Radeon Picasso vs R9 290

VS

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking262not rated
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation8.02no data
Power efficiency5.24no data
ArchitectureGCN 2.0 (2013−2017)GCN 5.0 (2017−2020)
GPU code nameHawaiiPicasso
Market segmentDesktopDesktop
Release date5 November 2013 (11 years ago)no data
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 cores2560640
Core clock speed947 MHz300 MHz
Boost clock speedno data1301 MHz
Number of transistors6,200 million4,940 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm14 nm
Power consumption (TDP)275 Watt10 Watt
Texture fill rate151.552.04
Floating-point processing power4.849 TFLOPS1.665 TFLOPS
ROPs648
TMUs16040

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 x16IGP
Length275 mmno data
Width2-slotIGP
Supplementary power connectors1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pinNone

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 typeGDDR5System Shared
Maximum RAM amount4 GBSystem Shared
Memory bus width512 BitSystem Shared
Memory clock speed1250 MHzSystem Shared
Memory bandwidth320.0 GB/sno 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+-

API compatibility

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

DirectX12 (12_0)12 (12_1)
Shader Model6.3no data
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL2.0no data
Vulkan1.2.131-

Pros & cons summary


Chip lithography 28 nm 14 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 275 Watt 10 Watt

Picasso has a 100% more advanced lithography process, and 2650% lower power consumption.

We couldn't decide between Radeon R9 290 and Radeon Picasso. 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
AMD Radeon Picasso
Radeon Picasso

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.


4.2 558 votes

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4.3 3 votes

Rate Radeon Picasso 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.