Radeon 760M vs R9 290X

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon R9 290X with Radeon 760M, including specs and performance data.

R9 290X
2013
4 GB GDDR5, 250 Watt
19.31
+30.2%

R9 290X outperforms 760M 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 ranking291355
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation4.93no data
Power efficiency4.5868.01
ArchitectureGCN 2.0 (2013−2017)RDNA 3.0 (2022−2024)
GPU code nameHawaiiHawx Point
Market segmentDesktopLaptop
Designreferenceno data
Release date24 October 2013 (11 years ago)6 December 2023 (1 year ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$549 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 cores2816512
Core clock speedno data800 MHz
Boost clock speed947 MHz2599 MHz
Number of transistors6,200 million25,390 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm4 nm
Power consumption (TDP)250 Watt15 Watt
Texture fill rate176.083.17
Floating-point processing power5.632 TFLOPS5.323 TFLOPS
ROPs6416
TMUs17632
Ray Tracing Coresno data8

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 supportPCIe 3.0no data
InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16PCIe 4.0 x8
Length275 mmno data
Width2-slotno data
Supplementary power connectors1 x 6-pin + 1 x 8-pinNone

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 typeGDDR5System Shared
Maximum RAM amount4 GBSystem Shared
Memory bus width512 BitSystem Shared
Memory clock speed1250 MHzSystem Shared
Memory bandwidth320 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 DisplayPortPortable Device Dependent
Eyefinity+-
HDMI+-
DisplayPort 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

API compatibility

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

DirectXDirectX® 1212 Ultimate (12_2)
Shader Model6.36.8
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL2.02.1
Vulkan+1.3

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
+30.2%
Radeon 760M 14.83

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
+30.2%
Radeon 760M 5701

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
+68.4%
Radeon 760M 9603

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
+13%
Radeon 760M 32985

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
+90.8%
Radeon 760M 6142

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
+77.1%
Radeon 760M 41767

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 HD85
+174%
31
−174%
1440p24−27
+26.3%
19
−26.3%
4K52
+48.6%
35−40
−48.6%

Cost per frame, $

1080p6.46no data
1440p22.88no data
4K10.56no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2 30−35
+36%
25
−36%
Cyberpunk 2077 35−40
+26.7%
30
−26.7%
Elden Ring 60−65
+35.6%
45−50
−35.6%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5 60−65
+27.1%
45−50
−27.1%
Counter-Strike 2 30−35
+78.9%
19
−78.9%
Cyberpunk 2077 35−40
+217%
12
−217%
Forza Horizon 4 80−85
+58.8%
51
−58.8%
Metro Exodus 50−55
+30%
40−45
−30%
Red Dead Redemption 2 45−50
+25%
35−40
−25%
Valorant 75−80
+32.2%
55−60
−32.2%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5 60−65
+27.1%
45−50
−27.1%
Counter-Strike 2 30−35
+88.9%
18
−88.9%
Cyberpunk 2077 35−40
+322%
9
−322%
Dota 2 45
+95.7%
23
−95.7%
Elden Ring 60−65
+35.6%
45−50
−35.6%
Far Cry 5 65−70
+124%
29
−124%
Fortnite 100−110
+24.1%
80−85
−24.1%
Forza Horizon 4 80−85
+84.1%
44
−84.1%
Grand Theft Auto V 67
+97.1%
34
−97.1%
Metro Exodus 50−55
+30%
40−45
−30%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 130−140
+22.4%
100−110
−22.4%
Red Dead Redemption 2 45−50
+25%
35−40
−25%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 60−65
+33.3%
45−50
−33.3%
Valorant 75−80
+32.2%
55−60
−32.2%
World of Tanks 280
+45.8%
190−200
−45.8%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 60−65
+27.1%
45−50
−27.1%
Counter-Strike 2 30−35
+30.8%
24−27
−30.8%
Cyberpunk 2077 35−40
+31%
27−30
−31%
Dota 2 136
+157%
50−55
−157%
Far Cry 5 65−70
+18.2%
55−60
−18.2%
Forza Horizon 4 80−85
+119%
37
−119%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 130−140
+22.4%
100−110
−22.4%
Valorant 75−80
+32.2%
55−60
−32.2%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2 30−33
+42.9%
21−24
−42.9%
Elden Ring 30−35
+39.1%
21−24
−39.1%
Grand Theft Auto V 30−35
+40.9%
21−24
−40.9%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 160−170
+29%
130−140
−29%
Red Dead Redemption 2 16−18
+30.8%
12−14
−30.8%
World of Tanks 130−140
+26.9%
100−110
−26.9%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 35−40
+30%
30−33
−30%
Counter-Strike 2 16−18
+23.1%
12−14
−23.1%
Cyberpunk 2077 14−16
+36.4%
10−12
−36.4%
Far Cry 5 50−55
+41.7%
35−40
−41.7%
Forza Horizon 4 45−50
+36.1%
35−40
−36.1%
Metro Exodus 40−45
+37.5%
30−35
−37.5%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 24−27
+36.8%
18−20
−36.8%
Valorant 50−55
+35.1%
35−40
−35.1%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2 16−18
+60%
10−11
−60%
Dota 2 52
+100%
24−27
−100%
Elden Ring 14−16
+40%
10−11
−40%
Grand Theft Auto V 52
+100%
24−27
−100%
Metro Exodus 14−16
+40%
10−11
−40%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 55−60
+31.8%
40−45
−31.8%
Red Dead Redemption 2 12−14
+33.3%
9−10
−33.3%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 52
+100%
24−27
−100%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 18−20
+35.7%
14−16
−35.7%
Counter-Strike 2 16−18
+60%
10−11
−60%
Cyberpunk 2077 6−7
+50%
4−5
−50%
Dota 2 84
+223%
24−27
−223%
Far Cry 5 24−27
+31.6%
18−20
−31.6%
Fortnite 21−24
+35.3%
16−18
−35.3%
Forza Horizon 4 27−30
+33.3%
21−24
−33.3%
Valorant 21−24
+43.8%
16−18
−43.8%

This is how R9 290X and Radeon 760M compete in popular games:

  • R9 290X is 174% faster in 1080p
  • R9 290X is 26% faster in 1440p
  • R9 290X is 49% faster in 4K

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

  • in Cyberpunk 2077, with 1080p resolution and the High Preset, the R9 290X is 322% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • Without exception, R9 290X surpassed Radeon 760M in all 63 of our tests.

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 19.31 14.83
Recency 24 October 2013 6 December 2023
Chip lithography 28 nm 4 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 250 Watt 15 Watt

R9 290X has a 30.2% higher aggregate performance score.

Radeon 760M, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 10 years, a 600% more advanced lithography process, and 1566.7% lower power consumption.

The Radeon R9 290X is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon 760M in performance tests.

Be aware that Radeon R9 290X is a desktop card while Radeon 760M 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 290X
Radeon R9 290X
AMD Radeon 760M
Radeon 760M

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.


4.1 455 votes

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4.2 214 votes

Rate Radeon 760M 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.