Radeon RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 4000/5000) vs R9 290

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon R9 290 with Radeon RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 4000/5000), including specs and performance data.

R9 290
2013
4 GB GDDR5, 275 Watt
21.06
+134%

R9 290 outperforms RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 4000/5000) by a whopping 134% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking266490
Place by popularitynot in top-10028
Cost-effectiveness evaluation8.07no data
Power efficiency5.2841.43
ArchitectureGCN 2.0 (2013−2017)Vega (2017−2020)
GPU code nameHawaiiVega
Market segmentDesktopLaptop
Release date5 November 2013 (11 years ago)7 January 2020 (5 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 cores2560512
Core clock speed947 MHzno data
Boost clock speedno data2100 MHz
Number of transistors6,200 millionno data
Manufacturing process technology28 nm7 nm
Power consumption (TDP)275 Watt15 Watt
Texture fill rate151.5no data
Floating-point processing power4.849 TFLOPSno data
ROPs64no data
TMUs160no data

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 x16no data
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 typeGDDR5no data
Maximum RAM amount4 GBno data
Memory bus width512 Bitno data
Memory clock speed1250 MHzno data
Memory bandwidth320.0 GB/sno data
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 Connectors2x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPortno data
HDMI+-

API compatibility

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

DirectX12 (12_0)12_1
Shader Model6.3no data
OpenGL4.6no data
OpenCL2.0no data
Vulkan1.2.131-

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 21.06
+134%
RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 4000/5000) 9.01

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
+217%
RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 4000/5000) 3743

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 HD50−55
+117%
23
−117%
1440p35−40
+106%
17
−106%
4K21−24
+133%
9
−133%

Cost per frame, $

1080p7.98no data
1440p11.40no data
4K19.00no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2 13
+0%
13
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 19
+0%
19
+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 12
+0%
12
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 15
+0%
15
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 32
+0%
32
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 21
+0%
21
+0%
Metro Exodus 27
+0%
27
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 33
+0%
33
+0%
Valorant 44
+0%
44
+0%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 9
+0%
9
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 11
+0%
11
+0%
Dota 2 29
+0%
29
+0%
Far Cry 5 30
+0%
30
+0%
Fortnite 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 27
+0%
27
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 13
+0%
13
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 19
+0%
19
+0%
Metro Exodus 19
+0%
19
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 57
+0%
57
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 12
+0%
12
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
Valorant 14
+0%
14
+0%
World of Tanks 48
+0%
48
+0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 8
+0%
8
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 9
+0%
9
+0%
Dota 2 48
+0%
48
+0%
Far Cry 5 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 23
+0%
23
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 14
+0%
14
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 70−75
+0%
70−75
+0%
Valorant 37
+0%
37
+0%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2 9
+0%
9
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 9
+0%
9
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 22
+0%
22
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
World of Tanks 21
+0%
21
+0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 2
+0%
2
+0%
Far Cry 5 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 16
+0%
16
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Metro Exodus 17
+0%
17
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Valorant 39
+0%
39
+0%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Dota 2 10
+0%
10
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 10
+0%
10
+0%
Metro Exodus 6
+0%
6
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 13
+0%
13
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 10
+0%
10
+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Dota 2 18
+0%
18
+0%
Far Cry 5 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
Fortnite 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 9
+0%
9
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Valorant 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%

This is how R9 290 and RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 4000/5000) compete in popular games:

  • R9 290 is 117% faster in 1080p
  • R9 290 is 106% faster in 1440p
  • R9 290 is 133% faster in 4K

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 64 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 21.06 9.01
Recency 5 November 2013 7 January 2020
Chip lithography 28 nm 7 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 275 Watt 15 Watt

R9 290 has a 133.7% higher aggregate performance score.

RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 4000/5000), on the other hand, has an age advantage of 6 years, a 300% more advanced lithography process, and 1733.3% lower power consumption.

The Radeon R9 290 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 4000/5000) in performance tests.

Be aware that Radeon R9 290 is a desktop card while Radeon RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 4000/5000) 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
AMD Radeon RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 4000/5000)
Radeon RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 4000/5000)

Other comparisons

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.


4.1 576 votes

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.8 1275 votes

Rate Radeon RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 4000/5000) 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.