GeForce GTX 295 vs Radeon R9 290X

Place in the ranking	291	757
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	4.86	0.14
Power efficiency	4.58	0.75
Architecture	GCN 2.0 (2013−2017)	Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013)
GPU code name	Hawaii	GT200B
Market segment	Desktop	Desktop
Design	reference	no data
Release date	24 October 2013 (11 years ago)	8 January 2009 (16 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	$549	$500

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

R9 290X has 3371% better value for money than GTX 295.

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	2816	480
CUDA cores per GPU	no data	240
Core clock speed	no data	576 MHz
Boost clock speed	947 MHz	no data
Number of transistors	6,200 million	1,400 million
Manufacturing process technology	28 nm	55 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	250 Watt	289 Watt
Maximum GPU temperature	no data	105 °C
Texture fill rate	176.0	46.08
Floating-point processing power	5.632 TFLOPS	0.5962 TFLOPS
ROPs	64	28
TMUs	176	80

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).

Bus support	PCIe 3.0	no data
Interface	PCIe 3.0 x16	PCIe 2.0 x16
Length	275 mm	267 mm
Height	no data	4.376" (111 mm) (11.1 cm)
Width	2-slot	2-slot
Supplementary power connectors	1 x 6-pin + 1 x 8-pin	1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin
SLI options	-	+

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	GDDR3
Maximum RAM amount	4 GB	1792 MB
Standard memory config per GPU	no data	896 MB
Memory bus width	512 Bit	896 Bit
Memory clock speed	1250 MHz	999 MHz
Memory bandwidth	320 GB/s	223.8 GB/s
Memory interface width per GPU	no data	448 Bit
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	Two Dual Link DVIHDMI
Multi monitor support	no data	+
Eyefinity	+	-
HDMI	+	+
Maximum VGA resolution	no data	2048x1536
DisplayPort support	+	-
Audio input for HDMI	no data	S/PDIF

Supported technologies

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

AppAcceleration	+	-
CrossFire	+	-
FreeSync	+	-
HD3D	+	-
LiquidVR	+	-
TressFX	+	-
TrueAudio	+	-
UVD	+	-
DDMA audio	+	no data
High Dynamic-Range Lighting (HDRR)	no data	128bit

API compatibility

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

DirectX	DirectX® 12	11.1 (10_0)
Shader Model	6.3	4.0
OpenGL	4.6	2.1
OpenCL	2.0	1.1
Vulkan	+	N/A
CUDA	-	+

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 290X 19.31
+515%

GTX 295 3.14

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 290X 7425
+516%

GTX 295 1206

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	85 +608%	12−14 −608%
4K	52 +550%	8−9 −550%

Cost per frame, $

1080p	6.46 +545%	41.67 −545%
4K	10.56 +492%	62.50 −492%

R9 290X has 545% lower cost per frame in 1080p
R9 290X has 492% lower cost per frame in 4K

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2	30−35 +580%	5−6 −580%
Cyberpunk 2077	35−40 +533%	6−7 −533%
Elden Ring	60−65 +578%	9−10 −578%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5	60−65 +578%	9−10 −578%
Counter-Strike 2	30−35 +580%	5−6 −580%
Cyberpunk 2077	35−40 +533%	6−7 −533%
Forza Horizon 4	80−85 +575%	12−14 −575%
Metro Exodus	50−55 +550%	8−9 −550%
Red Dead Redemption 2	45−50 +543%	7−8 −543%
Valorant	75−80 +550%	12−14 −550%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5	60−65 +578%	9−10 −578%
Counter-Strike 2	30−35 +580%	5−6 −580%
Cyberpunk 2077	35−40 +533%	6−7 −533%
Dota 2	45 +543%	7−8 −543%
Elden Ring	60−65 +578%	9−10 −578%
Far Cry 5	65−70 +550%	10−11 −550%
Fortnite	100−110 +544%	16−18 −544%
Forza Horizon 4	80−85 +575%	12−14 −575%
Grand Theft Auto V	67 +570%	10−11 −570%
Metro Exodus	50−55 +550%	8−9 −550%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	130−140 +524%	21−24 −524%
Red Dead Redemption 2	45−50 +543%	7−8 −543%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	60−65 +567%	9−10 −567%
Valorant	75−80 +550%	12−14 −550%
World of Tanks	280 +522%	45−50 −522%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	60−65 +578%	9−10 −578%
Counter-Strike 2	30−35 +580%	5−6 −580%
Cyberpunk 2077	35−40 +533%	6−7 −533%
Dota 2	136 +548%	21−24 −548%
Far Cry 5	65−70 +550%	10−11 −550%
Forza Horizon 4	80−85 +575%	12−14 −575%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	130−140 +524%	21−24 −524%
Valorant	75−80 +550%	12−14 −550%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2	30−33 +650%	4−5 −650%
Elden Ring	30−35 +540%	5−6 −540%
Grand Theft Auto V	30−35 +520%	5−6 −520%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	160−170 +526%	27−30 −526%
Red Dead Redemption 2	16−18 +750%	2−3 −750%
World of Tanks	130−140 +529%	21−24 −529%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	35−40 +550%	6−7 −550%
Counter-Strike 2	16−18 +700%	2−3 −700%
Cyberpunk 2077	14−16 +650%	2−3 −650%
Far Cry 5	50−55 +538%	8−9 −538%
Forza Horizon 4	45−50 +600%	7−8 −600%
Metro Exodus	40−45 +529%	7−8 −529%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	24−27 +550%	4−5 −550%
Valorant	50−55 +525%	8−9 −525%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2	16−18 +700%	2−3 −700%
Dota 2	52 +550%	8−9 −550%
Elden Ring	14−16 +600%	2−3 −600%
Grand Theft Auto V	52 +550%	8−9 −550%
Metro Exodus	14−16 +600%	2−3 −600%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	55−60 +544%	9−10 −544%
Red Dead Redemption 2	12−14 +1100%	1−2 −1100%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	52 +550%	8−9 −550%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	18−20 +533%	3−4 −533%
Counter-Strike 2	16−18 +700%	2−3 −700%
Cyberpunk 2077	6−7	0−1
Dota 2	84 +600%	12−14 −600%
Far Cry 5	24−27 +525%	4−5 −525%
Fortnite	21−24 +667%	3−4 −667%
Forza Horizon 4	27−30 +600%	4−5 −600%
Valorant	21−24 +667%	3−4 −667%

This is how R9 290X and GTX 295 compete in popular games:

R9 290X is 608% faster in 1080p
R9 290X is 550% faster in 4K

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	19.31	3.14
Recency	24 October 2013	8 January 2009
Maximum RAM amount	4 GB	1792 MB
Chip lithography	28 nm	55 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	250 Watt	289 Watt

R9 290X has a 515% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 4 years, a 128.6% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 96.4% more advanced lithography process, and 15.6% lower power consumption.

The Radeon R9 290X is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTX 295 in performance tests.

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