Quadro 400 vs Radeon R9 290

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Primary details

GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.

Place in the ranking257not rated
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation7.89no data
Power efficiency5.28no data
ArchitectureGCN 2.0 (2013−2017)Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013)
GPU code nameHawaiiGT216
Market segmentDesktopWorkstation
Release date5 November 2013 (11 years ago)5 April 2011 (13 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$399 $169

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 cores256048
Core clock speed947 MHz450 MHz
Number of transistors6,200 million486 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)275 Watt32 Watt
Texture fill rate151.57.200
Floating-point processing power4.849 TFLOPS0.108 TFLOPS
ROPs648
TMUs16016

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).

InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16PCIe 2.0 x16
Length275 mm163 mm
Width2-slot1-slot
Supplementary power connectors1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pinNone

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 typeGDDR5DDR3
Maximum RAM amount4 GB512 MB
Memory bus width512 Bit64 Bit
Memory clock speed1250 MHz770 MHz
Memory bandwidth320.0 GB/s12.32 GB/s

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 Connectors2x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort1x DVI, 1x DisplayPort
HDMI+-

API compatibility

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

DirectX12 (12_0)11.1 (10_1)
Shader Model6.34.1
OpenGL4.63.3
OpenCL2.01.1
Vulkan1.2.131N/A
CUDA-1.2

Synthetic benchmark performance

Non-gaming benchmark results comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.



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 290 8093
+5368%
Quadro 400 148

Pros & cons summary


Recency 5 November 2013 5 April 2011
Maximum RAM amount 4 GB 512 MB
Chip lithography 28 nm 40 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 275 Watt 32 Watt

R9 290 has an age advantage of 2 years, a 700% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 42.9% more advanced lithography process.

Quadro 400, on the other hand, has 759.4% lower power consumption.

We couldn't decide between Radeon R9 290 and Quadro 400. We've got no test results to judge.

Be aware that Radeon R9 290 is a desktop card while Quadro 400 is a workstation one.


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

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite graphics card.


AMD Radeon R9 290
Radeon R9 290
NVIDIA Quadro 400
Quadro 400

Comparisons with similar GPUs

We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.

Community ratings

Here you can see the user ratings of the compared graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.


4.1 547 votes

Rate Radeon R9 290 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
2.8 13 votes

Rate Quadro 400 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about this comparison, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.