UHD Graphics Xe 750 32EUs (Rocket Lake) vs Radeon R9 290

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS
#ad 
Buy on Amazon

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon R9 290 and UHD Graphics Xe 750 32EUs (Rocket Lake), covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.

R9 290
2013
4 GB GDDR5, 275 Watt
19.31
+539%

R9 290 outperforms UHD Graphics Xe 750 32EUs (Rocket Lake) by a whopping 539% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking305791
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation6.92no data
Power efficiency5.35no data
ArchitectureGCN 2.0 (2013−2017)Gen. 12 (2021−2023)
GPU code nameHawaiiRocket Lake Xe
Market segmentDesktopDesktop
Release date5 November 2013 (11 years ago)30 March 2021 (4 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$399 no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.

no data

Performance to price scatter graph

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 cores256032
Core clock speed947 MHz350 MHz
Boost clock speedno data1450 MHz
Number of transistors6,200 millionno data
Manufacturing process technology28 nm14 nm
Power consumption (TDP)275 Wattno data
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

This section shows the types and number of video connectors on each GPU. The data applies specifically to desktop reference models (for example, NVIDIA’s Founders Edition). OEM partners often modify both the number and types of ports. On notebook GPUs, video‐output options are determined by the laptop’s design rather than the graphics chip itself.

Display Connectors2x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPortno data
HDMI+-

Supported technologies

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

Quick Syncno data+

API and SDK 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.

R9 290 19.31
+539%
UHD Graphics Xe 750 32EUs (Rocket Lake) 3.02

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
+445%
UHD Graphics Xe 750 32EUs (Rocket Lake) 2175

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 HD120−130
+532%
19
−532%
1440p100−110
+525%
16
−525%
4K55−60
+511%
9
−511%

Cost per frame, $

1080p3.33no data
1440p3.99no data
4K7.25no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
God of War 13
+0%
13
+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Far Cry 5 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Fortnite 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
God of War 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Valorant 64
+0%
64
+0%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Dota 2 35
+0%
35
+0%
Far Cry 5 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Fortnite 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
God of War 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Metro Exodus 6
+0%
6
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Valorant 51
+0%
51
+0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Dota 2 32
+0%
32
+0%
Far Cry 5 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
God of War 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Valorant 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Fortnite 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%

1440p
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Metro Exodus 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
Valorant 36
+0%
36
+0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Far Cry 5 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
God of War 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%

1440p
Epic Preset

Fortnite 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%

4K
High Preset

Grand Theft Auto V 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Valorant 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 0−1 0−1
Dota 2 12
+0%
12
+0%
Far Cry 5 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
God of War 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%

4K
Epic Preset

Fortnite 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%

This is how R9 290 and UHD Graphics Xe 750 32EUs (Rocket Lake) compete in popular games:

  • R9 290 is 532% faster in 1080p
  • R9 290 is 525% faster in 1440p
  • R9 290 is 511% faster in 4K

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 58 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 19.31 3.02
Recency 5 November 2013 30 March 2021
Chip lithography 28 nm 14 nm

R9 290 has a 539.4% higher aggregate performance score.

UHD Graphics Xe 750 32EUs (Rocket Lake), on the other hand, has an age advantage of 7 years, and a 100% more advanced lithography process.

The Radeon R9 290 is our recommended choice as it beats the UHD Graphics Xe 750 32EUs (Rocket Lake) in performance tests.

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
Intel UHD Graphics Xe 750 32EUs (Rocket Lake)
UHD Graphics Xe 750 32EUs (Rocket Lake)

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.


4.1 604 votes

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
2.9 8 votes

Rate UHD Graphics Xe 750 32EUs (Rocket Lake) on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about Radeon R9 290 or UHD Graphics Xe 750 32EUs (Rocket Lake), agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.