GeForce GTX 780M Mac Edition vs Radeon R9 M290X

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon R9 M290X and GeForce GTX 780M Mac Edition, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.

R9 M290X
2014
4 GB GDDR5, 100 Watt
8.54
+27.1%

R9 M290X outperforms GTX 780M Mac Edition by a significant 27% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking501564
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiency5.883.79
ArchitectureGCN 1.0 (2011−2020)Kepler (2012−2018)
GPU code nameNeptuneGK104
Market segmentLaptopLaptop
Release date9 January 2014 (11 years ago)8 November 2013 (11 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 cores12801536
Compute units20no data
Core clock speed850 MHz771 MHz
Boost clock speed900 MHz797 MHz
Number of transistors2,800 million3,540 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)100 Watt122 Watt
Texture fill rate72.00102.0
Floating-point processing power2.304 TFLOPS2.448 TFLOPS
ROPs3232
TMUs80128

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 sizelargeno data
Bus supportPCIe 3.0 x16no data
InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16MXM-B (3.0)
Supplementary power connectorsNoneno data

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 typeGDDR5GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount4 GB4 GB
Memory bus width256 Bit256 Bit
Memory clock speed1200 MHz1250 MHz
Memory bandwidth153.6 GB/s160.0 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 ConnectorsNo outputsNo outputs
Eyefinity+-

Supported technologies

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

FreeSync+-
HD3D+-
PowerTune+-
DualGraphics+-
ZeroCore+-
Switchable graphics+-

API compatibility

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

DirectXDirectX® 1112 (11_0)
Shader Model5.15.1
OpenGL4.44.6
OpenCLNot Listed1.2
Vulkan-1.1.126
Mantle+-
CUDA-3.0

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 HD46
+31.4%
35−40
−31.4%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2 16−18
+41.7%
12−14
−41.7%
Cyberpunk 2077 16−18
+41.7%
12−14
−41.7%
Elden Ring 24−27
+33.3%
18−20
−33.3%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5 27−30
+33.3%
21−24
−33.3%
Counter-Strike 2 16−18
+41.7%
12−14
−41.7%
Cyberpunk 2077 16−18
+41.7%
12−14
−41.7%
Forza Horizon 4 30−35
+41.7%
24−27
−41.7%
Metro Exodus 21−24
+27.8%
18−20
−27.8%
Red Dead Redemption 2 21−24
+27.8%
18−20
−27.8%
Valorant 30−33
+42.9%
21−24
−42.9%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5 27−30
+33.3%
21−24
−33.3%
Counter-Strike 2 16−18
+41.7%
12−14
−41.7%
Cyberpunk 2077 16−18
+41.7%
12−14
−41.7%
Dota 2 30−33
+42.9%
21−24
−42.9%
Elden Ring 24−27
+33.3%
18−20
−33.3%
Far Cry 5 35−40
+33.3%
27−30
−33.3%
Fortnite 50−55
+42.9%
35−40
−42.9%
Forza Horizon 4 30−35
+41.7%
24−27
−41.7%
Grand Theft Auto V 30−33
+42.9%
21−24
−42.9%
Metro Exodus 21−24
+27.8%
18−20
−27.8%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 65−70
+34%
50−55
−34%
Red Dead Redemption 2 21−24
+27.8%
18−20
−27.8%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 35
+29.6%
27−30
−29.6%
Valorant 30−33
+42.9%
21−24
−42.9%
World of Tanks 120−130
+33.7%
95−100
−33.7%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 27−30
+33.3%
21−24
−33.3%
Counter-Strike 2 16−18
+41.7%
12−14
−41.7%
Cyberpunk 2077 16−18
+41.7%
12−14
−41.7%
Dota 2 30−33
+42.9%
21−24
−42.9%
Far Cry 5 35−40
+33.3%
27−30
−33.3%
Forza Horizon 4 30−35
+41.7%
24−27
−41.7%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 65−70
+34%
50−55
−34%
Valorant 30−33
+42.9%
21−24
−42.9%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2 10−11
+42.9%
7−8
−42.9%
Elden Ring 10−12
+37.5%
8−9
−37.5%
Grand Theft Auto V 10−11
+42.9%
7−8
−42.9%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 40−45
+40%
30−33
−40%
Red Dead Redemption 2 7−8
+40%
5−6
−40%
World of Tanks 60−65
+37.8%
45−50
−37.8%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 16−18
+33.3%
12−14
−33.3%
Counter-Strike 2 10−11
+42.9%
7−8
−42.9%
Cyberpunk 2077 6−7
+50%
4−5
−50%
Far Cry 5 18−20
+28.6%
14−16
−28.6%
Forza Horizon 4 16−18
+41.7%
12−14
−41.7%
Metro Exodus 14−16
+50%
10−11
−50%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 10−11
+42.9%
7−8
−42.9%
Valorant 21−24
+31.3%
16−18
−31.3%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2 3−4
+50%
2−3
−50%
Dota 2 18−20
+35.7%
14−16
−35.7%
Elden Ring 5−6
+66.7%
3−4
−66.7%
Grand Theft Auto V 18−20
+35.7%
14−16
−35.7%
Metro Exodus 4−5
+33.3%
3−4
−33.3%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 24−27
+38.9%
18−20
−38.9%
Red Dead Redemption 2 5−6
+66.7%
3−4
−66.7%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 18−20
+35.7%
14−16
−35.7%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 7−8
+40%
5−6
−40%
Counter-Strike 2 3−4
+50%
2−3
−50%
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
+100%
1−2
−100%
Dota 2 18−20
+35.7%
14−16
−35.7%
Far Cry 5 10−11
+42.9%
7−8
−42.9%
Fortnite 9−10
+28.6%
7−8
−28.6%
Forza Horizon 4 10−11
+42.9%
7−8
−42.9%
Valorant 8−9
+33.3%
6−7
−33.3%

This is how R9 M290X and GTX 780M Mac Edition compete in popular games:

  • R9 M290X is 31% faster in 1080p

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 8.54 6.72
Recency 9 January 2014 8 November 2013
Power consumption (TDP) 100 Watt 122 Watt

R9 M290X has a 27.1% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 2 months, and 22% lower power consumption.

The Radeon R9 M290X is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTX 780M Mac Edition in performance tests.


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 M290X
Radeon R9 M290X
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780M Mac Edition
GeForce GTX 780M Mac Edition

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.


3.2 12 votes

Rate Radeon R9 M290X on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4.6 8 votes

Rate GeForce GTX 780M Mac Edition 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.