Iris Xe MAX Graphics vs Radeon R9 290

Place in the ranking	259	621
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	7.90	no data
Power efficiency	5.30	14.21
Architecture	GCN 2.0 (2013−2017)	Generation 12.1 (2020−2021)
GPU code name	Hawaii	DG1
Market segment	Desktop	Laptop
Release date	5 November 2013 (11 years ago)	31 October 2020 (4 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 cores	2560	768
Core clock speed	947 MHz	300 MHz
Boost clock speed	no data	1650 MHz
Number of transistors	6,200 million	no data
Manufacturing process technology	28 nm	10 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	275 Watt	25 Watt
Texture fill rate	151.5	79.20
Floating-point processing power	4.849 TFLOPS	2.534 TFLOPS
ROPs	64	24
TMUs	160	48

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).

Interface	PCIe 3.0 x16	PCIe 4.0 x4
Length	275 mm	no data
Width	2-slot	no data
Supplementary power connectors	1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin	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	LPDDR4X
Maximum RAM amount	4 GB	4 GB
Memory bus width	512 Bit	128 Bit
Memory clock speed	1250 MHz	2133 MHz
Memory bandwidth	320.0 GB/s	68.26 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 Connectors	2x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort	No outputs
HDMI	+	-

API compatibility

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

DirectX	12 (12_0)	12 (12_1)
Shader Model	6.3	6.4
OpenGL	4.6	4.6
OpenCL	2.0	3.0
Vulkan	1.2.131	1.2

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 20.98
+311%

Iris Xe MAX Graphics 5.11

Passmark

This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark. 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.

R9 290 8093
+311%

Iris Xe MAX Graphics 1971

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
+87.3%

Iris Xe MAX Graphics 6333

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 HD	110−120 +307%	27 −307%
1440p	65−70 +282%	17 −282%
4K	60−65 +300%	15 −300%

Cost per frame, $

1080p	3.63	no data
1440p	6.14	no data
4K	6.65	no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

18−20

+0%

18−20

+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	27−30 +0%	27−30 +0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	19 +0%	19 +0%
Battlefield 5	35−40 +0%	35−40 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	21−24 +0%	21−24 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	18−20 +0%	18−20 +0%
Far Cry 5	27−30 +0%	27−30 +0%
Far Cry New Dawn	30−35 +0%	30−35 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	75−80 +0%	75−80 +0%
Hitman 3	24 +0%	24 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	60−65 +0%	60−65 +0%
Metro Exodus	57 +0%	57 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	33 +0%	33 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	35−40 +0%	35−40 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	65−70 +0%	65−70 +0%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	27−30 +0%	27−30 +0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	6 +0%	6 +0%
Battlefield 5	35−40 +0%	35−40 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	21−24 +0%	21−24 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	18−20 +0%	18−20 +0%
Far Cry 5	27−30 +0%	27−30 +0%
Far Cry New Dawn	30−35 +0%	30−35 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	75−80 +0%	75−80 +0%
Hitman 3	23 +0%	23 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	60−65 +0%	60−65 +0%
Metro Exodus	43 +0%	43 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	30−35 +0%	30−35 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	33 +0%	33 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	27−30 +0%	27−30 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	65−70 +0%	65−70 +0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	27−30 +0%	27−30 +0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	18−20 +0%	18−20 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	21−24 +0%	21−24 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	18−20 +0%	18−20 +0%
Far Cry 5	27−30 +0%	27−30 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	75−80 +0%	75−80 +0%
Hitman 3	21 +0%	21 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	26 +0%	26 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	29 +0%	29 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	18 +0%	18 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	65−70 +0%	65−70 +0%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

+0%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5	21−24 +0%	21−24 +0%
Far Cry New Dawn	16−18 +0%	16−18 +0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	10−12 +0%	10−12 +0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	8−9 +0%	8−9 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	12−14 +0%	12−14 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	6−7 +0%	6−7 +0%
Far Cry 5	12−14 +0%	12−14 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	50−55 +0%	50−55 +0%
Hitman 3	14−16 +0%	14−16 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	21−24 +0%	21−24 +0%
Metro Exodus	18−20 +0%	18−20 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	20 +0%	20 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	10−12 +0%	10−12 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	70−75 +0%	70−75 +0%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

18−20

+0%

18−20

+0%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5	10−12 +0%	10−12 +0%
Far Cry New Dawn	8−9 +0%	8−9 +0%
Hitman 3	7−8 +0%	7−8 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	50−55 +0%	50−55 +0%
Metro Exodus	10−11 +0%	10−11 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	11 +0%	11 +0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	7−8 +0%	7−8 +0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	5−6 +0%	5−6 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	5−6 +0%	5−6 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Far Cry 5	6−7 +0%	6−7 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	14−16 +0%	14−16 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	11 +0%	11 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	4−5 +0%	4−5 +0%

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

10−12

+0%

10−12

+0%

This is how R9 290 and Iris Xe MAX Graphics compete in popular games:

R9 290 is 307% faster in 1080p
R9 290 is 282% faster in 1440p
R9 290 is 300% faster in 4K

All in all, in popular games:

there's a draw in 72 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	20.98	5.11
Recency	5 November 2013	31 October 2020
Chip lithography	28 nm	10 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	275 Watt	25 Watt

R9 290 has a 310.6% higher aggregate performance score.

Iris Xe MAX Graphics, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 6 years, a 180% more advanced lithography process, and 1000% lower power consumption.

The Radeon R9 290 is our recommended choice as it beats the Iris Xe MAX Graphics in performance tests.

Be aware that Radeon R9 290 is a desktop card while Iris Xe MAX Graphics is a notebook one.

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