Radeon HD 6850 vs R9 M290X Crossfire
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon R9 M290X Crossfire with Radeon HD 6850, including specs and performance data.
R9 M290X Crossfire outperforms HD 6850 by a whopping 271% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Contents
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 348 | 692 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 0.89 |
| Power efficiency | 6.59 | 2.80 |
| Architecture | GCN (2012−2015) | TeraScale 2 (2009−2015) |
| GPU code name | Neptune CF | Barts |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop |
| Design | no data | reference |
| Release date | 1 March 2014 (11 years ago) | 21 October 2010 (15 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $179 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
Performance to price scatter graph
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 | 2560 | 960 |
| Core clock speed | 850 MHz | no data |
| Boost clock speed | 900 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 2x 2800 Million | 1,700 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 200 Watt | 127 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | no data | 37.20 |
| Floating-point processing power | no data | 1.488 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | no data | 32 |
| TMUs | no data | 48 |
| L1 Cache | no data | 192 KB |
| L2 Cache | no data | 512 KB |
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 size | large | no data |
| Bus support | no data | AGP |
| Interface | no data | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Length | no data | 198 mm |
| Width | no data | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | 1x 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 | 2x 4 GB | 1 GB |
| Memory bus width | 2x 256 Bit | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 4800 MHz | no data |
| Memory bandwidth | no data | 128.0 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | - |
Connectivity and outputs
This section shows the types and number of video connectors on each GPU. The data applies specifically to desktop reference models (for example, NVIDIA’s Founders Edition). OEM partners often modify both the number and types of ports. On notebook GPUs, video‐output options are determined by the laptop’s design rather than the graphics chip itself.
| Display Connectors | no data | 2x DVI, 1x HDMI, 2x mini-DisplayPort |
| Eyefinity | - | + |
| HDMI | - | + |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| CrossFire | - | + |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (FL 11_1) | DirectX® 11 |
| Shader Model | no data | 5.0 |
| OpenGL | no data | 4.4 |
| OpenCL | no data | 1.2 |
Synthetic benchmarks
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.
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.
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 | 62
+288%
| 16−18
−288%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | no data | 11.19 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 95−100
+313%
|
24−27
−313%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 35−40
+311%
|
9−10
−311%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 70−75
+311%
|
18−20
−311%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 95−100
+313%
|
24−27
−313%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 35−40
+311%
|
9−10
−311%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 70−75
+294%
|
18−20
−294%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 55−60
+307%
|
14−16
−307%
|
| Fortnite | 95−100
+296%
|
24−27
−296%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 70−75
+300%
|
18−20
−300%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 55−60
+293%
|
14−16
−293%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 65−70
+313%
|
16−18
−313%
|
| Valorant | 130−140
+289%
|
35−40
−289%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 70−75
+311%
|
18−20
−311%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 95−100
+313%
|
24−27
−313%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 220−230
+300%
|
55−60
−300%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 35−40
+311%
|
9−10
−311%
|
| Dota 2 | 100−110
+281%
|
27−30
−281%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 70−75
+294%
|
18−20
−294%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 55−60
+307%
|
14−16
−307%
|
| Fortnite | 95−100
+296%
|
24−27
−296%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 70−75
+300%
|
18−20
−300%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 55−60
+293%
|
14−16
−293%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 65−70
+313%
|
16−18
−313%
|
| Metro Exodus | 35−40
+311%
|
9−10
−311%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 65−70
+313%
|
16−18
−313%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 45−50
+300%
|
12−14
−300%
|
| Valorant | 130−140
+289%
|
35−40
−289%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 70−75
+311%
|
18−20
−311%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 35−40
+311%
|
9−10
−311%
|
| Dota 2 | 100−110
+281%
|
27−30
−281%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 70−75
+294%
|
18−20
−294%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 55−60
+307%
|
14−16
−307%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 70−75
+300%
|
18−20
−300%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 65−70
+313%
|
16−18
−313%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 45−50
+300%
|
12−14
−300%
|
| Valorant | 130−140
+289%
|
35−40
−289%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 95−100
+296%
|
24−27
−296%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 35−40
+289%
|
9−10
−289%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 120−130
+327%
|
30−33
−327%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 30−33
+275%
|
8−9
−275%
|
| Metro Exodus | 21−24
+340%
|
5−6
−340%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 160−170
+313%
|
40−45
−313%
|
| Valorant | 160−170
+276%
|
45−50
−276%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 50−55
+317%
|
12−14
−317%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 16−18
+300%
|
4−5
−300%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 35−40
+311%
|
9−10
−311%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 35−40
+290%
|
10−11
−290%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 40−45
+330%
|
10−11
−330%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 24−27
+271%
|
7−8
−271%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 40−45
+300%
|
10−11
−300%
|
4K
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 14−16
+275%
|
4−5
−275%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 30−35
+300%
|
8−9
−300%
|
| Metro Exodus | 14−16
+367%
|
3−4
−367%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 24−27
+317%
|
6−7
−317%
|
| Valorant | 95−100
+308%
|
24−27
−308%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 24−27
+271%
|
7−8
−271%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 14−16
+275%
|
4−5
−275%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 7−8
+600%
|
1−2
−600%
|
| Dota 2 | 60−65
+281%
|
16−18
−281%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 16−18
+325%
|
4−5
−325%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 18−20
+280%
|
5−6
−280%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 30−33
+275%
|
8−9
−275%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 16−18
+325%
|
4−5
−325%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 18−20
+350%
|
4−5
−350%
|
This is how R9 M290X Crossfire and HD 6850 compete in popular games:
- R9 M290X Crossfire is 288% faster in 1080p
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 17.10 | 4.61 |
| Recency | 1 March 2014 | 21 October 2010 |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 200 Watt | 127 Watt |
R9 M290X Crossfire has a 270.9% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 3 years, and a 42.9% more advanced lithography process.
HD 6850, on the other hand, has 57.5% lower power consumption.
The Radeon R9 M290X Crossfire is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon HD 6850 in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon R9 M290X Crossfire is a notebook graphics card while Radeon HD 6850 is a desktop one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
