GeForce GTX 970M vs Radeon R9 290X

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon R9 290X with GeForce GTX 970M, including specs and performance data.

R9 290X
2013
4 GB GDDR5, 250 Watt
19.20
+30.1%

R9 290X outperforms GTX 970M by a substantial 30% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking299362
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation4.91no data
Power efficiency4.5712.57
ArchitectureGCN 2.0 (2013−2017)Maxwell 2.0 (2014−2019)
GPU code nameHawaiiGM204
Market segmentDesktopLaptop
Designreferenceno data
Release date24 October 2013 (11 years ago)7 October 2014 (10 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$549 $2,560.89

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

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

R9 290X and GTX 970M have a nearly equal value for money.

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 cores28161280
Core clock speedno data924 MHz
Boost clock speed947 MHz1038 MHz
Number of transistors6,200 million5,200 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)250 Wattunknown
Texture fill rate176.083.04
Floating-point processing power5.632 TFLOPS2.657 TFLOPS
ROPs6448
TMUs17680

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).

Laptop sizeno datalarge
Bus supportPCIe 3.0PCI Express 3.0
InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16MXM-B (3.0)
Length275 mmno data
Width2-slotno data
Supplementary power connectors1 x 6-pin + 1 x 8-pinNone
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 typeGDDR5GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount4 GB3 GB
Memory bus width512 Bit192 Bit
Memory clock speed1250 MHz2500 MHz
Memory bandwidth320 GB/s120 GB/s
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 outputs
Eyefinity+-
VGA аnalog display supportno data+
DisplayPort Multimode (DP++) supportno data+
HDMI++
DisplayPort support+-
G-SYNC support-+

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
GameStream-+
GeForce ShadowPlay-+
GPU Boostno data2.0
GameWorks-+
H.264, VC1, MPEG2 1080p video decoder-+
Optimus-+
BatteryBoost-+
Ansel-+

API and SDK compatibility

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

DirectXDirectX® 1212 (12_1)
Shader Model6.36.4
OpenGL4.64.5
OpenCL2.01.1
Vulkan+1.1.126
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.

R9 290X 19.20
+30.1%
GTX 970M 14.76

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
+30.1%
GTX 970M 5708

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.

R9 290X 16168
+63.7%
GTX 970M 9878

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.

R9 290X 37284
+29.3%
GTX 970M 28845

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 290X 11717
+57%
GTX 970M 7463

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.

R9 290X 73987
+44.4%
GTX 970M 51247

3DMark Ice Storm GPU

Ice Storm Graphics is an obsolete benchmark, part of 3DMark suite. Ice Storm was used to measure entry level laptops and Windows-based tablets performance. It utilizes DirectX 11 feature level 9 to display a battle between two space fleets near a frozen planet in 1280x720 resolution. Discontinued in January 2020, it is now superseded by 3DMark Night Raid.

R9 290X 332042
+20.9%
GTX 970M 274626

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.

R9 290X 140
+50.5%
GTX 970M 93

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:

900p170−180
+25%
136
−25%
Full HD86
+48.3%
58
−48.3%
1440p35−40
+29.6%
27
−29.6%
4K50
+138%
21
−138%

Cost per frame, $

1080p6.38
+592%
44.15
−592%
1440p15.69
+505%
94.85
−505%
4K10.98
+1011%
121.95
−1011%
  • R9 290X has 592% lower cost per frame in 1080p
  • R9 290X has 505% lower cost per frame in 1440p
  • R9 290X has 1011% lower cost per frame in 4K

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Atomic Heart 45−50
+33.3%
35−40
−33.3%
Counter-Strike 2 30−35
+36%
24−27
−36%
Cyberpunk 2077 35−40
+31%
27−30
−31%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Atomic Heart 45−50
+33.3%
35−40
−33.3%
Battlefield 5 75−80
+15.2%
66
−15.2%
Counter-Strike 2 30−35
+36%
24−27
−36%
Cyberpunk 2077 35−40
+31%
27−30
−31%
Far Cry 5 60−65
+34.8%
46
−34.8%
Fortnite 95−100
−68%
163
+68%
Forza Horizon 4 70−75
+21.3%
61
−21.3%
Forza Horizon 5 50−55
+31.6%
35−40
−31.6%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 65−70
+13.3%
60
−13.3%
Valorant 130−140
+17.9%
110−120
−17.9%

Full HD
High Preset

Atomic Heart 45−50
+33.3%
35−40
−33.3%
Battlefield 5 75−80
+40.7%
54
−40.7%
Counter-Strike 2 30−35
+36%
24−27
−36%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 280
+47.4%
190−200
−47.4%
Cyberpunk 2077 35−40
+31%
27−30
−31%
Dota 2 100−110
+18%
85−90
−18%
Far Cry 5 60−65
+44.2%
43
−44.2%
Fortnite 95−100
+49.2%
65
−49.2%
Forza Horizon 4 70−75
+39.6%
53
−39.6%
Forza Horizon 5 50−55
+31.6%
35−40
−31.6%
Grand Theft Auto V 67
+36.7%
49
−36.7%
Metro Exodus 35−40
+62.5%
24
−62.5%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 65−70
+38.8%
49
−38.8%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 75
+66.7%
45
−66.7%
Valorant 130−140
+17.9%
110−120
−17.9%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 75−80
+55.1%
49
−55.1%
Counter-Strike 2 30−35
+36%
24−27
−36%
Cyberpunk 2077 35−40
+31%
27−30
−31%
Dota 2 136
+52.8%
85−90
−52.8%
Far Cry 5 60−65
+59%
39
−59%
Forza Horizon 4 70−75
+106%
36
−106%
Forza Horizon 5 50−55
+31.6%
35−40
−31.6%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 44
+33.3%
33
−33.3%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 29
+11.5%
26
−11.5%
Valorant 130−140
+17.9%
110−120
−17.9%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Fortnite 95−100
+98%
49
−98%

1440p
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2 20−22
+42.9%
14−16
−42.9%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 130−140
+26.9%
100−110
−26.9%
Grand Theft Auto V 30−35
+40.9%
21−24
−40.9%
Metro Exodus 21−24
+64.3%
14
−64.3%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 160−170
+32%
120−130
−32%
Valorant 170−180
+20%
140−150
−20%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 50−55
+54.5%
33
−54.5%
Cyberpunk 2077 16−18
+41.7%
12−14
−41.7%
Far Cry 5 40−45
+51.9%
27
−51.9%
Forza Horizon 4 45−50
+95.7%
23
−95.7%
Forza Horizon 5 30−35
+32%
24−27
−32%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 27−30
+31.8%
21−24
−31.8%

1440p
Epic Preset

Fortnite 40−45
+32.3%
31
−32.3%

4K
High Preset

Atomic Heart 14−16
+36.4%
10−12
−36.4%
Counter-Strike 2 8−9
+33.3%
6−7
−33.3%
Grand Theft Auto V 52
+57.6%
33
−57.6%
Metro Exodus 14−16
+100%
7
−100%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 28
+75%
16
−75%
Valorant 100−110
+34.2%
75−80
−34.2%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 27−30
+80%
15
−80%
Counter-Strike 2 8−9
+33.3%
6−7
−33.3%
Cyberpunk 2077 7−8
+40%
5−6
−40%
Dota 2 84
+68%
50−55
−68%
Far Cry 5 20−22
+53.8%
13
−53.8%
Forza Horizon 4 30−35
+433%
6
−433%
Forza Horizon 5 16−18
+33.3%
12−14
−33.3%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 18−20
+50%
12
−50%

4K
Epic Preset

Fortnite 18−20
+28.6%
14
−28.6%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Counter-Strike 2 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%

This is how R9 290X and GTX 970M compete in popular games:

  • R9 290X is 25% faster in 900p
  • R9 290X is 48% faster in 1080p
  • R9 290X is 30% faster in 1440p
  • R9 290X is 138% faster in 4K

Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:

  • in Forza Horizon 4, with 4K resolution and the Ultra Preset, the R9 290X is 433% faster.
  • in Fortnite, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the GTX 970M is 68% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • R9 290X is ahead in 65 tests (97%)
  • GTX 970M is ahead in 1 test (1%)
  • there's a draw in 1 test (1%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 19.20 14.76
Recency 24 October 2013 7 October 2014
Maximum RAM amount 4 GB 3 GB

R9 290X has a 30.1% higher aggregate performance score, and a 33.3% higher maximum VRAM amount.

GTX 970M, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 11 months.

The Radeon R9 290X is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTX 970M in performance tests.

Be aware that Radeon R9 290X is a desktop card while GeForce GTX 970M is a notebook one.

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 290X
Radeon R9 290X
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970M
GeForce GTX 970M

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.


4.1 456 votes

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4.2 317 votes

Rate GeForce GTX 970M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can give us your opinion about Radeon R9 290X or GeForce GTX 970M, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.