Radeon R9 290X vs RX 470 Mobile

Place in the ranking	306	291
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	10.16	4.86
Power efficiency	14.76	4.58
Architecture	GCN 4.0 (2016−2020)	GCN 2.0 (2013−2017)
GPU code name	Ellesmere	Hawaii
Market segment	Laptop	Desktop
Design	no data	reference
Release date	4 August 2016 (8 years ago)	24 October 2013 (11 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	$549.99	$549

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

RX 470 Mobile has 109% better value for money than R9 290X.

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	2048	2816
Core clock speed	926 MHz	no data
Boost clock speed	1074 MHz	947 MHz
Number of transistors	5,700 million	6,200 million
Manufacturing process technology	14 nm	28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	85 Watt	250 Watt
Texture fill rate	137.5	176.0
Floating-point processing power	4.399 TFLOPS	5.632 TFLOPS
ROPs	32	64
TMUs	128	176

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	PCIe 3.0
Interface	MXM-B (3.0)	PCIe 3.0 x16
Length	no data	275 mm
Width	no data	2-slot
Supplementary power connectors	no data	1 x 6-pin + 1 x 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	GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount	8 GB	4 GB
Memory bus width	256 Bit	512 Bit
Memory clock speed	1750 MHz	1250 MHz
Memory bandwidth	224.0 GB/s	320 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	2x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort
Eyefinity	-	+
HDMI	-	+
DisplayPort support	-	+

Supported technologies

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

AppAcceleration	-	+
CrossFire	-	+
FreeSync	+	+
HD3D	-	+
LiquidVR	-	+
TressFX	-	+
TrueAudio	-	+
UVD	-	+
DDMA audio	no data	+

API compatibility

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

DirectX	12 (12_0)	DirectX® 12
Shader Model	6.4	6.3
OpenGL	4.6	4.6
OpenCL	2.0	2.0
Vulkan	1.2.131	+

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.

RX 470 Mobile 18.23

R9 290X 19.31
+5.9%

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.

RX 470 Mobile 10715

R9 290X 11717
+9.4%

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	80−85 −6.3%	85 +6.3%
4K	45−50 −15.6%	52 +15.6%

Cost per frame, $

1080p	6.87 −6.4%	6.46 +6.4%
4K	12.22 −15.8%	10.56 +15.8%

R9 290X has 6% lower cost per frame in 1080p
R9 290X has 16% lower cost per frame in 4K

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2	30−35 −6.3%	30−35 +6.3%
Cyberpunk 2077	35−40 −5.6%	35−40 +5.6%
Elden Ring	55−60 −7%	60−65 +7%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5	55−60 −5.2%	60−65 +5.2%
Counter-Strike 2	30−35 −6.3%	30−35 +6.3%
Cyberpunk 2077	35−40 −5.6%	35−40 +5.6%
Forza Horizon 4	75−80 −6.6%	80−85 +6.6%
Metro Exodus	45−50 −6.1%	50−55 +6.1%
Red Dead Redemption 2	40−45 −4.7%	45−50 +4.7%
Valorant	70−75 −5.4%	75−80 +5.4%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5	55−60 −5.2%	60−65 +5.2%
Counter-Strike 2	30−35 −6.3%	30−35 +6.3%
Cyberpunk 2077	35−40 −5.6%	35−40 +5.6%
Dota 2	65−70 +44.4%	45 −44.4%
Elden Ring	55−60 −7%	60−65 +7%
Far Cry 5	60−65 −3.2%	65−70 +3.2%
Fortnite	95−100 −5.1%	100−110 +5.1%
Forza Horizon 4	75−80 −6.6%	80−85 +6.6%
Grand Theft Auto V	65−70 −3.1%	67 +3.1%
Metro Exodus	45−50 −6.1%	50−55 +6.1%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	120−130 −4.8%	130−140 +4.8%
Red Dead Redemption 2	40−45 −4.7%	45−50 +4.7%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	55−60 −5.3%	60−65 +5.3%
Valorant	70−75 −5.4%	75−80 +5.4%
World of Tanks	220−230 −27.3%	280 +27.3%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	55−60 −5.2%	60−65 +5.2%
Counter-Strike 2	30−35 −6.3%	30−35 +6.3%
Cyberpunk 2077	35−40 −5.6%	35−40 +5.6%
Dota 2	65−70 −109%	136 +109%
Far Cry 5	60−65 −3.2%	65−70 +3.2%
Forza Horizon 4	75−80 −6.6%	80−85 +6.6%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	120−130 −4.8%	130−140 +4.8%
Valorant	70−75 −5.4%	75−80 +5.4%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2	27−30 −7.1%	30−33 +7.1%
Elden Ring	30−33 −6.7%	30−35 +6.7%
Grand Theft Auto V	27−30 −10.7%	30−35 +10.7%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	160−170 −2.4%	160−170 +2.4%
Red Dead Redemption 2	16−18 −6.3%	16−18 +6.3%
World of Tanks	120−130 −5.6%	130−140 +5.6%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	35−40 −5.4%	35−40 +5.4%
Counter-Strike 2	14−16 −6.7%	16−18 +6.7%
Cyberpunk 2077	14−16 −7.1%	14−16 +7.1%
Far Cry 5	45−50 −8.5%	50−55 +8.5%
Forza Horizon 4	45−50 −6.5%	45−50 +6.5%
Metro Exodus	40−45 −7.3%	40−45 +7.3%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	24−27 −8.3%	24−27 +8.3%
Valorant	45−50 −8.7%	50−55 +8.7%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2	14−16 −14.3%	16−18 +14.3%
Dota 2	30−35 −67.7%	52 +67.7%
Elden Ring	12−14 −7.7%	14−16 +7.7%
Grand Theft Auto V	30−35 −67.7%	52 +67.7%
Metro Exodus	12−14 −7.7%	14−16 +7.7%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	50−55 −7.4%	55−60 +7.4%
Red Dead Redemption 2	12−14 +0%	12−14 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	30−35 −67.7%	52 +67.7%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	18−20 −5.6%	18−20 +5.6%
Counter-Strike 2	14−16 −14.3%	16−18 +14.3%
Cyberpunk 2077	5−6 −20%	6−7 +20%
Dota 2	30−35 −171%	84 +171%
Far Cry 5	21−24 −8.7%	24−27 +8.7%
Fortnite	21−24 −9.5%	21−24 +9.5%
Forza Horizon 4	27−30 −3.7%	27−30 +3.7%
Valorant	21−24 −9.5%	21−24 +9.5%

This is how RX 470 Mobile and R9 290X compete in popular games:

R9 290X is 6% faster in 1080p
R9 290X is 16% faster in 4K

Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:

in Dota 2, with 1080p resolution and the High Preset, the RX 470 Mobile is 44% faster.
in Dota 2, with 4K resolution and the Ultra Preset, the R9 290X is 171% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

RX 470 Mobile is ahead in 1 test (2%)
R9 290X is ahead in 61 test (97%)
there's a draw in 1 test (2%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	18.23	19.31
Recency	4 August 2016	24 October 2013
Maximum RAM amount	8 GB	4 GB
Chip lithography	14 nm	28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	85 Watt	250 Watt

RX 470 Mobile has an age advantage of 2 years, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 100% more advanced lithography process, and 194.1% lower power consumption.

R9 290X, on the other hand, has a 5.9% higher aggregate performance score.

Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between Radeon RX 470 Mobile and Radeon R9 290X.

Be aware that Radeon RX 470 Mobile is a notebook card while Radeon R9 290X is a desktop one.

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