Radeon PRO W7700 vs R9 M290X Crossfire

Place in the ranking	289	61
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	no data	55.86
Power efficiency	6.62	18.23
Architecture	GCN (2012−2015)	RDNA 3.0 (2022−2024)
GPU code name	Neptune CF	Navi 32
Market segment	Laptop	Workstation
Release date	1 March 2014 (10 years ago)	13 November 2023 (1 year ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	no data	$999

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 cores	2560	3072
Core clock speed	850 MHz	1900 MHz
Boost clock speed	900 MHz	2600 MHz
Number of transistors	2x 2800 Million	28,100 million
Manufacturing process technology	28 nm	5 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	200 Watt	190 Watt
Texture fill rate	no data	499.2
Floating-point processing power	no data	31.95 TFLOPS
ROPs	no data	96
TMUs	no data	192
Ray Tracing Cores	no data	48

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
Interface	no data	PCIe 4.0 x16
Length	no data	241 mm
Width	no data	2-slot
Supplementary power connectors	no data	1x 8-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	GDDR6
Maximum RAM amount	2x 4 GB	16 GB
Memory bus width	2x 256 Bit	256 Bit
Memory clock speed	4800 MHz	2250 MHz
Memory bandwidth	no data	576.0 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

no data

4x DisplayPort 2.1

API compatibility

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

DirectX	12 (FL 11_1)	12 Ultimate (12_2)
Shader Model	no data	6.7
OpenGL	no data	4.6
OpenCL	no data	2.2
Vulkan	-	1.3

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

−154%

160−170
+154%

Cost per frame, $

1080p

no data

6.24

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

30−35

−158%

80−85
+158%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	40−45 −150%	110−120 +150%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	30−35 −158%	85−90 +158%
Battlefield 5	65−70 −162%	170−180 +162%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	40−45 −150%	100−105 +150%
Cyberpunk 2077	30−35 −158%	80−85 +158%
Far Cry 5	45−50 −161%	120−130 +161%
Far Cry New Dawn	50−55 −145%	130−140 +145%
Forza Horizon 4	120−130 −146%	300−310 +146%
Hitman 3	35−40 −156%	100−105 +156%
Horizon Zero Dawn	95−100 −153%	240−250 +153%
Metro Exodus	65−70 −150%	170−180 +150%
Red Dead Redemption 2	50−55 −145%	130−140 +145%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	65−70 −162%	170−180 +162%
Watch Dogs: Legion	90−95 −153%	230−240 +153%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	40−45 −150%	110−120 +150%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	30−35 −158%	85−90 +158%
Battlefield 5	65−70 −162%	170−180 +162%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	40−45 −150%	100−105 +150%
Cyberpunk 2077	30−35 −158%	80−85 +158%
Far Cry 5	45−50 −161%	120−130 +161%
Far Cry New Dawn	50−55 −145%	130−140 +145%
Forza Horizon 4	120−130 −146%	300−310 +146%
Hitman 3	35−40 −156%	100−105 +156%
Horizon Zero Dawn	95−100 −153%	240−250 +153%
Metro Exodus	65−70 −150%	170−180 +150%
Red Dead Redemption 2	50−55 −145%	130−140 +145%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	65−70 −162%	170−180 +162%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	40−45 −150%	110−120 +150%
Watch Dogs: Legion	90−95 −153%	230−240 +153%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	40−45 −150%	110−120 +150%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	30−35 −158%	85−90 +158%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	40−45 −150%	100−105 +150%
Cyberpunk 2077	30−35 −158%	80−85 +158%
Far Cry 5	45−50 −161%	120−130 +161%
Forza Horizon 4	120−130 −146%	300−310 +146%
Hitman 3	35−40 −156%	100−105 +156%
Horizon Zero Dawn	95−100 −153%	240−250 +153%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	65−70 −162%	170−180 +162%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	40−45 −150%	110−120 +150%
Watch Dogs: Legion	90−95 −153%	230−240 +153%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

50−55
−145%

130−140

+145%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5	35−40 −150%	95−100 +150%
Far Cry New Dawn	30−33 −150%	75−80 +150%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	20−22 −150%	50−55 +150%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	18−20 −150%	45−50 +150%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	21−24 −150%	55−60 +150%
Cyberpunk 2077	10−12 −145%	27−30 +145%
Far Cry 5	21−24 −161%	60−65 +161%
Forza Horizon 4	110−120 −155%	280−290 +155%
Hitman 3	21−24 −161%	60−65 +161%
Horizon Zero Dawn	40−45 −150%	100−105 +150%
Metro Exodus	35−40 −157%	95−100 +157%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	40−45 −150%	100−105 +150%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	21−24 −161%	60−65 +161%
Watch Dogs: Legion	110−120 −156%	300−310 +156%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

30−35

−158%

85−90
+158%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5	18−20 −137%	45−50 +137%
Far Cry New Dawn	14−16 −133%	35−40 +133%
Hitman 3	14−16 −133%	35−40 +133%
Horizon Zero Dawn	100−110 −155%	260−270 +155%
Metro Exodus	21−24 −138%	50−55 +138%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	20−22 −150%	50−55 +150%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	12−14 −150%	30−33 +150%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	10−11 −140%	24−27 +140%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	10−12 −145%	27−30 +145%
Cyberpunk 2077	4−5 −150%	10−11 +150%
Far Cry 5	10−12 −145%	27−30 +145%
Forza Horizon 4	27−30 −159%	70−75 +159%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	21−24 −150%	55−60 +150%
Watch Dogs: Legion	8−9 −125%	18−20 +125%

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

16−18

−135%

40−45
+135%

This is how R9 M290X Crossfire and PRO W7700 compete in popular games:

PRO W7700 is 154% faster in 1080p

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	19.05	49.84
Recency	1 March 2014	13 November 2023
Chip lithography	28 nm	5 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	200 Watt	190 Watt

PRO W7700 has a 161.6% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 9 years, a 460% more advanced lithography process, and 5.3% lower power consumption.

The Radeon PRO W7700 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 Radeon PRO W7700 is a workstation one.

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