Quadro P3000 Mobile vs Radeon R9 290

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon R9 290 with Quadro P3000 Mobile, including specs and performance data.

R9 290
2013
4 GB GDDR5, 275 Watt
20.96
+8.4%

R9 290 outperforms P3000 Mobile by a small 8% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in performance ranking244271
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation12.4510.01
ArchitectureGCN 2.0 (2013−2017)Pascal (2016−2021)
GPU code nameHawaiiN17E-Q1
Market segmentDesktopMobile workstation
Release date5 November 2013 (10 years ago)11 January 2017 (7 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$399 no data
Current price$20 (0.1x MSRP)$537

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

R9 290 has 24% better value for money than P3000 Mobile.

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 cores25601280
Core clock speed947 MHz1088 MHz
Boost clock speedno data1215 MHz
Number of transistors6,200 million7,200 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm16 nm
Power consumption (TDP)275 Watt75 Watt
Texture fill rate151.597.20
Floating-point performance4,849 gflops3,110 gflops

Form factor & compatibility

Information on Radeon R9 290 and Quadro P3000 Mobile 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 datalarge
InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16MXM-B (3.0)
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 typeGDDR5GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount4 GB6 GB
Memory bus width512 Bit192 Bit
Memory clock speed5000 MHz7008 MHz
Memory bandwidth320.0 GB/s168 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
HDMI+no data
Display Portno data1.4

Supported technologies

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

Optimusno data+
3D Stereono data+
Mosaicno data+
nView Display Managementno data+
Optimusno data+

API compatibility

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

DirectX12 (12_0)12
Shader Model6.35.1
OpenGL4.64.5
OpenCL2.01.2
Vulkan1.2.1311.2.131
CUDAno data6.1

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
+8.4%
P3000 Mobile 19.34

Radeon R9 290 outperforms Quadro P3000 Mobile by 8% based on our aggregate benchmark results.


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
+28.1%
P3000 Mobile 9256

Radeon R9 290 outperforms Quadro P3000 Mobile by 28% 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 HD65−70
+3.2%
63
−3.2%
4K30−35
+7.1%
28
−7.1%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 30−35
+14.8%
27−30
−14.8%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 35−40
+8.6%
35−40
−8.6%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 30−35
+10%
30−33
−10%
Battlefield 5 60−65
+14.5%
55−60
−14.5%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 35−40
+11.4%
35−40
−11.4%
Cyberpunk 2077 30−35
+14.8%
27−30
−14.8%
Far Cry 5 45−50
+12.5%
40−45
−12.5%
Far Cry New Dawn 50−55
+15.6%
45−50
−15.6%
Forza Horizon 4 85−90
+10%
80−85
−10%
Hitman 3 35−40
+8.6%
35−40
−8.6%
Horizon Zero Dawn 75−80
+10%
70−75
−10%
Metro Exodus 60−65
+16.4%
55−60
−16.4%
Red Dead Redemption 2 50−55
+17.8%
45−50
−17.8%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 60−65
+14.5%
55−60
−14.5%
Watch Dogs: Legion 55−60
+18%
50−55
−18%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 35−40
+8.6%
35−40
−8.6%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 30−35
+10%
30−33
−10%
Battlefield 5 60−65
+14.5%
55−60
−14.5%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 35−40
+11.4%
35−40
−11.4%
Cyberpunk 2077 30−35
+14.8%
27−30
−14.8%
Far Cry 5 45−50
+12.5%
40−45
−12.5%
Far Cry New Dawn 50−55
+15.6%
45−50
−15.6%
Forza Horizon 4 85−90
+10%
80−85
−10%
Hitman 3 35−40
+8.6%
35−40
−8.6%
Horizon Zero Dawn 75−80
+10%
70−75
−10%
Metro Exodus 60−65
+16.4%
55−60
−16.4%
Red Dead Redemption 2 50−55
+17.8%
45−50
−17.8%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 60−65
+14.5%
55−60
−14.5%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 63
+14.5%
55−60
−14.5%
Watch Dogs: Legion 55−60
+18%
50−55
−18%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 35−40
+8.6%
35−40
−8.6%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 30−35
+10%
30−33
−10%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 35−40
+11.4%
35−40
−11.4%
Cyberpunk 2077 30−35
+14.8%
27−30
−14.8%
Far Cry 5 45−50
+12.5%
40−45
−12.5%
Forza Horizon 4 85−90
+10%
80−85
−10%
Horizon Zero Dawn 75−80
+10%
70−75
−10%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 60−65
+14.5%
55−60
−14.5%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 33
+10%
30−33
−10%
Watch Dogs: Legion 55−60
+18%
50−55
−18%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 50−55
+17.8%
45−50
−17.8%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 35−40
+23.3%
30−33
−23.3%
Far Cry New Dawn 35−40
+8.6%
35−40
−8.6%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 20−22
+11.1%
18−20
−11.1%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 18−20
+12.5%
16−18
−12.5%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 24−27
+19%
21−24
−19%
Cyberpunk 2077 10−12
+10%
10−11
−10%
Far Cry 5 30−35
+18.5%
27−30
−18.5%
Forza Horizon 4 35−40
+8.6%
35−40
−8.6%
Hitman 3 21−24
+9.5%
21−24
−9.5%
Horizon Zero Dawn 35−40
+11.4%
35−40
−11.4%
Metro Exodus 35−40
+20%
30−33
−20%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 35−40
+11.4%
35−40
−11.4%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 21−24
+22.2%
18−20
−22.2%
Watch Dogs: Legion 12−14
+30%
10−11
−30%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 30−35
+18.5%
27−30
−18.5%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5 18−20
+18.8%
16−18
−18.8%
Far Cry New Dawn 14−16
+25%
12−14
−25%
Hitman 3 14−16
+25%
12−14
−25%
Horizon Zero Dawn 21−24
+16.7%
18−20
−16.7%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 12−14
+30%
10−11
−30%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 22
+22.2%
18−20
−22.2%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 10−12
+10%
10−11
−10%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 10−11
+11.1%
9−10
−11.1%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 10−11
+11.1%
9−10
−11.1%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
+33.3%
3−4
−33.3%
Far Cry 5 10−12
+10%
10−11
−10%
Forza Horizon 4 24−27
+23.8%
21−24
−23.8%
Horizon Zero Dawn 21−24
+16.7%
18−20
−16.7%
Metro Exodus 18−20
+12.5%
16−18
−12.5%
Watch Dogs: Legion 8−9
+14.3%
7−8
−14.3%

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 16−18
+21.4%
14−16
−21.4%

This is how R9 290 and P3000 Mobile compete in popular games:

  • R9 290 is 3% faster in 1080p
  • R9 290 is 7% faster in 4K

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 20.96 19.34
Recency 5 November 2013 11 January 2017
Maximum RAM amount 4 GB 6 GB
Chip lithography 28 nm 16 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 275 Watt 75 Watt

Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between Radeon R9 290 and Quadro P3000 Mobile.

Be aware that Radeon R9 290 is a desktop card while Quadro P3000 Mobile is a mobile workstation 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 Quadro P3000 Mobile
Quadro P3000 Mobile

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
4 139 votes

Rate Quadro P3000 Mobile 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.