Radeon PRO W7900 vs R9 M290X

Place in the ranking	502	11
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	no data	17.21
Power efficiency	5.87	17.56
Architecture	GCN 1.0 (2011−2020)	RDNA 3.0 (2022−2024)
GPU code name	Neptune	Navi 31
Market segment	Laptop	Workstation
Release date	9 January 2014 (11 years ago)	13 April 2023 (1 year ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	no data	$3,999

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	1280	6144
Compute units	20	no data
Core clock speed	850 MHz	1855 MHz
Boost clock speed	900 MHz	2495 MHz
Number of transistors	2,800 million	57,700 million
Manufacturing process technology	28 nm	5 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	100 Watt	295 Watt
Texture fill rate	72.00	958.1
Floating-point processing power	2.304 TFLOPS	61.32 TFLOPS
ROPs	32	192
TMUs	80	384
Ray Tracing Cores	no data	96

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	PCIe 3.0 x16	no data
Interface	PCIe 3.0 x16	PCIe 4.0 x16
Length	no data	280 mm
Width	no data	3-slot
Supplementary power connectors	None	2x 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	4 GB	48 GB
Memory bus width	256 Bit	384 Bit
Memory clock speed	1200 MHz	2250 MHz
Memory bandwidth	153.6 GB/s	864.0 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 outputs	3x DisplayPort 2.1, 1x mini-DisplayPort 2.1
Eyefinity	+	-

Supported technologies

Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.

FreeSync	+	-
HD3D	+	-
PowerTune	+	-
DualGraphics	+	-
ZeroCore	+	-
Switchable graphics	+	-

API compatibility

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

DirectX	DirectX® 11	12 Ultimate (12_2)
Shader Model	5.1	6.7
OpenGL	4.4	4.6
OpenCL	Not Listed	2.2
Vulkan	-	1.3
Mantle	+	-

Synthetic benchmark performance

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. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.

R9 M290X 8.54

PRO W7900 75.37
+783%

Passmark

This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark. It gives the graphics card a thorough evaluation under various types of load, providing four separate benchmarks for Direct3D versions 9, 10, 11 and 12 (the last being done in 4K resolution if possible), and few more tests engaging DirectCompute capabilities.

R9 M290X 3282

PRO W7900 28976
+783%

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

−770%

400−450
+770%

Cost per frame, $

1080p

no data

10.00

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2	14−16 −767%	130−140 +767%
Cyberpunk 2077	16−18 −782%	150−160 +782%
Elden Ring	24−27 −780%	220−230 +780%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5	27−30 −757%	240−250 +757%
Counter-Strike 2	14−16 −767%	130−140 +767%
Cyberpunk 2077	16−18 −782%	150−160 +782%
Forza Horizon 4	30−35 −782%	300−310 +782%
Metro Exodus	21−24 −770%	200−210 +770%
Red Dead Redemption 2	21−24 −770%	200−210 +770%
Valorant	30−35 −775%	280−290 +775%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5	27−30 −757%	240−250 +757%
Counter-Strike 2	14−16 −767%	130−140 +767%
Cyberpunk 2077	16−18 −782%	150−160 +782%
Dota 2	30−33 −767%	260−270 +767%
Elden Ring	24−27 −780%	220−230 +780%
Far Cry 5	35−40 −733%	300−310 +733%
Fortnite	50−55 −700%	400−450 +700%
Forza Horizon 4	30−35 −782%	300−310 +782%
Grand Theft Auto V	30−33 −767%	260−270 +767%
Metro Exodus	21−24 −770%	200−210 +770%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	65−70 −721%	550−600 +721%
Red Dead Redemption 2	21−24 −770%	200−210 +770%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	35 −757%	300−310 +757%
Valorant	30−35 −775%	280−290 +775%
World of Tanks	120−130 −766%	1100−1150 +766%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	27−30 −757%	240−250 +757%
Counter-Strike 2	14−16 −767%	130−140 +767%
Cyberpunk 2077	16−18 −782%	150−160 +782%
Dota 2	30−33 −767%	260−270 +767%
Far Cry 5	35−40 −733%	300−310 +733%
Forza Horizon 4	30−35 −782%	300−310 +782%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	65−70 −721%	550−600 +721%
Valorant	30−35 −775%	280−290 +775%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2	10−11 −750%	85−90 +750%
Elden Ring	10−12 −764%	95−100 +764%
Grand Theft Auto V	10−12 −764%	95−100 +764%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	40−45 −733%	350−400 +733%
Red Dead Redemption 2	7−8 −757%	60−65 +757%
World of Tanks	60−65 −706%	500−550 +706%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	16−18 −775%	140−150 +775%
Counter-Strike 2	30−35 −775%	280−290 +775%
Cyberpunk 2077	7−8 −757%	60−65 +757%
Far Cry 5	18−20 −733%	150−160 +733%
Forza Horizon 4	18−20 −733%	150−160 +733%
Metro Exodus	14−16 −767%	130−140 +767%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	12−14 −733%	100−105 +733%
Valorant	21−24 −757%	180−190 +757%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2	3−4 −700%	24−27 +700%
Dota 2	18−20 −742%	160−170 +742%
Elden Ring	5−6 −700%	40−45 +700%
Grand Theft Auto V	18−20 −742%	160−170 +742%
Metro Exodus	4−5 −775%	35−40 +775%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	24−27 −780%	220−230 +780%
Red Dead Redemption 2	5−6 −700%	40−45 +700%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	18−20 −742%	160−170 +742%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	7−8 −757%	60−65 +757%
Counter-Strike 2	3−4 −700%	24−27 +700%
Cyberpunk 2077	3−4 −700%	24−27 +700%
Dota 2	18−20 −742%	160−170 +742%
Far Cry 5	10−11 −750%	85−90 +750%
Fortnite	9−10 −733%	75−80 +733%
Forza Horizon 4	10−11 −750%	85−90 +750%
Valorant	8−9 −775%	70−75 +775%

This is how R9 M290X and PRO W7900 compete in popular games:

PRO W7900 is 770% faster in 1080p

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	8.54	75.37
Recency	9 January 2014	13 April 2023
Maximum RAM amount	4 GB	48 GB
Chip lithography	28 nm	5 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	100 Watt	295 Watt

R9 M290X has 195% lower power consumption.

PRO W7900, on the other hand, has a 782.6% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 9 years, a 1100% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 460% more advanced lithography process.

The Radeon PRO W7900 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon R9 M290X in performance tests.

Be aware that Radeon R9 M290X is a notebook card while Radeon PRO W7900 is a workstation one.

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