Radeon 610M vs R9 290

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon R9 290 with Radeon 610M, including specs and performance data.

R9 290
2013
4 GB GDDR5, 275 Watt
21.06
+629%

R9 290 outperforms 610M by a whopping 629% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking274799
Place by popularitynot in top-10072
Cost-effectiveness evaluation8.08no data
Power efficiency5.2513.21
ArchitectureGCN 2.0 (2013−2017)RDNA 2.0 (2020−2024)
GPU code nameHawaiiDragon Range
Market segmentDesktopLaptop
Release date5 November 2013 (11 years ago)3 January 2023 (2 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$399 no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.

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 cores2560128
Core clock speed947 MHz400 MHz
Boost clock speedno data2200 MHz
Number of transistors6,200 millionno data
Manufacturing process technology28 nm5 nm
Power consumption (TDP)275 Watt15 Watt
Texture fill rate151.517.60
Floating-point processing power4.849 TFLOPS0.5632 TFLOPS
ROPs644
TMUs1608
Ray Tracing Coresno data2

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 4.0 x8
Length275 mmno data
Width2-slotno data
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 typeGDDR5System Shared
Maximum RAM amount4 GBSystem Shared
Memory bus width512 BitSystem Shared
Memory clock speed1250 MHzSystem Shared
Memory bandwidth320.0 GB/sno data
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 Connectors2x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPortPortable Device Dependent
HDMI+-

API and SDK compatibility

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

DirectX12 (12_0)12 Ultimate (12_2)
Shader Model6.36.7
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL2.02.1
Vulkan1.2.1311.3

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.

R9 290 21.06
+629%
Radeon 610M 2.89

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
+630%
Radeon 610M 1109

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.

R9 290 11860
+504%
Radeon 610M 1965

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 HD90−95
+592%
13
−592%
1440p400−450
+556%
61
−556%

Cost per frame, $

1080p4.43no data
1440p1.00no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Atomic Heart 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Atomic Heart 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Battlefield 5 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Far Cry 5 14
+0%
14
+0%
Fortnite 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Valorant 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%

Full HD
High Preset

Atomic Heart 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Battlefield 5 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Dota 2 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
Far Cry 5 13
+0%
13
+0%
Fortnite 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 16
+0%
16
+0%
Metro Exodus 9
+0%
9
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 14
+0%
14
+0%
Valorant 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Dota 2 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
Far Cry 5 12
+0%
12
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 8
+0%
8
+0%
Valorant 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Fortnite 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%

1440p
High Preset

Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 20−22
+0%
20−22
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Metro Exodus 0−1 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 20−22
+0%
20−22
+0%
Valorant 61
+0%
61
+0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Counter-Strike 2 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Far Cry 5 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%

1440p
Epic Preset

Fortnite 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%

4K
High Preset

Atomic Heart 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Valorant 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Dota 2 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Far Cry 5 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 0−1 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%

4K
Epic Preset

Fortnite 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%

This is how R9 290 and Radeon 610M compete in popular games:

  • R9 290 is 592% faster in 1080p
  • R9 290 is 556% faster in 1440p

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 59 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 21.06 2.89
Recency 5 November 2013 3 January 2023
Chip lithography 28 nm 5 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 275 Watt 15 Watt

R9 290 has a 628.7% higher aggregate performance score.

Radeon 610M, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 9 years, a 460% more advanced lithography process, and 1733.3% lower power consumption.

The Radeon R9 290 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon 610M in performance tests.

Be aware that Radeon R9 290 is a desktop card while Radeon 610M is a notebook one.

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
AMD Radeon 610M
Radeon 610M

Other comparisons

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.


4.1 580 votes

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.1 881 vote

Rate Radeon 610M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can give us your opinion about Radeon R9 290 or Radeon 610M, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.