Arc A350M vs Radeon R9 290

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon R9 290 with Arc A350M, including specs and performance data.

R9 290
2013
4 GB GDDR5, 275 Watt
21.05
+44.6%

R9 290 outperforms Arc A350M by a considerable 45% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking265360
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation7.94no data
Power efficiency5.2740.09
ArchitectureGCN 2.0 (2013−2017)Generation 12.7 (2022−2023)
GPU code nameHawaiiDG2-128
Market segmentDesktopLaptop
Release date5 November 2013 (11 years ago)30 March 2022 (2 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$399 no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

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. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.

Pipelines / CUDA cores2560768
Core clock speed947 MHz300 MHz
Boost clock speedno data1150 MHz
Number of transistors6,200 million7,200 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm6 nm
Power consumption (TDP)275 Watt25 Watt
Texture fill rate151.555.20
Floating-point processing power4.849 TFLOPS1.766 TFLOPS
ROPs6424
TMUs16048
Ray Tracing Coresno data6

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 x8
Length275 mmno data
Width2-slotno data
Supplementary power connectors1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pinno 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 typeGDDR5GDDR6
Maximum RAM amount4 GB4 GB
Memory bus width512 Bit64 Bit
Memory clock speed1250 MHz1750 MHz
Memory bandwidth320.0 GB/s112.0 GB/s
Shared memory--

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 Connectors2x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPortNo outputs
HDMI+-

API compatibility

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

DirectX12 (12_0)12 Ultimate (12_2)
Shader Model6.36.6
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL2.03.0
Vulkan1.2.1311.3

Synthetic benchmark performance

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. 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.

R9 290 21.05
+44.6%
Arc A350M 14.56

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
+65.9%
Arc A350M 7147

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 HD50−55
+42.9%
35
−42.9%
1440p21−24
+31.3%
16
−31.3%
4K10−12
+25%
8
−25%

Cost per frame, $

1080p7.98no data
1440p19.00no data
4K39.90no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 27
+0%
27
+0%
Elden Ring 22
+0%
22
+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 9
+0%
9
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 66
+0%
66
+0%
Metro Exodus 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Valorant 56
+0%
56
+0%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 8
+0%
8
+0%
Dota 2 38
+0%
38
+0%
Elden Ring 42
+0%
42
+0%
Far Cry 5 27
+0%
27
+0%
Fortnite 80−85
+0%
80−85
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 53
+0%
53
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 26
+0%
26
+0%
Metro Exodus 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 100−110
+0%
100−110
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%
Valorant 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%
World of Tanks 190−200
+0%
190−200
+0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 6
+0%
6
+0%
Dota 2 59
+0%
59
+0%
Far Cry 5 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 45
+0%
45
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 100−110
+0%
100−110
+0%
Valorant 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2 10
+0%
10
+0%
Elden Ring 17
+0%
17
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 10
+0%
10
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 120−130
+0%
120−130
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
World of Tanks 100−110
+0%
100−110
+0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
Far Cry 5 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 37
+0%
37
+0%
Metro Exodus 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Valorant 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Dota 2 11
+0%
11
+0%
Elden Ring 3
+0%
3
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 11
+0%
11
+0%
Metro Exodus 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 11
+0%
11
+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Dota 2 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Far Cry 5 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Fortnite 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 19
+0%
19
+0%
Valorant 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%

This is how R9 290 and Arc A350M compete in popular games:

  • R9 290 is 43% faster in 1080p
  • R9 290 is 31% faster in 1440p
  • R9 290 is 25% faster in 4K

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 63 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 21.05 14.56
Recency 5 November 2013 30 March 2022
Chip lithography 28 nm 6 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 275 Watt 25 Watt

R9 290 has a 44.6% higher aggregate performance score.

Arc A350M, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 8 years, a 366.7% more advanced lithography process, and 1000% lower power consumption.

The Radeon R9 290 is our recommended choice as it beats the Arc A350M in performance tests.

Be aware that Radeon R9 290 is a desktop card while Arc A350M is a notebook 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 R9 290
Radeon R9 290
Intel Arc A350M
Arc A350M

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.


4.1 575 votes

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.8 57 votes

Rate Arc A350M 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.