Radeon Pro V340 vs R9 M290X Crossfire
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon R9 M290X Crossfire with Radeon Pro V340, including specs and performance data.
R9 M290X Crossfire outperforms Pro V340 by a whopping 157% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 303 | 541 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 6.58 | 2.22 |
| Architecture | GCN (2012−2015) | GCN 5.0 (2017−2020) |
| GPU code name | Neptune CF | Vega 10 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Workstation |
| Release date | 1 March 2014 (10 years ago) | 26 August 2018 (6 years ago) |
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 | 2560 | 3584 |
| Core clock speed | 850 MHz | 852 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 900 MHz | 1500 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 2x 2800 Million | 12,500 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 200 Watt | 230 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | no data | 336.0 |
| Floating-point processing power | no data | 10.75 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | no data | 64 |
| TMUs | no data | 224 |
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).
| Laptop size | large | no data |
| Interface | no data | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Length | no data | 267 mm |
| Width | no data | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | 2x 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 | HBM2 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2x 4 GB | 16 GB |
| Memory bus width | 2x 256 Bit | 2048 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 4800 MHz | 945 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | no data | 483.8 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 | no data | No outputs |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (FL 11_1) | 12 (12_1) |
| Shader Model | no data | 6.4 |
| OpenGL | no data | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | no data | 2.0 |
| Vulkan | - | 1.1.125 |
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 | 62
+158%
| 24−27
−158%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 30−35
+175%
|
12−14
−175%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 35−40
+171%
|
14−16
−171%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 60−65
+190%
|
21−24
−190%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 30−35
+175%
|
12−14
−175%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 35−40
+171%
|
14−16
−171%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 80−85
+167%
|
30−33
−167%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 50−55
+183%
|
18−20
−183%
|
| Metro Exodus | 50−55
+189%
|
18−20
−189%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 40−45
+175%
|
16−18
−175%
|
| Valorant | 75−80
+185%
|
27−30
−185%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 60−65
+190%
|
21−24
−190%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 30−35
+175%
|
12−14
−175%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 35−40
+171%
|
14−16
−171%
|
| Dota 2 | 65−70
+183%
|
24−27
−183%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 60−65
+167%
|
24−27
−167%
|
| Fortnite | 100−110
+191%
|
35−40
−191%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 80−85
+167%
|
30−33
−167%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 50−55
+183%
|
18−20
−183%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 65−70
+179%
|
24−27
−179%
|
| Metro Exodus | 50−55
+189%
|
18−20
−189%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 130−140
+160%
|
50−55
−160%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 40−45
+175%
|
16−18
−175%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 60−65
+186%
|
21−24
−186%
|
| Valorant | 75−80
+185%
|
27−30
−185%
|
| World of Tanks | 220−230
+165%
|
85−90
−165%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 60−65
+190%
|
21−24
−190%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 30−35
+175%
|
12−14
−175%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 35−40
+171%
|
14−16
−171%
|
| Dota 2 | 65−70
+183%
|
24−27
−183%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 60−65
+167%
|
24−27
−167%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 80−85
+167%
|
30−33
−167%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 50−55
+183%
|
18−20
−183%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 130−140
+160%
|
50−55
−160%
|
| Valorant | 75−80
+185%
|
27−30
−185%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 21−24
+175%
|
8−9
−175%
|
| Dota 2 | 30−33
+200%
|
10−11
−200%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 30−33
+200%
|
10−11
−200%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 110−120
+160%
|
45−50
−160%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 16−18
+183%
|
6−7
−183%
|
| World of Tanks | 130−140
+160%
|
50−55
−160%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 35−40
+179%
|
14−16
−179%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 14−16
+200%
|
5−6
−200%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 50−55
+183%
|
18−20
−183%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 45−50
+172%
|
18−20
−172%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 30−33
+200%
|
10−11
−200%
|
| Metro Exodus | 40−45
+169%
|
16−18
−169%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 27−30
+170%
|
10−11
−170%
|
| Valorant | 45−50
+172%
|
18−20
−172%
|
4K
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 8−9
+167%
|
3−4
−167%
|
| Dota 2 | 30−35
+167%
|
12−14
−167%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 30−35
+167%
|
12−14
−167%
|
| Metro Exodus | 14−16
+180%
|
5−6
−180%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 55−60
+171%
|
21−24
−171%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 12−14
+200%
|
4−5
−200%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 30−35
+167%
|
12−14
−167%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 18−20
+171%
|
7−8
−171%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 8−9
+167%
|
3−4
−167%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6−7
+200%
|
2−3
−200%
|
| Dota 2 | 30−35
+167%
|
12−14
−167%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 24−27
+167%
|
9−10
−167%
|
| Fortnite | 21−24
+188%
|
8−9
−188%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 27−30
+180%
|
10−11
−180%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 14−16
+200%
|
5−6
−200%
|
| Valorant | 21−24
+175%
|
8−9
−175%
|
This is how R9 M290X Crossfire and Pro V340 compete in popular games:
- R9 M290X Crossfire is 158% faster in 1080p
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 18.90 | 7.35 |
| Recency | 1 March 2014 | 26 August 2018 |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 200 Watt | 230 Watt |
R9 M290X Crossfire has a 157.1% higher aggregate performance score, and 15% lower power consumption.
Pro V340, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 4 years, and a 100% more advanced lithography process.
The Radeon R9 M290X Crossfire is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon Pro V340 in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon R9 M290X Crossfire is a notebook card while Radeon Pro V340 is a workstation one.
Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
