Radeon Pro 580 vs R9 M290X Crossfire
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon R9 M290X Crossfire with Radeon Pro 580, including specs and performance data.
Pro 580 outperforms R9 M290X Crossfire by a small 6% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 304 | 285 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 6.54 | 9.22 |
| Architecture | GCN (2012−2015) | GCN 4.0 (2016−2020) |
| GPU code name | Neptune CF | Polaris 20 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Mobile workstation |
| Release date | 1 March 2014 (10 years ago) | 5 June 2017 (7 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 cores | 2560 | 2304 |
| Core clock speed | 850 MHz | 1100 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 900 MHz | 1200 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 2x 2800 Million | 5,700 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 200 Watt | 150 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | no data | 172.8 |
| Floating-point processing power | no data | 5.53 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | no data | 32 |
| TMUs | no data | 144 |
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 3.0 x16 |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | None |
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 | 8 GB |
| Memory bus width | 2x 256 Bit | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 4800 MHz | 1695 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | no data | 217.0 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 | No outputs |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (FL 11_1) | 12 (12_0) |
| Shader Model | no data | 6.4 |
| OpenGL | no data | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | no data | 2.0 |
| Vulkan | - | 1.2.131 |
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
−4.8%
| 65−70
+4.8%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Atomic Heart | 45−50
+4.4%
|
45−50
−4.4%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 30−35
+10%
|
30−33
−10%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 35−40
−5.3%
|
40−45
+5.3%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Atomic Heart | 45−50
+4.4%
|
45−50
−4.4%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 75−80
+0%
|
75−80
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 30−35
+10%
|
30−33
−10%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 35−40
−5.3%
|
40−45
+5.3%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 60−65
+1.7%
|
60−65
−1.7%
|
| Fortnite | 95−100
−4.2%
|
100−105
+4.2%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 70−75
−2.7%
|
75−80
+2.7%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 50−55
+0%
|
50−55
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 65−70
−4.5%
|
70−75
+4.5%
|
| Valorant | 130−140
−2.2%
|
140−150
+2.2%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 45−50
+4.4%
|
45−50
−4.4%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 75−80
+0%
|
75−80
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 30−35
+10%
|
30−33
−10%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 220−230
−3.6%
|
230−240
+3.6%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 35−40
−5.3%
|
40−45
+5.3%
|
| Dota 2 | 100−110
+4%
|
100−105
−4%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 60−65
+1.7%
|
60−65
−1.7%
|
| Fortnite | 95−100
−4.2%
|
100−105
+4.2%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 70−75
−2.7%
|
75−80
+2.7%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 50−55
+0%
|
50−55
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 65−70
−4.5%
|
70−75
+4.5%
|
| Metro Exodus | 35−40
−5.3%
|
40−45
+5.3%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 65−70
−4.5%
|
70−75
+4.5%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 50−55
+0%
|
50−55
+0%
|
| Valorant | 130−140
−2.2%
|
140−150
+2.2%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 75−80
+0%
|
75−80
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 30−35
+10%
|
30−33
−10%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 35−40
−5.3%
|
40−45
+5.3%
|
| Dota 2 | 100−110
+4%
|
100−105
−4%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 60−65
+1.7%
|
60−65
−1.7%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 70−75
−2.7%
|
75−80
+2.7%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 50−55
+0%
|
50−55
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 65−70
−4.5%
|
70−75
+4.5%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 50−55
+0%
|
50−55
+0%
|
| Valorant | 130−140
−2.2%
|
140−150
+2.2%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 95−100
−4.2%
|
100−105
+4.2%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 18−20
+5.6%
|
18−20
−5.6%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 130−140
+0%
|
130−140
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 30−33
+0%
|
30−33
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 21−24
−4.3%
|
24−27
+4.3%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 160−170
−0.6%
|
170−180
+0.6%
|
| Valorant | 170−180
−4%
|
180−190
+4%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 50−55
+2%
|
50−55
−2%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 16−18
+6.3%
|
16−18
−6.3%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 40−45
+0%
|
40−45
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 45−50
+0%
|
45−50
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 30−35
+6.7%
|
30−33
−6.7%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 27−30
−3.4%
|
30−33
+3.4%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 40−45
+2.5%
|
40−45
−2.5%
|
4K
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 30−35
+6.7%
|
30−33
−6.7%
|
| Metro Exodus | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 24−27
−3.8%
|
27−30
+3.8%
|
| Valorant | 100−110
+1%
|
100−105
−1%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 27−30
+0%
|
27−30
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 60−65
−4.8%
|
65−70
+4.8%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 18−20
+5.6%
|
18−20
−5.6%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 30−35
+3.3%
|
30−33
−3.3%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 16−18
+6.3%
|
16−18
−6.3%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 18−20
+0%
|
18−20
+0%
|
This is how R9 M290X Crossfire and Pro 580 compete in popular games:
- Pro 580 is 5% faster in 1080p
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 18.85 | 19.93 |
| Recency | 1 March 2014 | 5 June 2017 |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 200 Watt | 150 Watt |
Pro 580 has a 5.7% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 3 years, a 100% more advanced lithography process, and 33.3% lower power consumption.
Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between Radeon R9 M290X Crossfire and Radeon Pro 580.
Be aware that Radeon R9 M290X Crossfire is a notebook graphics card while Radeon Pro 580 is a mobile workstation one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
