Radeon R9 290X vs Pro WX 7100

Place in the ranking	274	292
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	7.99	4.86
Power efficiency	10.77	4.58
Architecture	GCN 4.0 (2016−2020)	GCN 2.0 (2013−2017)
GPU code name	Ellesmere	Hawaii
Market segment	Workstation	Desktop
Design	no data	reference
Release date	10 November 2016 (8 years ago)	24 October 2013 (11 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	$799	$549

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

Pro WX 7100 has 64% 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	2304	2816
Core clock speed	1188 MHz	no data
Boost clock speed	1243 MHz	947 MHz
Number of transistors	5,700 million	6,200 million
Manufacturing process technology	14 nm	28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	130 Watt	250 Watt
Texture fill rate	179.0	176.0
Floating-point processing power	5.728 TFLOPS	5.632 TFLOPS
ROPs	32	64
TMUs	144	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 3.0 x16	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	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	4x DisplayPort	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.

Pro WX 7100 20.36
+5.4%

R9 290X 19.31

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 WX 7100 7826
+5.4%

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	85−90 +0%	85 +0%
4K	50−55 −4%	52 +4%

Cost per frame, $

1080p	9.40 −45.5%	6.46 +45.5%
4K	15.98 −51.4%	10.56 +51.4%

R9 290X has 46% lower cost per frame in 1080p
R9 290X has 51% lower cost per frame in 4K

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2	35−40 +5.9%	30−35 −5.9%
Cyberpunk 2077	40−45 +5.1%	35−40 −5.1%
Elden Ring	65−70 +6.6%	60−65 −6.6%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5	60−65 +4.9%	60−65 −4.9%
Counter-Strike 2	35−40 +5.9%	30−35 −5.9%
Cyberpunk 2077	40−45 +5.1%	35−40 −5.1%
Forza Horizon 4	85−90 +6.2%	80−85 −6.2%
Metro Exodus	55−60 +5.8%	50−55 −5.8%
Red Dead Redemption 2	45−50 +4.4%	45−50 −4.4%
Valorant	80−85 +5.1%	75−80 −5.1%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5	60−65 +4.9%	60−65 −4.9%
Counter-Strike 2	35−40 +5.9%	30−35 −5.9%
Cyberpunk 2077	40−45 +5.1%	35−40 −5.1%
Dota 2	70−75 +60%	45 −60%
Elden Ring	65−70 +6.6%	60−65 −6.6%
Far Cry 5	65−70 +4.6%	65−70 −4.6%
Fortnite	100−110 +3.9%	100−110 −3.9%
Forza Horizon 4	85−90 +6.2%	80−85 −6.2%
Grand Theft Auto V	70−75 +7.5%	67 −7.5%
Metro Exodus	55−60 +5.8%	50−55 −5.8%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	130−140 +3.8%	130−140 −3.8%
Red Dead Redemption 2	45−50 +4.4%	45−50 −4.4%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	60−65 +6.7%	60−65 −6.7%
Valorant	80−85 +5.1%	75−80 −5.1%
World of Tanks	230−240 −19.7%	280 +19.7%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	60−65 +4.9%	60−65 −4.9%
Counter-Strike 2	35−40 +5.9%	30−35 −5.9%
Cyberpunk 2077	40−45 +5.1%	35−40 −5.1%
Dota 2	70−75 −88.9%	136 +88.9%
Far Cry 5	65−70 +4.6%	65−70 −4.6%
Forza Horizon 4	85−90 +6.2%	80−85 −6.2%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	130−140 +3.8%	130−140 −3.8%
Valorant	80−85 +5.1%	75−80 −5.1%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2	30−35 +6.7%	30−33 −6.7%
Elden Ring	30−35 +6.3%	30−35 −6.3%
Grand Theft Auto V	30−35 +6.5%	30−35 −6.5%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	170−180 +1.8%	160−170 −1.8%
Red Dead Redemption 2	18−20 +5.9%	16−18 −5.9%
World of Tanks	130−140 +4.5%	130−140 −4.5%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	40−45 +5.1%	35−40 −5.1%
Counter-Strike 2	30−35 +0%	30−35 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	16−18 +6.7%	14−16 −6.7%
Far Cry 5	55−60 +7.8%	50−55 −7.8%
Forza Horizon 4	50−55 +6%	50−55 −6%
Metro Exodus	45−50 +4.5%	40−45 −4.5%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	27−30 +7.4%	27−30 −7.4%
Valorant	50−55 +6%	50−55 −6%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2	16−18 +6.3%	16−18 −6.3%
Dota 2	35−40 −48.6%	52 +48.6%
Elden Ring	14−16 +7.1%	14−16 −7.1%
Grand Theft Auto V	35−40 −48.6%	52 +48.6%
Metro Exodus	14−16 +7.1%	14−16 −7.1%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	60−65 +5.2%	55−60 −5.2%
Red Dead Redemption 2	12−14 +8.3%	12−14 −8.3%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	30−35 −52.9%	52 +52.9%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	20−22 +5.3%	18−20 −5.3%
Counter-Strike 2	16−18 +6.3%	16−18 −6.3%
Cyberpunk 2077	6−7 +0%	6−7 +0%
Dota 2	35−40 −140%	84 +140%
Far Cry 5	24−27 +4%	24−27 −4%
Fortnite	24−27 +4.3%	21−24 −4.3%
Forza Horizon 4	30−33 +3.4%	27−30 −3.4%
Valorant	24−27 +4.3%	21−24 −4.3%

This is how Pro WX 7100 and R9 290X compete in popular games:

A tie in 1080p
R9 290X is 4% 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 Pro WX 7100 is 60% faster.
in Dota 2, with 4K resolution and the Ultra Preset, the R9 290X is 140% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

Pro WX 7100 is ahead in 55 tests (87%)
R9 290X is ahead in 6 tests (10%)
there's a draw in 2 tests (3%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	20.36	19.31
Recency	10 November 2016	24 October 2013
Maximum RAM amount	8 GB	4 GB
Chip lithography	14 nm	28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	130 Watt	250 Watt

Pro WX 7100 has a 5.4% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 3 years, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 100% more advanced lithography process, and 92.3% lower power consumption.

Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between Radeon Pro WX 7100 and Radeon R9 290X.

Be aware that Radeon Pro WX 7100 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.