GeForce 8800 GTS 640 vs Radeon R9 290

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking257not rated
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation7.91no data
Power efficiency5.60no data
ArchitectureGCN 2.0 (2013−2017)Tesla (2006−2010)
GPU code nameHawaiiG80
Market segmentDesktopDesktop
Release date5 November 2013 (10 years ago)8 November 2006 (17 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$399 $449

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 cores256096
Core clock speed947 MHz513 MHz
Number of transistors6,200 million681 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm90 nm
Power consumption (TDP)275 Watt143 Watt
Texture fill rate151.524.62
Floating-point processing power4.849 TFLOPS0.2281 TFLOPS
ROPs6420
TMUs16024

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 1.0 x16
Length275 mm267 mm
Width2-slot2-slot
Supplementary power connectors1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin1x 6-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 typeGDDR5GDDR3
Maximum RAM amount4 GB640 MB
Memory bus width512 Bit320 Bit
Memory clock speed1250 MHz792 MHz
Memory bandwidth320.0 GB/s63.36 GB/s

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 DisplayPort2x DVI, 1x S-Video
HDMI+-

API compatibility

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

DirectX12 (12_0)11.1 (10_0)
Shader Model6.34.0
OpenGL4.63.3
OpenCL2.01.1
Vulkan1.2.131N/A
CUDA-+

Pros & cons summary


Recency 5 November 2013 8 November 2006
Maximum RAM amount 4 GB 640 MB
Chip lithography 28 nm 90 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 275 Watt 143 Watt

R9 290 has an age advantage of 6 years, a 540% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 221.4% more advanced lithography process.

8800 GTS 640, on the other hand, has 92.3% lower power consumption.

We couldn't decide between Radeon R9 290 and GeForce 8800 GTS 640. We've got no test results to judge.


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
NVIDIA GeForce 8800 GTS 640
GeForce 8800 GTS 640

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.


4.1 541 vote

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.6 45 votes

Rate GeForce 8800 GTS 640 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.