GeForce 7000M vs Radeon R9 M290X Crossfire

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon R9 M290X Crossfire and GeForce 7000M, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.

R9 M290X Crossfire
2014
2x 4 GB GDDR5, 200 Watt
16.41
+54600%

R9 M290X Crossfire outperforms 7000M by a whopping 54600% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking3041496
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiency6.53no data
ArchitectureGCN (2012−2015)no data
GPU code nameNeptune CFC67
Market segmentLaptopLaptop
Release date1 March 2014 (11 years ago)1 February 2006 (19 years ago)

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 cores25603
Core clock speed850 MHz1 MHz
Boost clock speed900 MHz350 MHz
Number of transistors2x 2800 Millionno data
Manufacturing process technology28 nm90 nm
Power consumption (TDP)200 Wattno data

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 sizelargeno data

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 typeGDDR5shared Memory
Maximum RAM amount2x 4 GBno data
Memory bus width2x 256 Bitno data
Memory clock speed4800 MHzno data
Shared memory-+

API and SDK compatibility

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

DirectX12 (FL 11_1)shared Memory

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 HD62-0−1

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Atomic Heart 45−50
+4600%
1−2
−4600%
Counter-Strike 2 100−110 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 35−40
+3700%
1−2
−3700%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Atomic Heart 45−50
+4600%
1−2
−4600%
Battlefield 5 75−80 0−1
Counter-Strike 2 100−110 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 35−40
+3700%
1−2
−3700%
Far Cry 5 60−65 0−1
Fortnite 95−100 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 70−75
+3550%
2−3
−3550%
Forza Horizon 5 55−60 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 65−70
+1017%
6−7
−1017%
Valorant 130−140
+471%
24−27
−471%

Full HD
High Preset

Atomic Heart 45−50
+4600%
1−2
−4600%
Battlefield 5 75−80 0−1
Counter-Strike 2 100−110 0−1
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 220−230
+2367%
9−10
−2367%
Cyberpunk 2077 35−40
+3700%
1−2
−3700%
Dota 2 100−110
+1200%
8−9
−1200%
Far Cry 5 60−65 0−1
Fortnite 95−100 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 70−75
+3550%
2−3
−3550%
Forza Horizon 5 55−60 0−1
Grand Theft Auto V 65−70 0−1
Metro Exodus 35−40 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 65−70
+1017%
6−7
−1017%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 50−55
+1567%
3−4
−1567%
Valorant 130−140
+471%
24−27
−471%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 75−80 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 35−40
+3700%
1−2
−3700%
Dota 2 100−110
+1200%
8−9
−1200%
Far Cry 5 60−65 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 70−75
+3550%
2−3
−3550%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 65−70
+1017%
6−7
−1017%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 50−55
+1567%
3−4
−1567%
Valorant 130−140
+471%
24−27
−471%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Fortnite 95−100 0−1

1440p
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2 35−40 0−1
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 130−140 0−1
Grand Theft Auto V 30−33 0−1
Metro Exodus 21−24 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 160−170 0−1
Valorant 170−180 0−1

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 50−55 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 16−18 0−1
Far Cry 5 40−45 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 45−50 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 27−30 0−1

1440p
Epic Preset

Fortnite 40−45 0−1

4K
High Preset

Atomic Heart 14−16 0−1
Counter-Strike 2 14−16 0−1
Grand Theft Auto V 30−35
+113%
14−16
−113%
Metro Exodus 14−16 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 24−27 0−1
Valorant 100−110
+10000%
1−2
−10000%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 27−30 0−1
Counter-Strike 2 14−16 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 7−8 0−1
Dota 2 60−65 0−1
Far Cry 5 18−20
+1800%
1−2
−1800%
Forza Horizon 4 30−35 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 18−20
+800%
2−3
−800%

4K
Epic Preset

Fortnite 18−20
+800%
2−3
−800%

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

  • in Valorant, with 4K resolution and the High Preset, the R9 M290X Crossfire is 10000% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • Without exception, R9 M290X Crossfire surpassed GeForce 7000M in all 26 of our tests.

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 16.41 0.03
Recency 1 March 2014 1 February 2006
Chip lithography 28 nm 90 nm

R9 M290X Crossfire has a 54600% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 8 years, and a 221.4% more advanced lithography process.

The Radeon R9 M290X Crossfire is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce 7000M in performance tests.

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 M290X Crossfire
Radeon R9 M290X Crossfire
NVIDIA GeForce 7000M
GeForce 7000M

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.


2.7 11 votes

Rate Radeon R9 M290X Crossfire on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
2.3 23 votes

Rate GeForce 7000M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can give us your opinion about Radeon R9 M290X Crossfire or GeForce 7000M, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.