Radeon HD 6930 vs R9 290X

Place in the ranking	292	541
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	4.86	2.11
Power efficiency	4.58	2.70
Architecture	GCN 2.0 (2013−2017)	TeraScale 3 (2010−2013)
GPU code name	Hawaii	Cayman
Market segment	Desktop	Desktop
Design	reference	no data
Release date	24 October 2013 (11 years ago)	1 December 2011 (13 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	$549	$180

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

R9 290X has 130% better value for money than HD 6930.

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	1280
Core clock speed	no data	750 MHz
Boost clock speed	947 MHz	no data
Number of transistors	6,200 million	2,640 million
Manufacturing process technology	28 nm	40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	250 Watt	186 Watt
Texture fill rate	176.0	60.00
Floating-point processing power	5.632 TFLOPS	1.92 TFLOPS
ROPs	64	32
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	220 mm
Width	2-slot	2-slot
Supplementary power connectors	1 x 6-pin + 1 x 8-pin	2x 6-pin

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	GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount	4 GB	1 GB
Memory bus width	512 Bit	256 Bit
Memory clock speed	1250 MHz	1200 MHz
Memory bandwidth	320 GB/s	153.6 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 Connectors	2x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort	2x DVI, 1x HDMI, 2x mini-DisplayPort
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.

DirectX	DirectX® 12	11.2 (11_0)
Shader Model	6.3	5.0
OpenGL	4.6	4.4
OpenCL	2.0	1.2
Vulkan	+	N/A

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
+165%

HD 6930 7.29

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
+206%

HD 6930 3826

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 +183%	30−35 −183%
4K	52 +189%	18−20 −189%

Cost per frame, $

1080p	6.46 −7.6%	6.00 +7.6%
4K	10.56 −5.6%	10.00 +5.6%

HD 6930 has 8% lower cost per frame in 1080p
HD 6930 has 6% lower cost per frame in 4K

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2	30−35 +183%	12−14 −183%
Cyberpunk 2077	35−40 +171%	14−16 −171%
Elden Ring	60−65 +190%	21−24 −190%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5	60−65 +190%	21−24 −190%
Counter-Strike 2	30−35 +183%	12−14 −183%
Cyberpunk 2077	35−40 +171%	14−16 −171%
Forza Horizon 4	80−85 +170%	30−33 −170%
Metro Exodus	50−55 +189%	18−20 −189%
Red Dead Redemption 2	45−50 +181%	16−18 −181%
Valorant	75−80 +189%	27−30 −189%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5	60−65 +190%	21−24 −190%
Counter-Strike 2	30−35 +183%	12−14 −183%
Cyberpunk 2077	35−40 +171%	14−16 −171%
Dota 2	45 +181%	16−18 −181%
Elden Ring	60−65 +190%	21−24 −190%
Far Cry 5	65−70 +171%	24−27 −171%
Fortnite	100−110 +194%	35−40 −194%
Forza Horizon 4	80−85 +170%	30−33 −170%
Grand Theft Auto V	67 +179%	24−27 −179%
Metro Exodus	50−55 +189%	18−20 −189%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	130−140 +191%	45−50 −191%
Red Dead Redemption 2	45−50 +181%	16−18 −181%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	60−65 +186%	21−24 −186%
Valorant	75−80 +189%	27−30 −189%
World of Tanks	280 +180%	100−105 −180%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	60−65 +190%	21−24 −190%
Counter-Strike 2	30−35 +183%	12−14 −183%
Cyberpunk 2077	35−40 +171%	14−16 −171%
Dota 2	136 +172%	50−55 −172%
Far Cry 5	65−70 +171%	24−27 −171%
Forza Horizon 4	80−85 +170%	30−33 −170%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	130−140 +191%	45−50 −191%
Valorant	75−80 +189%	27−30 −189%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2	30−33 +200%	10−11 −200%
Elden Ring	30−35 +167%	12−14 −167%
Grand Theft Auto V	30−35 +210%	10−11 −210%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	160−170 +182%	60−65 −182%
Red Dead Redemption 2	16−18 +183%	6−7 −183%
World of Tanks	130−140 +193%	45−50 −193%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	35−40 +179%	14−16 −179%
Counter-Strike 2	16−18 +167%	6−7 −167%
Cyberpunk 2077	14−16 +200%	5−6 −200%
Far Cry 5	50−55 +183%	18−20 −183%
Forza Horizon 4	45−50 +172%	18−20 −172%
Metro Exodus	40−45 +175%	16−18 −175%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	24−27 +189%	9−10 −189%
Valorant	50−55 +178%	18−20 −178%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2	16−18 +167%	6−7 −167%
Dota 2	52 +189%	18−20 −189%
Elden Ring	14−16 +180%	5−6 −180%
Grand Theft Auto V	52 +189%	18−20 −189%
Metro Exodus	14−16 +180%	5−6 −180%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	55−60 +176%	21−24 −176%
Red Dead Redemption 2	12−14 +200%	4−5 −200%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	52 +189%	18−20 −189%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	18−20 +171%	7−8 −171%
Counter-Strike 2	16−18 +167%	6−7 −167%
Cyberpunk 2077	6−7 +200%	2−3 −200%
Dota 2	84 +180%	30−33 −180%
Far Cry 5	24−27 +178%	9−10 −178%
Fortnite	21−24 +188%	8−9 −188%
Forza Horizon 4	27−30 +180%	10−11 −180%
Valorant	21−24 +188%	8−9 −188%

This is how R9 290X and HD 6930 compete in popular games:

R9 290X is 183% faster in 1080p
R9 290X is 189% faster in 4K

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	19.31	7.29
Recency	24 October 2013	1 December 2011
Maximum RAM amount	4 GB	1 GB
Chip lithography	28 nm	40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	250 Watt	186 Watt

R9 290X has a 164.9% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 1 year, a 300% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 42.9% more advanced lithography process.

HD 6930, on the other hand, has 34.4% lower power consumption.

The Radeon R9 290X is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon HD 6930 in performance tests.

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