%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 5−6 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 4−5 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
+300%
|
1−2
−300%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 6−7 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 5−6 | 0−1 |
| Fortnite | 9−10
+800%
|
1−2
−800%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 10−12
+267%
|
3−4
−267%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 4−5 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−12
+57.1%
|
7−8
−57.1%
|
| Valorant | 35−40
+56%
|
24−27
−56%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 5−6 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 4−5 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 40−45
+215%
|
12−14
−215%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
+300%
|
1−2
−300%
|
| Dota 2 | 21−24
+144%
|
9−10
−144%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 6−7 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 5−6 | 0−1 |
| Fortnite | 9−10
+800%
|
1−2
−800%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 10−12
+267%
|
3−4
−267%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 4−5 | 0−1 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 4−5 | 0−1 |
| Metro Exodus | 3−4 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−12
+57.1%
|
7−8
−57.1%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 8−9
+60%
|
5−6
−60%
|
| Valorant | 35−40
+56%
|
24−27
−56%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 5−6 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
+300%
|
1−2
−300%
|
| Dota 2 | 21−24
+144%
|
9−10
−144%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 6−7 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 5−6 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 10−12
+267%
|
3−4
−267%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−12
+57.1%
|
7−8
−57.1%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 8−9
+60%
|
5−6
−60%
|
| Valorant | 35−40
+56%
|
24−27
−56%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 9−10
+800%
|
1−2
−800%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 5−6
+66.7%
|
3−4
−66.7%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 14−16
+1300%
|
1−2
−1300%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 20−22
+567%
|
3−4
−567%
|
| Valorant | 14−16
+1300%
|
1−2
−1300%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Escape from Tarkov | 4−5
+100%
|
2−3
−100%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 3−4 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 5−6
+400%
|
1−2
−400%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 3−4
+200%
|
1−2
−200%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 3−4 | 0−1 |
4K
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
+7.1%
|
14−16
−7.1%
|
| Valorant | 10−11
+400%
|
2−3
−400%
|
4K
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 4−5 | 0−1 |
| Escape from Tarkov | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 3−4
+200%
|
1−2
−200%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 3−4
+50%
|
2−3
−50%
|
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS, with 1440p resolution and the High Preset, the ATI M7740 is 567% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Without exception, ATI M7740 surpassed HD 7290 in all 27 of our tests.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 1.96 | 0.26 |
| Recency | 4 August 2009 | 6 June 2012 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 60 Watt | 18 Watt |
ATI M7740 has a 653.8% higher aggregate performance score.
HD 7290, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 2 years, and 233.3% lower power consumption.
The FirePro M7740 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon HD 7290 in performance tests.
Be aware that FirePro M7740 is a mobile workstation graphics card while Radeon HD 7290 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.
