Radeon R9 290X vs R9 Fury

Place in the ranking	223	292
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	8.04	4.86
Power efficiency	6.22	4.58
Architecture	GCN 3.0 (2014−2019)	GCN 2.0 (2013−2017)
GPU code name	Fiji	Hawaii
Market segment	Desktop	Desktop
Design	no data	reference
Release date	10 July 2015 (9 years ago)	24 October 2013 (11 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	$549	$549

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

R9 Fury has 65% 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	3584	2816
Compute units	56	no data
Boost clock speed	1000 MHz	947 MHz
Number of transistors	8,900 million	6,200 million
Manufacturing process technology	28 nm	28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	275 Watt	250 Watt
Texture fill rate	224.0	176.0
Floating-point processing power	7.168 TFLOPS	5.632 TFLOPS
ROPs	64	64
TMUs	224	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	PCIe 3.0	PCIe 3.0
Interface	PCIe 3.0 x16	PCIe 3.0 x16
Length	no data	275 mm
Width	2-slot	2-slot
Supplementary power connectors	2x 8-pin	1 x 6-pin + 1 x 8-pin
Bridgeless CrossFire	+	-

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	High Bandwidth Memory (HBM)	GDDR5
High bandwidth memory (HBM)	+	no data
Maximum RAM amount	4 GB	4 GB
Memory bus width	4096 Bit	512 Bit
Memory clock speed	500 MHz	1250 MHz
Memory bandwidth	512 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	1x HDMI, 3x DisplayPort	2x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort
Eyefinity	+	+
Number of Eyefinity displays	6	no data
HDMI	+	+
DisplayPort support	+	+

Supported technologies

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

AppAcceleration	+	+
CrossFire	+	+
FRTC	+	-
FreeSync	+	+
HD3D	+	+
LiquidVR	+	+
PowerTune	+	-
TressFX	+	+
TrueAudio	+	+
UVD	+	+
VCE	+	-
DDMA audio	+	+

API compatibility

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

DirectX	DirectX® 12	DirectX® 12
Shader Model	6.3	6.3
OpenGL	4.5	4.6
OpenCL	2.0	2.0
Vulkan	+	+
Mantle	+	-

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.

R9 Fury 24.85
+28.7%

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.

R9 Fury 9555
+28.7%

R9 290X 7425

3DMark 11 Performance GPU

3DMark 11 is an obsolete DirectX 11 benchmark by Futuremark. It used four tests based on two scenes, one being few submarines exploring the submerged wreck of a sunken ship, the other is an abandoned temple deep in the jungle. All the tests are heavy with volumetric lighting and tessellation, and despite being done in 1280x720 resolution, are relatively taxing. Discontinued in January 2020, 3DMark 11 is now superseded by Time Spy.

R9 Fury 17543
+8.5%

R9 290X 16168

3DMark Vantage Performance

3DMark Vantage is an outdated DirectX 10 benchmark using 1280x1024 screen resolution. It taxes the graphics card with two scenes, one depicting a girl escaping some militarized base located within a sea cave, the other displaying a space fleet attack on a defenseless planet. It was discontinued in April 2017, and Time Spy benchmark is now recommended to be used instead.

R9 Fury 42039
+12.8%

R9 290X 37284

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 Fury 14580
+24.4%

R9 290X 11717

3DMark Cloud Gate GPU

Cloud Gate is an outdated DirectX 11 feature level 10 benchmark that was used for home PCs and basic notebooks. It displays a few scenes of some weird space teleportation device launching spaceships into unknown, using fixed resolution of 1280x720. Just like Ice Storm benchmark, it has been discontinued in January 2020 and replaced by 3DMark Night Raid.

R9 Fury 80439
+8.7%

R9 290X 73987

Unigine Heaven 4.0

This is an old DirectX 11 benchmark, a newer version of Unigine 3.0 with relatively small differences. It displays a fantasy medieval town sprawling over several flying islands. The benchmark is still sometimes used, despite its significant age, as it was released back in 2013.

R9 Fury 1691
+9.3%

R9 290X 1547

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	89 +4.7%	85 −4.7%
1440p	97 +29.3%	75−80 −29.3%
4K	49 −6.1%	52 +6.1%

Cost per frame, $

1080p	6.17 +4.7%	6.46 −4.7%
1440p	5.66 +29.3%	7.32 −29.3%
4K	11.20 −6.1%	10.56 +6.1%

R9 Fury and R9 290X have nearly equal cost per frame in 1080p
R9 Fury has 29% lower cost per frame in 1440p
R9 290X has 6% lower cost per frame in 4K

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2	45−50 +35.3%	30−35 −35.3%
Cyberpunk 2077	50−55 +31.6%	35−40 −31.6%
Elden Ring	80−85 +32.8%	60−65 −32.8%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5	75−80 +24.6%	60−65 −24.6%
Counter-Strike 2	45−50 +35.3%	30−35 −35.3%
Cyberpunk 2077	50−55 +31.6%	35−40 −31.6%
Forza Horizon 4	100−110 +34.6%	80−85 −34.6%
Metro Exodus	65−70 +25%	50−55 −25%
Red Dead Redemption 2	50−55 +20%	45−50 −20%
Valorant	100−105 +28.2%	75−80 −28.2%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5	75−80 +24.6%	60−65 −24.6%
Counter-Strike 2	45−50 +35.3%	30−35 −35.3%
Cyberpunk 2077	50−55 +31.6%	35−40 −31.6%
Dota 2	85−90 +88.9%	45 −88.9%
Elden Ring	80−85 +32.8%	60−65 −32.8%
Far Cry 5	75−80 +16.9%	65−70 −16.9%
Fortnite	120−130 +21.4%	100−110 −21.4%
Forza Horizon 4	100−110 +34.6%	80−85 −34.6%
Grand Theft Auto V	85−90 +26.9%	67 −26.9%
Metro Exodus	65−70 +25%	50−55 −25%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	150−160 +19.1%	130−140 −19.1%
Red Dead Redemption 2	50−55 +20%	45−50 −20%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	76 +26.7%	60−65 −26.7%
Valorant	100−105 +28.2%	75−80 −28.2%
World of Tanks	268 −4.5%	280 +4.5%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	75−80 +24.6%	60−65 −24.6%
Counter-Strike 2	45−50 +35.3%	30−35 −35.3%
Cyberpunk 2077	50−55 +31.6%	35−40 −31.6%
Dota 2	130 −4.6%	136 +4.6%
Far Cry 5	101 +55.4%	65−70 −55.4%
Forza Horizon 4	100−110 +34.6%	80−85 −34.6%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	150−160 +19.1%	130−140 −19.1%
Valorant	100−105 +28.2%	75−80 −28.2%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2	40−45 +40%	30−33 −40%
Elden Ring	40−45 +37.5%	30−35 −37.5%
Grand Theft Auto V	40−45 +35.5%	30−35 −35.5%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	170−180 +3.6%	160−170 −3.6%
Red Dead Redemption 2	21−24 +35.3%	16−18 −35.3%
World of Tanks	158 +19.7%	130−140 −19.7%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	50−55 +28.2%	35−40 −28.2%
Counter-Strike 2	21−24 +31.3%	16−18 −31.3%
Cyberpunk 2077	21−24 +40%	14−16 −40%
Far Cry 5	70−75 +41.2%	50−55 −41.2%
Forza Horizon 4	65−70 +34.7%	45−50 −34.7%
Metro Exodus	55−60 +29.5%	40−45 −29.5%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	35−40 +38.5%	24−27 −38.5%
Valorant	65−70 +34%	50−55 −34%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2	21−24 +37.5%	16−18 −37.5%
Dota 2	47 −10.6%	52 +10.6%
Elden Ring	20−22 +42.9%	14−16 −42.9%
Grand Theft Auto V	47 −10.6%	52 +10.6%
Metro Exodus	18−20 +35.7%	14−16 −35.7%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	75−80 +31%	55−60 −31%
Red Dead Redemption 2	16−18 +33.3%	12−14 −33.3%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	47 −10.6%	52 +10.6%
World of Tanks	109 +36.3%	80−85 −36.3%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	24−27 +36.8%	18−20 −36.8%
Counter-Strike 2	21−24 +37.5%	16−18 −37.5%
Cyberpunk 2077	8−9 +33.3%	6−7 −33.3%
Dota 2	102 +21.4%	84 −21.4%
Far Cry 5	38 +52%	24−27 −52%
Fortnite	35 +52.2%	21−24 −52.2%
Forza Horizon 4	35−40 +35.7%	27−30 −35.7%
Valorant	30−35 +39.1%	21−24 −39.1%

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

R9 Fury is 5% faster in 1080p
R9 Fury is 29% faster in 1440p
R9 290X is 6% 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 R9 Fury is 89% faster.
in Dota 2, with 4K resolution and the High Preset, the R9 290X is 11% faster.

All in all, in popular games: