Radeon R9 290X vs Pro Vega 64

#ad
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregated performance score

Pro Vega 64
2017
16 GB HBM2
33.55
+74.8%

Pro Vega 64 outperforms R9 290X by an impressive 75% based on our aggregated benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in performance ranking149274
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation2.0310.11
ArchitectureGCN 5.0 (2017−2020)GCN (2011−2017)
GPU code nameVega 10Hawaii XT
Market segmentWorkstationDesktop
Designno datareference
Release date27 June 2017 (6 years ago)24 October 2013 (10 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)no data$549
Current price$6074 $20 (0x MSRP)

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

R9 290X has 398% better value for money than Pro Vega 64.

Detailed specifications

General performance parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. These parameters indirectly speak of performance, but for precise assessment you have to consider their benchmark and gaming test results. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.

Pipelines / CUDA cores40962816
Core clock speed1250 MHzno data
Boost clock speed1350 MHz947 MHz
Number of transistors12,500 million6,200 million
Manufacturing process technology14 nm28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)250 Watt250 Watt
Texture fill rate345.6176.0
Floating-point performance11,059 gflops5,632 gflops

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).

Bus supportno dataPCIe 3.0
InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16PCIe 3.0 x16
Length267 mm275 mm
WidthIGP2-slot
Supplementary power connectorsNone1 x 6-pin + 1 x 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 typeHBM2GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount16 GB4 GB
Memory bus width2048 Bit512 Bit
Memory clock speed1572 MHz1250 MHz
Memory bandwidth402.4 GB/s320 GB/s
Shared memoryno data-

Connectivity and outputs

Types and number of video connectors present on the reviewed GPUs. As a rule, data in this section is precise only for desktop reference ones (so-called Founders Edition for NVIDIA chips). OEM manufacturers may change the number and type of output ports, while for notebook cards availability of certain video outputs ports depends on the laptop model rather than on the card itself.

Display ConnectorsNo outputs2x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort
Eyefinityno data+
HDMIno data+
DisplayPort supportno data+

Supported technologies

Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.

AppAccelerationno data+
CrossFireno data1
Endurono data-
FreeSyncno data1
HD3Dno data+
LiquidVRno data1
PowerTuneno data-
TressFXno data1
TrueAudiono data+
ZeroCoreno data-
UVDno data+
DDMA audiono data+

API compatibility

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

DirectX12 (12_1)DirectX® 12
Shader Model6.46.3
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL2.02.0
Vulkan1.1.125+
Mantleno data-

Synthetic benchmark performance

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


Combined synthetic benchmark score

This is our combined benchmark performance score. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.

Pro Vega 64 33.55
+74.8%
R9 290X 19.19

Pro Vega 64 outperforms R9 290X by 75% based on our aggregated benchmark results.


Passmark

This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark, part of Passmark PerformanceTest suite. 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.

Benchmark coverage: 25%

Pro Vega 64 12984
+74.9%
R9 290X 7425

Pro Vega 64 outperforms R9 290X by 75% in Passmark.

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 HD150−160
+72.4%
87
−72.4%
4K85−90
+70%
50
−70%

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 33.55 19.19
Recency 27 June 2017 24 October 2013
Maximum RAM amount 16 GB 4 GB
Chip lithography 14 nm 28 nm

The Radeon Pro Vega 64 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon R9 290X in performance tests.

Be aware that Radeon Pro Vega 64 is a workstation graphics card while Radeon R9 290X is a desktop one.


Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite graphics card.


AMD Radeon Pro Vega 64
Radeon Pro Vega 64
AMD Radeon R9 290X
Radeon R9 290X

Comparisons with similar GPUs

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.


4.3 18 votes

Rate Radeon Pro Vega 64 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4.1 430 votes

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about this comparison, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.