RTX 2000 Ada Generation vs Radeon R9 M290X Crossfire

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon R9 M290X Crossfire with RTX 2000 Ada Generation, including specs and performance data.

R9 M290X Crossfire
2014
2x 4 GB GDDR5, 200 Watt
16.39

RTX 2000 Ada Generation outperforms R9 M290X Crossfire by a whopping 137% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking31083
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluationno data97.63
Power efficiency6.5044.02
ArchitectureGCN (2012−2015)Ada Lovelace (2022−2024)
GPU code nameNeptune CFAD107
Market segmentLaptopWorkstation
Release date1 March 2014 (11 years ago)12 February 2024 (1 year ago)
Launch price (MSRP)no data$649

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

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

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 cores25602816
Core clock speed850 MHz1620 MHz
Boost clock speed900 MHz2130 MHz
Number of transistors2x 2800 Million18,900 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm5 nm
Power consumption (TDP)200 Watt70 Watt
Texture fill rateno data187.4
Floating-point processing powerno data12 TFLOPS
ROPsno data48
TMUsno data88
Tensor Coresno data88
Ray Tracing Coresno data22

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
Interfaceno dataPCIe 4.0 x8
Lengthno data168 mm
Widthno data2-slot
Supplementary power connectorsno dataNone

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 typeGDDR5GDDR6
Maximum RAM amount2x 4 GB16 GB
Memory bus width2x 256 Bit128 Bit
Memory clock speed4800 MHz2000 MHz
Memory bandwidthno data256.0 GB/s
Shared memory--
Resizable BAR-+

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 Connectorsno data4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a

API and SDK compatibility

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

DirectX12 (FL 11_1)12 Ultimate (12_2)
Shader Modelno data6.8
OpenGLno data4.6
OpenCLno data3.0
Vulkan-1.3
CUDA-8.9
DLSS-+

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
−126%
140−150
+126%

Cost per frame, $

1080pno data4.64

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Atomic Heart 45−50
−134%
110−120
+134%
Counter-Strike 2 100−110
−135%
240−250
+135%
Cyberpunk 2077 35−40
−137%
90−95
+137%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Atomic Heart 45−50
−134%
110−120
+134%
Battlefield 5 75−80
−127%
170−180
+127%
Counter-Strike 2 100−110
−135%
240−250
+135%
Cyberpunk 2077 35−40
−137%
90−95
+137%
Far Cry 5 60−65
−130%
140−150
+130%
Fortnite 95−100
−129%
220−230
+129%
Forza Horizon 4 70−75
−133%
170−180
+133%
Forza Horizon 5 55−60
−128%
130−140
+128%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 65−70
−124%
150−160
+124%
Valorant 130−140
−119%
300−310
+119%

Full HD
High Preset

Atomic Heart 45−50
−134%
110−120
+134%
Battlefield 5 75−80
−127%
170−180
+127%
Counter-Strike 2 100−110
−135%
240−250
+135%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 220−230
−126%
500−550
+126%
Cyberpunk 2077 35−40
−137%
90−95
+137%
Dota 2 100−110
−131%
240−250
+131%
Far Cry 5 60−65
−130%
140−150
+130%
Fortnite 95−100
−129%
220−230
+129%
Forza Horizon 4 70−75
−133%
170−180
+133%
Forza Horizon 5 55−60
−128%
130−140
+128%
Grand Theft Auto V 65−70
−124%
150−160
+124%
Metro Exodus 35−40
−137%
90−95
+137%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 65−70
−124%
150−160
+124%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 50−55
−120%
110−120
+120%
Valorant 130−140
−119%
300−310
+119%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 75−80
−127%
170−180
+127%
Cyberpunk 2077 35−40
−137%
90−95
+137%
Dota 2 100−110
−131%
240−250
+131%
Far Cry 5 60−65
−130%
140−150
+130%
Forza Horizon 4 70−75
−133%
170−180
+133%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 65−70
−124%
150−160
+124%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 50−55
−120%
110−120
+120%
Valorant 130−140
−119%
300−310
+119%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Fortnite 95−100
−129%
220−230
+129%

1440p
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2 35−40
−130%
85−90
+130%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 130−140
−131%
300−310
+131%
Grand Theft Auto V 30−33
−133%
70−75
+133%
Metro Exodus 21−24
−117%
50−55
+117%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 160−170
−111%
350−400
+111%
Valorant 170−180
−133%
400−450
+133%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 50−55
−135%
120−130
+135%
Cyberpunk 2077 16−18
−135%
40−45
+135%
Far Cry 5 40−45
−125%
90−95
+125%
Forza Horizon 4 45−50
−122%
100−105
+122%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 27−30
−124%
65−70
+124%

1440p
Epic Preset

Fortnite 40−45
−132%
95−100
+132%

4K
High Preset

Atomic Heart 14−16
−114%
30−33
+114%
Counter-Strike 2 14−16
−133%
35−40
+133%
Grand Theft Auto V 30−35
−134%
75−80
+134%
Metro Exodus 14−16
−114%
30−33
+114%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 24−27
−131%
60−65
+131%
Valorant 100−105
−130%
230−240
+130%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 27−30
−122%
60−65
+122%
Counter-Strike 2 14−16
−133%
35−40
+133%
Cyberpunk 2077 7−8
−129%
16−18
+129%
Dota 2 60−65
−126%
140−150
+126%
Far Cry 5 18−20
−137%
45−50
+137%
Forza Horizon 4 30−35
−126%
70−75
+126%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 16−18
−135%
40−45
+135%

4K
Epic Preset

Fortnite 18−20
−122%
40−45
+122%

This is how R9 M290X Crossfire and RTX 2000 Ada Generation compete in popular games:

  • RTX 2000 Ada Generation is 126% faster in 1080p

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 16.39 38.85
Recency 1 March 2014 12 February 2024
Chip lithography 28 nm 5 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 200 Watt 70 Watt

RTX 2000 Ada Generation has a 137% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 9 years, a 460% more advanced lithography process, and 185.7% lower power consumption.

The RTX 2000 Ada Generation is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon R9 M290X Crossfire in performance tests.

Be aware that Radeon R9 M290X Crossfire is a notebook card while RTX 2000 Ada Generation is a workstation 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 M290X Crossfire
Radeon R9 M290X Crossfire
NVIDIA RTX 2000 Ada Generation
RTX 2000 Ada Generation

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
3.6 40 votes

Rate RTX 2000 Ada Generation on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about Radeon R9 M290X Crossfire or RTX 2000 Ada Generation, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.