GeForce GT 750M vs Radeon R9 290

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon R9 290 with GeForce GT 750M, including specs and performance data.

R9 290
2013
4 GB GDDR5, 275 Watt
20.96
+509%

R9 290 outperforms GT 750M by a whopping 509% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in performance ranking244692
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation12.450.15
ArchitectureGCN 2.0 (2013−2017)Kepler (2012−2018)
GPU code nameHawaiiN14P-GT
Market segmentDesktopLaptop
Release date5 November 2013 (10 years ago)1 April 2013 (11 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$399 no data
Current price$20 (0.1x MSRP)$1119

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

R9 290 has 8200% better value for money than GT 750M.

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 cores2560384
Core clock speed947 MHz967 MHz
Boost clock speedno data967 MHz
Number of transistors6,200 million1,270 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)275 Watt50 Watt
Texture fill rate151.530.94
Floating-point performance4,849 gflops742.7 gflops

Form factor & compatibility

Information on Radeon R9 290 and GeForce GT 750M compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For desktop video cards it's interface and bus (motherboard compatibility), additional power connectors (power supply compatibility). For notebook video cards it's notebook size, connection slot and bus, if the video card is inserted into a slot instead of being soldered to the notebook motherboard.

Laptop sizeno datamedium sized
Bus supportno dataPCI Express 3.0
InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16PCIe 3.0 x16
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 typeGDDR5DDR3
Maximum RAM amount4 GB4 GB
Standard memory configurationno dataDDR3/GDDR5
Memory bus width512 Bit128 Bit
Memory clock speed5000 MHz2000 - 5000 MHz
Memory bandwidth320.0 GB/s64.19 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 Connectors2x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPortNo outputs
eDP 1.2 signal supportno dataUp to 3840x2160
LVDS signal supportno dataUp to 1920x1200
VGA аnalog display supportno dataUp to 2048x1536
DisplayPort Multimode (DP++) supportno dataUp to 3840x2160
HDMI++
HDCP content protectionno data+
7.1 channel HD audio on HDMIno data+
TrueHD and DTS-HD audio bitstreamingno data+

Supported technologies

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

Blu-Ray 3D Supportno data+
H.264, VC1, MPEG2 1080p video decoderno data+
Optimusno data+
3D Vision / 3DTV Playno data+

API compatibility

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

DirectX12 (12_0)12 API
Shader Model6.35.1
OpenGL4.64.5
OpenCL2.01.1
Vulkan1.2.1311.1.126
CUDAno 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.

R9 290 20.96
+509%
GT 750M 3.44

Radeon R9 290 outperforms GeForce GT 750M by 509% based on our aggregate 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%

R9 290 8093
+510%
GT 750M 1327

Radeon R9 290 outperforms GeForce GT 750M by 510% in Passmark.

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.

Benchmark coverage: 14%

R9 290 11860
+653%
GT 750M 1574

Radeon R9 290 outperforms GeForce GT 750M by 653% in 3DMark Fire Strike Graphics.

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 HD130−140
+491%
22
−491%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 35−40
+483%
6−7
−483%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 40−45
+471%
7−8
−471%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 6−7
+500%
1−2
−500%
Battlefield 5 40−45
+471%
7−8
−471%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 45−50
+463%
8−9
−463%
Cyberpunk 2077 35−40
+483%
6−7
−483%
Far Cry 5 40−45
+471%
7−8
−471%
Far Cry New Dawn 50−55
+456%
9−10
−456%
Forza Horizon 4 90−95
+500%
14−16
−500%
Hitman 3 40−45
+471%
7−8
−471%
Horizon Zero Dawn 120−130
+471%
21−24
−471%
Metro Exodus 12−14
+500%
2−3
−500%
Red Dead Redemption 2 50−55
+456%
9−10
−456%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 75−80
+477%
12−14
−477%
Watch Dogs: Legion 100−105
+456%
18−20
−456%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 40−45
+471%
7−8
−471%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 6−7
+500%
1−2
−500%
Battlefield 5 40−45
+471%
7−8
−471%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 45−50
+463%
8−9
−463%
Cyberpunk 2077 35−40
+483%
6−7
−483%
Far Cry 5 40−45
+471%
7−8
−471%
Far Cry New Dawn 50−55
+456%
9−10
−456%
Forza Horizon 4 90−95
+500%
14−16
−500%
Hitman 3 40−45
+471%
7−8
−471%
Horizon Zero Dawn 120−130
+471%
21−24
−471%
Metro Exodus 12−14
+500%
2−3
−500%
Red Dead Redemption 2 50−55
+456%
9−10
−456%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 75−80
+477%
12−14
−477%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 50−55
+456%
9
−456%
Watch Dogs: Legion 100−105
+456%
18−20
−456%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 40−45
+471%
7−8
−471%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 6−7
+500%
1−2
−500%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 45−50
+463%
8−9
−463%
Cyberpunk 2077 35−40
+483%
6−7
−483%
Far Cry 5 40−45
+471%
7−8
−471%
Forza Horizon 4 90−95
+500%
14−16
−500%
Horizon Zero Dawn 120−130
+471%
21−24
−471%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 75−80
+477%
12−14
−477%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 30−33
+500%
5
−500%
Watch Dogs: Legion 100−105
+456%
18−20
−456%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 50−55
+456%
9−10
−456%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 35−40
+483%
6−7
−483%
Far Cry New Dawn 24−27
+500%
4−5
−500%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 18−20
+500%
3−4
−500%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 35−40
+483%
6−7
−483%
Cyberpunk 2077 12−14
+500%
2−3
−500%
Far Cry 5 30−33
+500%
5−6
−500%
Forza Horizon 4 30−33
+500%
5−6
−500%
Hitman 3 45−50
+463%
8−9
−463%
Horizon Zero Dawn 45−50
+463%
8−9
−463%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 12−14
+500%
2−3
−500%
Watch Dogs: Legion 6−7
+500%
1−2
−500%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 40−45
+471%
7−8
−471%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5 12−14
+500%
2−3
−500%
Far Cry New Dawn 12−14
+500%
2−3
−500%
Horizon Zero Dawn 18−20
+500%
3−4
−500%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 0−1 0−1

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 18−20
+500%
3−4
−500%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 6−7
+500%
1−2
−500%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 6−7
+500%
1−2
−500%
Far Cry 5 12−14
+500%
2−3
−500%
Forza Horizon 4 6−7
+500%
1−2
−500%
Horizon Zero Dawn 18−20
+500%
3−4
−500%
Metro Exodus 30−33
+500%
5−6
−500%
Watch Dogs: Legion 6−7
+500%
1−2
−500%

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 24−27
+500%
4−5
−500%

This is how R9 290 and GT 750M compete in popular games:

  • R9 290 is 491% faster in 1080p

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 20.96 3.44
Recency 5 November 2013 1 April 2013
Power consumption (TDP) 275 Watt 50 Watt

The Radeon R9 290 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GT 750M in performance tests.

Be aware that Radeon R9 290 is a desktop card while GeForce GT 750M 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
NVIDIA GeForce GT 750M
GeForce GT 750M

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.


4.2 498 votes

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.4 517 votes

Rate GeForce GT 750M 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.