GeForce GTX 780 Ti vs Radeon R9 290X
Aggregated performance score
GeForce GTX 780 Ti outperforms Radeon R9 290X by 28% based on our aggregated benchmark results.
General info
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in performance ranking | 271 | 205 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Value for money | 10.11 | 5.10 |
| Architecture | GCN (2011−2017) | Kepler (2012−2018) |
| GPU code name | Hawaii XT | GK110 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Desktop |
| Design | reference | no data |
| Release date | 24 October 2013 (10 years old) | 7 November 2013 (10 years old) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $549 | $699 |
| Current price | $20 (0x MSRP) | $461 (0.7x MSRP) |
Value for money
Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
R9 290X has 98% better value for money than GTX 780 Ti.
Technical specs
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 cores | 2816 | 2880 |
| CUDA cores | no data | 2880 |
| Core clock speed | no data | 875 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 947 MHz | 928 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 6,200 million | 7,080 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 250 Watt | 250 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 176.0 | 210 billion/sec |
| Floating-point performance | 5,632 gflops | 5,345 gflops |
Size and 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 | PCI Express 3.0 |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Length | 275 mm | 10.5" (26.7 cm) |
| Height | no data | 4.376" (11.1 cm) |
| Width | 2-slot | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | 1 x 6-pin + 1 x 8-pin | One 8-pin and one 6-pin |
| SLI options | no data | + |
Memory
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 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 3 GB |
| Memory bus width | 512 Bit | 384 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1250 MHz | 7.0 GB/s |
| Memory bandwidth | 320 GB/s | 336 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | - |
Video outputs and ports
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 | One Dual Link DVI-I, One Dual Link DVI-D, One HDMI, One DisplayPort |
| Multi monitor support | no data | 4 displays |
| Eyefinity | + | no data |
| HDMI | + | + |
| HDCP | no data | + |
| Maximum VGA resolution | no data | 2048x1536 |
| DisplayPort support | + | no data |
| Audio input for HDMI | no data | Internal |
Technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| AppAcceleration | + | no data |
| CrossFire | 1 | no data |
| Enduro | - | no data |
| FreeSync | 1 | no data |
| HD3D | + | no data |
| LiquidVR | 1 | no data |
| PowerTune | - | no data |
| TressFX | 1 | no data |
| TrueAudio | + | no data |
| ZeroCore | - | no data |
| UVD | + | no data |
| DDMA audio | + | no data |
| Blu Ray 3D | no data | + |
| 3D Gaming | no data | + |
| 3D Vision | no data | + |
| 3D Vision Live | no data | + |
API support
List of supported graphics and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | DirectX® 12 | 12 (11_1) |
| Shader Model | 6.3 | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.4 |
| OpenCL | 2.0 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | + | 1.1.126 |
| Mantle | - | no data |
| CUDA | no data | + |
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.
GeForce GTX 780 Ti outperforms Radeon R9 290X by 28% based on our aggregated benchmark results.
Passmark
This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark, part of Passmark PerformanceTest suite. 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.
Benchmark coverage: 25%
GeForce GTX 780 Ti outperforms Radeon R9 290X by 28% in Passmark.
3DMark Vantage Performance
3DMark Vantage is an outdated DirectX 10 benchmark using 1280x1024 screen resolution. It taxes the graphics card with two scenes, one depicting a girl escaping some militarized base located within a sea cave, the other displaying a space fleet attack on a defenseless planet. It was discontinued in April 2017, and Time Spy benchmark is now recommended to be used instead.
Benchmark coverage: 17%
GeForce GTX 780 Ti outperforms Radeon R9 290X by 4% in 3DMark Vantage Performance.
3DMark 11 Performance GPU
3DMark 11 is an obsolete DirectX 11 benchmark by Futuremark. It used four tests based on two scenes, one being few submarines exploring the submerged wreck of a sunken ship, the other is an abandoned temple deep in the jungle. All the tests are heavy with volumetric lighting and tessellation, and despite being done in 1280x720 resolution, are relatively taxing. Discontinued in January 2020, 3DMark 11 is now superseded by Time Spy.
Benchmark coverage: 17%
Radeon R9 290X outperforms GeForce GTX 780 Ti by 4% in 3DMark 11 Performance GPU.
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%
GeForce GTX 780 Ti outperforms Radeon R9 290X by 1% in 3DMark Fire Strike Graphics.
3DMark Cloud Gate GPU
Cloud Gate is an outdated DirectX 11 feature level 10 benchmark that was used for home PCs and basic notebooks. It displays a few scenes of some weird space teleportation device launching spaceships into unknown, using fixed resolution of 1280x720. Just like Ice Storm benchmark, it has been discontinued in January 2020 and replaced by 3DMark Night Raid.
Benchmark coverage: 14%
GeForce GTX 780 Ti outperforms Radeon R9 290X by 2% in 3DMark Cloud Gate GPU.
Unigine Heaven 3.0
This is an old DirectX 11 benchmark using Unigine, a 3D game engine by eponymous Russian company. It displays a fantasy medieval town sprawling over several flying islands. Version 3.0 was released in 2012, and in 2013 it was superseded by Heaven 4.0, which introduced several slight improvements, including a newer version of Unigine.
Benchmark coverage: 4%
GeForce GTX 780 Ti outperforms Radeon R9 290X by 2% in Unigine Heaven 3.0.
Unigine Heaven 4.0
This is an old DirectX 11 benchmark, a newer version of Unigine 3.0 with relatively small differences. It displays a fantasy medieval town sprawling over several flying islands. The benchmark is still sometimes used, despite its significant age, as it was released back in 2013.
Benchmark coverage: 1%
GeForce GTX 780 Ti outperforms Radeon R9 290X by 17% in Unigine Heaven 4.0.
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 | 87
−10.3%
| 96
+10.3%
|
| 4K | 50
−20%
| 60−65
+20%
|
Performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 30−33
−33.3%
|
40−45
+33.3%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 35−40
−25.6%
|
45−50
+25.6%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 30−35
−30.3%
|
40−45
+30.3%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 60−65
−25%
|
80−85
+25%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 50−55
−30%
|
65−70
+30%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 30−33
−33.3%
|
40−45
+33.3%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 50−55
−28%
|
60−65
+28%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 50−55
−25%
|
65−70
+25%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 65−70
−24.2%
|
80−85
+24.2%
|
| Hitman 3 | 55−60
−34.5%
|
70−75
+34.5%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 40−45
−29.3%
|
50−55
+29.3%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 30−35
−25%
|
40−45
+25%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 40−45
−31.7%
|
50−55
+31.7%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 35−40
−27%
|
45−50
+27%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 35−40
−25.6%
|
45−50
+25.6%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 30−35
−30.3%
|
40−45
+30.3%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 60−65
−25%
|
80−85
+25%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 50−55
−30%
|
65−70
+30%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 30−33
−33.3%
|
40−45
+33.3%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 50−55
−28%
|
60−65
+28%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 50−55
−25%
|
65−70
+25%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 65−70
−24.2%
|
80−85
+24.2%
|
| Hitman 3 | 55−60
−34.5%
|
70−75
+34.5%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 40−45
−29.3%
|
50−55
+29.3%
|
| Metro Exodus | 30−35
−32.3%
|
40−45
+32.3%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 30−35
−25%
|
40−45
+25%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 40−45
−31.7%
|
50−55
+31.7%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 75
+33.9%
|
55−60
−33.9%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 35−40
−27%
|
45−50
+27%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 35−40
−25.6%
|
45−50
+25.6%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 30−35
−30.3%
|
40−45
+30.3%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 60−65
−25%
|
80−85
+25%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 30−33
−33.3%
|
40−45
+33.3%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 50−55
−28%
|
60−65
+28%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 50−55
−25%
|
65−70
+25%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 65−70
−24.2%
|
80−85
+24.2%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 29
−93.1%
|
55−60
+93.1%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 35−40
−27%
|
45−50
+27%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 27−30
−31%
|
35−40
+31%
|
| Hitman 3 | 30−35
−32.3%
|
40−45
+32.3%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 24−27
−26.9%
|
30−35
+26.9%
|
| Metro Exodus | 18−20
−33.3%
|
24−27
+33.3%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 14−16
−35.7%
|
18−20
+35.7%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 24−27
−32%
|
30−35
+32%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 20−22
−35%
|
27−30
+35%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 16−18
−41.2%
|
24−27
+41.2%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 40−45
−31%
|
55−60
+31%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 10−12
−45.5%
|
16−18
+45.5%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 30−35
−31.3%
|
40−45
+31.3%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 35−40
−27%
|
45−50
+27%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 35−40
−30.8%
|
50−55
+30.8%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 21−24
−38.1%
|
27−30
+38.1%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 12−14
−46.2%
|
18−20
+46.2%
|
4K
High Preset
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 14−16
−35.7%
|
18−20
+35.7%
|
| Hitman 3 | 18−20
−27.8%
|
21−24
+27.8%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 12−14
−33.3%
|
16−18
+33.3%
|
| Metro Exodus | 10−12
−36.4%
|
14−16
+36.4%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 10−11
−30%
|
12−14
+30%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 12−14
−41.7%
|
16−18
+41.7%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 28
+3.7%
|
27−30
−3.7%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 12−14
−25%
|
14−16
+25%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 10−11
−30%
|
12−14
+30%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 21−24
−31.8%
|
27−30
+31.8%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
−50%
|
6−7
+50%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 14−16
−40%
|
21−24
+40%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 18−20
−33.3%
|
24−27
+33.3%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 27−30
−29.6%
|
35−40
+29.6%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 8−9
−37.5%
|
10−12
+37.5%
|
This is how R9 290X and GTX 780 Ti compete in popular games:
1080p resolution:
- GTX 780 Ti is 10.3% faster than R9 290X
4K resolution:
- GTX 780 Ti is 20% faster than R9 290X
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt, with 1080p resolution and the High Preset, the R9 290X is 33.9% faster than the GTX 780 Ti.
- in The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt, with 1080p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the GTX 780 Ti is 93.1% faster than the R9 290X.
All in all, in popular games:
- R9 290X is ahead in 2 tests (3%)
- GTX 780 Ti is ahead in 66 tests (97%)
Advantages and disadvantages
| Performance score | 19.17 | 24.57 |
| Cost | $549 | $699 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 3 GB |
The GeForce GTX 780 Ti is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon R9 290X in performance tests.
Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Similar GPU comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
