Radeon R9 290X vs PRO W7600

Place in the ranking	128	292
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	73.52	4.93
Power efficiency	19.65	4.59
Architecture	RDNA 3.0 (2022−2024)	GCN 2.0 (2013−2017)
GPU code name	Navi 33	Hawaii
Market segment	Workstation	Desktop
Design	no data	reference
Release date	3 August 2023 (1 year ago)	24 October 2013 (11 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	$599	$549

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

PRO W7600 has 1391% 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
Boost clock speed	2440 MHz	947 MHz
Number of transistors	13,300 million	6,200 million
Manufacturing process technology	6 nm	28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	130 Watt	250 Watt
Texture fill rate	312.3	176.0
Floating-point processing power	no data	5.632 TFLOPS
ROPs	64	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).

Bus support	no data	PCIe 3.0
Interface	PCIe 4.0 x8	PCIe 3.0 x16
Length	241 mm	275 mm
Width	1-slot	2-slot
Supplementary power connectors	1x 6-pin	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	GDDR6	GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount	8 GB	4 GB
Memory bus width	128 Bit	512 Bit
Memory clock speed	18 GB/s	1250 MHz
Memory bandwidth	288.0 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	4x DisplayPort 2.1	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 Ultimate (12_2)	DirectX® 12
Shader Model	6.7	6.3
OpenGL	4.6	4.6
OpenCL	2.2	2.0
Vulkan	1.3	+

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.

PRO W7600 37.05
+91.8%

R9 290X 19.32

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.

PRO W7600 14240
+91.8%

R9 290X 7425

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	160−170 +88.2%	85 −88.2%
4K	95−100 +82.7%	52 −82.7%

Cost per frame, $

1080p	3.74 +72.5%	6.46 −72.5%
4K	6.31 +67.4%	10.56 −67.4%

PRO W7600 has 73% lower cost per frame in 1080p
PRO W7600 has 67% lower cost per frame in 4K

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2	30−35 +0%	30−35 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	35−40 +0%	35−40 +0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5	60−65 +0%	60−65 +0%
Counter-Strike 2	30−35 +0%	30−35 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	35−40 +0%	35−40 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	80−85 +0%	80−85 +0%
Forza Horizon 5	50−55 +0%	50−55 +0%
Metro Exodus	50−55 +0%	50−55 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	45−50 +0%	45−50 +0%
Valorant	75−80 +0%	75−80 +0%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5	60−65 +0%	60−65 +0%
Counter-Strike 2	30−35 +0%	30−35 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	35−40 +0%	35−40 +0%
Dota 2	45 +0%	45 +0%
Far Cry 5	65−70 +0%	65−70 +0%
Fortnite	100−110 +0%	100−110 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	80−85 +0%	80−85 +0%
Forza Horizon 5	50−55 +0%	50−55 +0%
Grand Theft Auto V	67 +0%	67 +0%
Metro Exodus	50−55 +0%	50−55 +0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	130−140 +0%	130−140 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	45−50 +0%	45−50 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	60−65 +0%	60−65 +0%
Valorant	75−80 +0%	75−80 +0%
World of Tanks	280 +0%	280 +0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	60−65 +0%	60−65 +0%
Counter-Strike 2	30−35 +0%	30−35 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	35−40 +0%	35−40 +0%
Dota 2	136 +0%	136 +0%
Far Cry 5	65−70 +0%	65−70 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	80−85 +0%	80−85 +0%
Forza Horizon 5	50−55 +0%	50−55 +0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	130−140 +0%	130−140 +0%
Valorant	75−80 +0%	75−80 +0%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2	30−33 +0%	30−33 +0%
Grand Theft Auto V	30−35 +0%	30−35 +0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	160−170 +0%	160−170 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	16−18 +0%	16−18 +0%
World of Tanks	130−140 +0%	130−140 +0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	35−40 +0%	35−40 +0%
Counter-Strike 2	30−35 +0%	30−35 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	14−16 +0%	14−16 +0%
Far Cry 5	50−55 +0%	50−55 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	50−55 +0%	50−55 +0%
Forza Horizon 5	30−35 +0%	30−35 +0%
Metro Exodus	40−45 +0%	40−45 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	27−30 +0%	27−30 +0%
Valorant	50−55 +0%	50−55 +0%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2	16−18 +0%	16−18 +0%
Dota 2	52 +0%	52 +0%
Grand Theft Auto V	52 +0%	52 +0%
Metro Exodus	14−16 +0%	14−16 +0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	55−60 +0%	55−60 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	12−14 +0%	12−14 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	52 +0%	52 +0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	18−20 +0%	18−20 +0%
Counter-Strike 2	16−18 +0%	16−18 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	6−7 +0%	6−7 +0%
Dota 2	84 +0%	84 +0%
Far Cry 5	24−27 +0%	24−27 +0%
Fortnite	21−24 +0%	21−24 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	27−30 +0%	27−30 +0%
Forza Horizon 5	16−18 +0%	16−18 +0%
Valorant	21−24 +0%	21−24 +0%

This is how PRO W7600 and R9 290X compete in popular games:

PRO W7600 is 88% faster in 1080p
PRO W7600 is 83% faster in 4K

All in all, in popular games:

there's a draw in 64 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	37.05	19.32
Recency	3 August 2023	24 October 2013
Maximum RAM amount	8 GB	4 GB
Chip lithography	6 nm	28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	130 Watt	250 Watt

PRO W7600 has a 91.8% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 9 years, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 366.7% more advanced lithography process, and 92.3% lower power consumption.

The Radeon PRO W7600 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon R9 290X in performance tests.

Be aware that Radeon PRO W7600 is a workstation graphics 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.