AMD Radeon R9 390 vs AMD Radeon R9 290X

Comparative analysis of AMD Radeon R9 390 and AMD Radeon R9 290X videocards for all known characteristics in the following categories: Essentials, Technical info, Video outputs and ports, Compatibility, dimensions and requirements, API support, Memory, Technologies. Benchmark videocards performance analysis: PassMark - G3D Mark, PassMark - G2D Mark, Geekbench - OpenCL, CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s), GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps), GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps), GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps), 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score.

 

Differences

Reasons to consider the AMD Radeon R9 390

• Videocard is newer: launch date 1 year(s) 7 month(s) later
• Around 6% higher boost clock speed: 1000 MHz vs 947 MHz
• 2x more maximum memory size: 8 GB vs 4 GB
• Around 4% better performance in PassMark - G3D Mark: 8876 vs 8526
• Around 5% better performance in PassMark - G2D Mark: 791 vs 755
• Around 1% better performance in Geekbench - OpenCL: 43778 vs 43410
• Around 3% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s): 120.267 vs 117.322
• Around 29% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s): 3164.164 vs 2460.464
• Around 20% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 10445 vs 8729
• Around 20% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 10445 vs 8729

Reasons to consider the AMD Radeon R9 290X

• Around 10% higher texture fill rate: 176.0 GTexel / s vs 160.0 GTexel / s
• Around 10% higher pipelines: 2816 vs 2560
• Around 10% better floating-point performance: 5,632 gflops vs 5,120 gflops
• Around 10% lower typical power consumption: 250 Watt vs 275 Watt
• Around 25% higher memory clock speed: 1250 MHz vs 1000 MHz
• Around 4% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s): 120.942 vs 116.473
• Around 4% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s): 628.757 vs 607.381
• Around 90% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 7055 vs 3708
• Around 90% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 7055 vs 3708
• 4.1x better performance in 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score: 3932 vs 955

Compare benchmarks

GPU 1: AMD Radeon R9 390
GPU 2: AMD Radeon R9 290X

PassMark - G3D Mark	GPU 1 GPU 2	8876 8526
PassMark - G2D Mark	GPU 1 GPU 2	791 755
Geekbench - OpenCL	GPU 1 GPU 2	43778 43410
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	120.267 117.322
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	3164.164 2460.464
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	11.097 11.12
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	116.473 120.942
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	607.381 628.757
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames)	GPU 1 GPU 2	10445 8729
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames)	GPU 1 GPU 2	3708 7055
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames)	GPU 1 GPU 2	3353 3353
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps)	GPU 1 GPU 2	10445 8729
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps)	GPU 1 GPU 2	3708 7055
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps)	GPU 1 GPU 2	3353 3353
3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score	GPU 1 GPU 2	955 3932

Compare specifications (specs)