OVERALL
ALTERNATIVES
SPECS
VS AVERAGE
REVIEWS
Scored using Graphics cards Methodology v3.0
Graphics cards Methodology v3.0
Mathematical & Unbiased Scoring
Products in this category are scored under Frontum Graphics cards Methodology v3.0: the technical score from the specifications is the base, and independent expert and video reviews (up to ±0.5 points), owner opinions (up to ±0.3) and best-of lists (up to +0.3) move it up or down.
Explore Graphics cards Methodology v3.0

AMD Radeon R9 290 review: 117 specs compared

Avg. price:~£310VRAM:4 GBMemory bus width:512 bitThermal Design Power (TDP):250 W

AMD Radeon R9 290 Review: Compare 117 technical specifications and 44 expert and video reviews to see how this product ranks in the Graphics cards category and whether it is worth buying.

AMD Radeon R9 290
6.2/10

Overall score

Score
6.2/ 10
✕
What it is
Our main score for this model, 1–10. It combines specs, expert reviews, best-of lists and owners.
How we count it
Parts: Technical score 40%, Reviews score 25%, List score 25%, Sentiment score 10%
Marks: Each part gets a mark out of 10. For reviews, lists and owners, a typical model in this category gets about 8 and the best one gets 10.
No data yet: A part with no data shows "?". It counts as the mark of a weaker model in this category (4 in 5 models with data score higher). This way, models with reviews, lists and owners usually come out ahead.
Score distribution
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▼ Worse than 86% of models
Score components

40%

4.4

Technical score

25%

8.4

Reviews score

25%

?

List scoreNot enough data yet, so we use 7.5, the mark of a weaker model in this category

10%

4.4

Sentiment score

▼Worse than 86% of graphics cards
7.0

Value for money

Value for money
7.0/ 10
✕
What it is
An indicator that combines the graphics card's overall rating with its cost.
When it matters
When you are looking for a graphics card that offers a strong balance of performance, features, and price.
Score distribution
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▼ Worse than 75% of models
Score components

70%

6.2

Overall score

30%

8.9

Price

▼Worse than 75%
4.4

Technical score

Technical score
4.4/ 10
✕
What it is
How good the specs are compared with the other models in this category, 1–10.
How we count it
Areas: We rate the specs in each area against the other models in this category.
Weighting: The areas that matter most to buyers count more. The shares are shown under Score components.
Share: The technical score is 40% of the overall score.
Score distribution
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▼ Worse than 90% of models
Score components

44%

2.7

Performance

24%

4.1

Memory

12%

6.8

Power

11%

6.3

Features

5%

8.0

Design

4%

6.6

Connectivity

▼Worse than 90%
8.4

Reviews score

Reviews score
8.4/ 10
✕
What it is
Average grade from independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers, 1–10.
How we count it
Grades: Each review's own score is converted to 1–10; without one, we grade the review ourselves. Big test sites count more, short reviews half as much as full tests. A video review counts half.
Score: The average grade is 80% of the review mark; the number of reviews is the other 20% (1 review = 5, the typical number in this category = 8, the most-reviewed model = 10).
Enough data: With few reviews, the average grade is pulled toward the typical grade of this category. No reviews yet: 7.6 for now.
Share: Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
Score distribution
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▲ Better than 85% of models

80%

8.2

Average grade

20%

9.5

Popularity

Grades by review (44)
25 reviews: 13 with a printed score, 12 estimated from the review. 19 video reviews, each counting half as much as a written test. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
▲Better than 85%
?

List score

List score
7.5/ 10
✕
What it is
How often independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers put this model in their best-of lists for this category.
How we count it
Points: The model in the most lists of this category gets 10; the others get 8 to 10 in proportion. In no list yet: 7.5. Lists count 25% of the overall score.
Enough data: Every list counts, even a single one. With fewer than 5 best-of lists in the category, this part is left out.
Lists with this model (0)
Not in any best-of list yet, so this part counts as 7.5. Models in a list get 8 to 10.
Not in any best-of list yet
  • amd-radeon-r9-290
  • amd-radeon-r9-290
  • amd-radeon-r9-290
amd-radeon-r9-290
amd-radeon-r9-290
amd-radeon-r9-290
Where to buy
*As an Amazon Associate, we earn from qualifying purchases.
Best rankings
Available: ranking among products currently available (including other versions of this product).All: ranking among all products in the database.

What reviewers say about the AMD Radeon R9 290

Based on 24 · 22

Reviewers praise its strong gaming performance, generous memory and price, but complain about loud fans and heavy power draw.
Praised
Mixed views
Criticised
Pick a topic to see who said what

What owners say about the AMD Radeon R9 290

Based on 197 owners sharing their experience in online comments

71%positive13%mixed16%negative

Owners praise its long-lived, high-value gaming performance and overclocking, while heat and fan noise frustrate them most.

What owners dislike

  • Under load the core often reaches 90–95°C on the stock cooler, causing throttling, and owners say cases with weak airflow make it worse.27
  • The stock blower-style cooler is very loud at higher fan speeds, and owners say it sounds like a jet or vacuum cleaner.21
  • Owners say it struggles with 144 Hz gaming, ultrawide displays and the newest demanding games at high or max settings.14
  • Owners report random black screens, restarts or crashes, often blamed on an underpowered PSU or unstable overclocks.9
  • Some owners say their card died within days or months, with no display output or a sudden failure.5
  • When the card overheats, it lowers its clocks or shuts down, with some owners seeing a 650 MHz throttle unless fans run at high speed.4
  • Fans on the stock cooler wear out over time, rattle or stop turning, and owners report a fan that stopped after driver reinstalls.4
  • Owners describe it as a power hog that draws much more power than newer cards, which adds heat and fan noise.3
  • Some owners report that CrossFire does not work well in newer games, and that driver updates have caused heat and noise problems.3

Points mentioned by at least 3 owners, most mentioned first.

Loading category ranking...

Technical Specifications of graphics card AMD Radeon R9 290

Technical score
Technical score
4.4/ 10
✕
What it is
How good the specs are compared with the other models in this category, 1–10.
How we count it
Areas: We rate the specs in each area against the other models in this category.
Weighting: The areas that matter most to buyers count more. The shares are shown under Score components.
Share: The technical score is 40% of the overall score.
Score distribution
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▼ Worse than 90% of models
Score components:

44%

2.7

Performance

24%

4.1

Memory

12%

6.8

Power

11%

6.3

Features

5%

8.0

Design

4%

6.6

Connectivity

4.4
Reviews score
8.4
List score
?
Value for money
Value for money
7.0/ 10
✕
What it is
An indicator that combines the graphics card's overall rating with its cost.
When it matters
When you are looking for a graphics card that offers a strong balance of performance, features, and price.
Score distribution
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▼ Worse than 75% of models
Score components:

70%

6.2

Overall score

30%

8.9

Price

7.0
3DMark Time Spy benchmark score
4,072 points
Market range: <4.1k points – >30.1k points
This graphics card scores 4,072 points in 3DMark Time Spy, which is lower than 90.2% of graphics cards.
3DMark Port Royal score
0 points
Market range: <0 points – >22.4k points
This graphics card scores 0 points in 3DMark Port Royal, which is lower than 83.1% of graphics cards and equal to 16.9% of graphics cards.
PassMark (G3D) result
8,180 points
Market range: <7.7k points – >36k points
This graphics card scores 8,180 points in PassMark G3D, which is lower than 88.3% of graphics cards.
PassMark (DirectCompute) result
3,077 points
Market range: <3.1k points – >26.3k points
This graphics card scores 3,077 points in PassMark DirectCompute, which is lower than 89.7% of graphics cards.
FP32 performance
4.85 TFLOPS
Market range: <3.94 TFLOPS – >56.3 TFLOPS
This graphics card delivers 4.85 TFLOPS FP32 performance, which is lower than that of 87.9% of graphics cards.
Show more
What reviewers say
VRAM
4 GB
Market range: <4 GB – >16 GB
This graphics card has 4 GB of VRAM, which is less than 87.7% of graphics cards and equal to 6% of graphics cards.
Memory type
GDDR5
This graphics card uses GDDR5 memory, which is older than on 85.4% of graphics cards and equal to 13.2% of graphics cards.
Memory bus width
512 bit
Market range: <128 bit – >384 bit
This graphics card uses a 512 bit memory bus, which is wider than that of 96.7% of graphics cards and equal to that of 2.8% of graphics cards.
Maximum memory bandwidth
320 GB/s
Market range: <168 GB/s – >960 GB/s
This graphics card reaches 320 GB/s memory bandwidth, which is lower than that of 66.5% of graphics cards and equal to that of 3.2% of graphics cards.
Effective memory speed
5,000 MHz
Market range: <7k MHz – >28k MHz
This graphics card reaches an effective memory speed of 5,000 MHz, which is slower than that of 96.1% of graphics cards and equal to that of 0.7% of graphics cards.
Show more
What reviewers say
PCI Express (PCIe) version
3
This graphics card supports PCIe 3, which is older than on 77.6% of graphics cards and equal to 20.1% of graphics cards.
PCIe lanes
x16
This graphics card uses x16 PCIe lanes, which is more than 24.1% of graphics cards and equal to 75.9% of graphics cards.
DirectX version
12
This graphics card supports DirectX 12, which is older than on 81.8% of graphics cards and equal to 17% of graphics cards.
Vulkan version
1.2
This graphics card supports Vulkan 1.2, which is older than on 94.9% of graphics cards and equal to 3.9% of graphics cards.
OpenGL version
4.6
This graphics card supports OpenGL 4.6, which is more advanced than on 2% of graphics cards and equal to 98% of graphics cards.
Show more
What reviewers say
Max displays supported
4
Market range: <4 – >4
This graphics card supports up to 4 displays, which is more than 9% of graphics cards and equal to 88.2% of graphics cards.
Max digital resolution
4096x2160
This graphics card supports a maximum digital resolution of 4096x2160, which is lower than that of 92.4% of graphics cards and equal to that of 4.6% of graphics cards.
DisplayPort outputs
1
Market range: <1 – >3
This graphics card offers 1 DisplayPort outputs, which is fewer than 88.1% of graphics cards and equal to 8.7% of graphics cards.
DisplayPort version
1.2
This graphics card supports DisplayPort 1.2, which is older than on 93.9% of graphics cards and equal to 5.1% of graphics cards.
DisplayPort link rates
17.28 Gbps
Market range: <5.4 Gbps – >80 Gbps
This graphics card supports DisplayPort link rates up to 17.28 Gbps, which is slower than on 57.7% of graphics cards and equal to 1.1% of graphics cards.
Show more
Thermal Design Power (TDP)
250 W
Market range: <86 W – >360 W
This graphics card has a TDP of 250 W, which is higher than that of 59.1% of graphics cards and equal to that of 6.3% of graphics cards.
Power consumption while under peak load
275 W
Market range: <106 W – >365 W
This graphics card draws 275 W under peak load, which is higher than 64.5% of graphics cards and equal to 0.3% of graphics cards.
Recommended PSU wattage
600 W
Market range: <450 W – >850 W
This graphics card recommends a 600 W PSU, which is lower than that of 53.2% of graphics cards and equal to that of 8.6% of graphics cards.
Board power limit
275 W
Market range: <107 W – >400 W
This graphics card has a board power limit of 275 W, which is higher than that of 63.4% of graphics cards and equal to that of 0.4% of graphics cards.
PCIe power spec
275 W
Show more
What reviewers say
Size
275x 109x 36 mm
Length
275 mm
Market range: <200 mm – >337 mm
This graphics card is 275 mm long, which is shorter than 55.5% of graphics cards and equal in length to 0.3% of graphics cards.
Height
109 mm
Market range: <109 mm – >146 mm
This graphics card is 109 mm tall, which is shorter than 89.9% of graphics cards and equal in height to 0.5% of graphics cards.
Slot width
2 slot/s
Market range: <2 slot/s – >3.25 slot/s
This graphics card occupies 2 slot/s, which is slimmer than 52.4% of graphics cards and equal in width to 43.4% of graphics cards.
Weight
1,018 g
Market range: <541 g – >2k g
This graphics card weighs 1,018 g, which is heavier than 50.2% of Graphics cards.
Show more
What reviewers say

AMD Radeon R9 290 vs the average graphics card

246810TotalPerformanceMemoryFeaturesConnectivityPowerDesign
  • 320 bit wider memory bus
    This graphics card has a wider memory bus than the average graphics card (512 bit vs 192 bit). The average graphics card has a memory bus width of 192 bit.
    512 bit vs 192 bit
  • 16 mm lower card height
    This graphics card is shorter than the average graphics card (109 mm vs 125 mm). The average graphics card has a height of 125 mm.
    109 mm vs 125 mm
  • 16.7% higher review score
    Reviews score
    8.4/ 10
    ✕
    What it is
    Average grade from independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers, 1–10.
    How we count it
    Grades: Each review's own score is converted to 1–10; without one, we grade the review ourselves. Big test sites count more, short reviews half as much as full tests. A video review counts half.
    Score: The average grade is 80% of the review mark; the number of reviews is the other 20% (1 review = 5, the typical number in this category = 8, the most-reviewed model = 10).
    Enough data: With few reviews, the average grade is pulled toward the typical grade of this category. No reviews yet: 7.6 for now.
    Share: Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    Score distribution
    ▼
    <55-66-77-88-99-10
    ▲ Better than 85% of models

    80%

    8.2

    Average grade

    20%

    9.5

    Popularity

    Grades by review (44)
    25 reviews: 13 with a printed score, 12 estimated from the review. 19 video reviews, each counting half as much as a written test. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
    8.4 vs 7.2
  • 0.5 slot/s slimmer design
    This graphics card occupies fewer slots than the average graphics card (2 slot/s vs 2.5 slot/s). The average graphics card occupies 2.5 slot/s.
    2 slot/s vs 2.5 slot/s
  • 2 more DVI outputs
    This graphics card has more DVI outputs than the average graphics card (2 vs 0). The average graphics card has 0 DVI outputs.
    2 vs 0
  • 2 more GPUs supported
    This graphics card supports more GPUs in multi-GPU mode than the average graphics card (2 vs 0). The average graphics card supports 0 GPUs in multi-GPU mode.
    2 vs 0
  • More FP64 throughput
    This graphics card has a better FP64 ratio than the average graphics card (1:8 vs 1:64).
    1:8 vs 1:64
  • Supports multi-GPU linking
    This graphics card supports multi-GPU linking, the average graphics card does not.
  • 16.7% higher review score
    Reviews score
    8.4/ 10
    ✕
    What it is
    Average grade from independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers, 1–10.
    How we count it
    Grades: Each review's own score is converted to 1–10; without one, we grade the review ourselves. Big test sites count more, short reviews half as much as full tests. A video review counts half.
    Score: The average grade is 80% of the review mark; the number of reviews is the other 20% (1 review = 5, the typical number in this category = 8, the most-reviewed model = 10).
    Enough data: With few reviews, the average grade is pulled toward the typical grade of this category. No reviews yet: 7.6 for now.
    Share: Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    Score distribution
    ▼
    <55-66-77-88-99-10
    ▲ Better than 85% of models

    80%

    8.2

    Average grade

    20%

    9.5

    Popularity

    Grades by review (44)
    25 reviews: 13 with a printed score, 12 estimated from the review. 19 video reviews, each counting half as much as a written test. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
    8.4 vs 7.2
  • More FP64 throughput
    This graphics card has a better FP64 ratio than the average graphics card (1:8 vs 1:64).
    1:8 vs 1:64
  • 320 bit wider memory bus
    This graphics card has a wider memory bus than the average graphics card (512 bit vs 192 bit). The average graphics card has a memory bus width of 192 bit.
    512 bit vs 192 bit
  • 2 more GPUs supported
    This graphics card supports more GPUs in multi-GPU mode than the average graphics card (2 vs 0). The average graphics card supports 0 GPUs in multi-GPU mode.
    2 vs 0
  • Supports multi-GPU linking
    This graphics card supports multi-GPU linking, the average graphics card does not.
  • 2 more DVI outputs
    This graphics card has more DVI outputs than the average graphics card (2 vs 0). The average graphics card has 0 DVI outputs.
    2 vs 0
  • 7.7% lower PSU requirement
    This graphics card has a lower PSU requirement than the average graphics card (600 W vs 650 W). The average graphics card has a PSU requirement of 650 W.
    600 W vs 650 W
  • 16 mm lower card height
    This graphics card is shorter than the average graphics card (109 mm vs 125 mm). The average graphics card has a height of 125 mm.
    109 mm vs 125 mm
  • 0.5 slot/s slimmer design
    This graphics card occupies fewer slots than the average graphics card (2 slot/s vs 2.5 slot/s). The average graphics card occupies 2.5 slot/s.
    2 slot/s vs 2.5 slot/s
  • 62.2% lower boost clock speed
    This graphics card has a lower boost GPU clock than the average graphics card (947 MHz vs 2,505 MHz). The average graphics card has a boost GPU clock of 2,505 MHz.
    947 MHz vs 2,505 MHz
  • 8 GB less VRAM
    This graphics card has fewer VRAM than the average graphics card (4 GB vs 12 GB). The average graphics card has 12 GB VRAM.
    4 GB vs 12 GB
  • 40 fewer ray tracing cores
    This graphics card has fewer ray tracing cores than the average graphics card (0 vs 40). The average graphics card has 40 ray tracing cores.
    0 vs 40
  • 5.6x larger process node
    This graphics card uses a larger manufacturing process than the average graphics card (28 nm vs 5 nm). The average graphics card uses a manufacturing process of 5 nm.
    28 nm vs 5 nm
  • 2 fewer fans
    This graphics card has fewer fans than the average graphics card (1 vs 3).
    1 vs 3
  • 53.1% lower base clock speed
    This graphics card has a lower base GPU clock than the average graphics card (900 MHz vs 1920 MHz). The average graphics card has a base GPU clock of 1920 MHz.
    900 MHz vs 1,920 MHz
  • Less advanced frame generation
    This graphics card has less advanced frame generation than the average graphics card (no vs multi frame generation).
  • No CUDA support
    This graphics card does not support CUDA, the average graphics card does.
  • 43.6% lower sentiment score
    4.4 vs 7.8
  • 6.1% worse value for money
    AMD Radeon R9 290 has worse value for money than the average graphics card (6.98 vs 7.4).
    6.98 vs 7.41
  • 62.2% lower boost clock speed
    This graphics card has a lower boost GPU clock than the average graphics card (947 MHz vs 2,505 MHz). The average graphics card has a boost GPU clock of 2,505 MHz.
    947 MHz vs 2,505 MHz
  • 40 fewer ray tracing cores
    This graphics card has fewer ray tracing cores than the average graphics card (0 vs 40). The average graphics card has 40 ray tracing cores.
    0 vs 40
  • 53.1% lower base clock speed
    This graphics card has a lower base GPU clock than the average graphics card (900 MHz vs 1920 MHz). The average graphics card has a base GPU clock of 1920 MHz.
    900 MHz vs 1,920 MHz
  • No CUDA support
    This graphics card does not support CUDA, the average graphics card does.
  • 59.9% lower texture rate
    This graphics card has a lower texture rate than the average graphics card (151.5 GTexel/s vs 378 GTexel/s). The average graphics card has a texture rate of 378 GTexel/s.
    151.5 GTexel/s vs 378 GTexel/s
  • 144 fewer AI cores
    This graphics card has fewer AI cores than the average graphics card (0 vs 144). The average graphics card has 144 AI cores.
    0 vs 144
  • 62.4% lower pixel rate
    This graphics card has a lower pixel rate than the average graphics card (60.6 GPixel/s vs 161.3 GPixel/s). The average graphics card has a pixel rate of 161.3 GPixel/s.
    60.61 GPixel/s vs 161.3 GPixel/s
  • 78.5% lower FP32 performance
    This graphics card has a lower FP32 performance than the average graphics card (4.9 TFLOPS vs 22.6 TFLOPS). The average graphics card has FP32 performance of 22.6 TFLOPS.
    4.85 TFLOPS vs 22.6 TFLOPS
  • 10 years older
    This graphics card was released earlier than the average graphics card (2013 vs 2023).
    November 2013
    2013 vs 2023
  • 63.9% lower PassMark score
    This graphics card has a lower PassMark score than the average graphics card (8,180 points vs 22,638 points). The average graphics card has a PassMark score of 22,638 points.
    8,180 points vs 22,638 points
  • 72.4% lower gaming score
    This graphics card has a lower gaming score than the average graphics card (4,072 points vs 14,779 points). The average graphics card has a gaming score of 14,779 points.
    4,072 points vs 14,779 points
  • 24 fewer TMUs
    This graphics card has fewer TMUs than the average graphics card (160 vs 184). The average graphics card has 184 TMUs.
    160 vs 184
  • 74.5% lower compute score
    This graphics card has a lower compute score than the average graphics card (3,077 points vs 12,70.5 points). The average graphics card has a compute score of 12,070.5 points.
    3,077 points vs 12,070.5 points
  • 83.6% lower FP16 performance
    This graphics card has a lower FP16 performance than the average graphics card (4.9 TFLOPS vs 29.5 TFLOPS). The average graphics card has FP16 performance of 29.5 TFLOPS.
    4.85 TFLOPS vs 29.5 TFLOPS
  • 8 GB less VRAM
    This graphics card has fewer VRAM than the average graphics card (4 GB vs 12 GB). The average graphics card has 12 GB VRAM.
    4 GB vs 12 GB
  • 73.7% slower memory speed
    This graphics card has a lower effective memory speed than the average graphics card (5,000 MHz vs 19,000 MHz). The average graphics card reaches an effective memory speed of 19,000 MHz.
    5,000 MHz vs 19,000 MHz
  • 28.6% lower memory bandwidth
    This graphics card has a lower memory bandwidth than the average graphics card (320 GB/s vs 448 GB/s). The average graphics card has a memory bandwidth of 448 GB/s.
    320 GB/s vs 448 GB/s
  • 28.6% slower VRAM clock
    This graphics card has a lower VRAM clock than the average graphics card (1,250 MHz vs 1,750 MHz). The average graphics card runs its VRAM at 1,750 MHz.
    1,250 MHz vs 1,750 MHz
  • 87.5% smaller L1 cache
    This graphics card has fewer L1 cache than the average graphics card (16 KB vs 128 KB). The average graphics card has 128 KB L1 cache.
    16 KB vs 128 KB
  • 5.6x larger process node
    This graphics card uses a larger manufacturing process than the average graphics card (28 nm vs 5 nm). The average graphics card uses a manufacturing process of 5 nm.
    28 nm vs 5 nm
  • Less advanced frame generation
    This graphics card has less advanced frame generation than the average graphics card (no vs multi frame generation).
  • No DLSS support
    This graphics card does not support DLSS, the average graphics card does.
  • No ray tracing
    This graphics card does not support ray tracing, the average graphics card does.
  • Older PCIe version
    This graphics card supports an older PCIe version than the average graphics card (3 vs 4).
    3 vs 4
  • No AI upscalers
    This graphics card does not support AI upscalers, the average graphics card does.
  • No XeSS support
    This graphics card does not support XeSS, the average graphics card does.
  • No mesh shaders
    This graphics card does not support mesh shaders, the average graphics card does.
  • Older Vulkan version
    This graphics card supports an older Vulkan version than the average graphics card (1.2 vs 1.4).
    1.2 vs 1.4
  • No DirectStorage support
    This graphics card does not support DirectStorage, the average graphics card does.
  • No Resizable BAR
    This graphics card does not support Resizable BAR, while the average graphics card does. 76.4% of Graphics cards support it.
  • Older DirectX version
    This graphics card supports an older DirectX version than the average graphics card (12 vs 12 Ultimate).
    12 vs 12 Ultimate
  • Older OpenCL version
    This graphics card supports an older OpenCL version than the average graphics card (2 vs 3).
    2 vs 3
  • Older shader model
    This graphics card supports an older shader model than the average graphics card (6.5 vs 6.8).
    6.5 vs 6.8
  • No sampler feedback
    This graphics card does not support sampler feedback, the average graphics card does.
  • 72.9% fewer transistors
    This graphics card has fewer transistors than the average graphics card (6,200 million vs 22,900 million). The average graphics card has 22,900 million transistors.
    6,200 million vs 22,900 million
  • 49% larger GPU die
    This graphics card has a higher GPU die size than the average graphics card (438 mm² vs 294 mm²). The average graphics card has a GPU die size of 294 mm².
    438 mm² vs 294 mm²
  • Older FSR version
    This graphics card supports an older FSR version than the average graphics card (1 vs 3.1).
    1 vs 3.1
  • Older HDMI version
    This graphics card supports an older HDMI version than the average graphics card (1.4a vs 2.1a).
    1.4a vs 2.1a
  • 2 fewer DisplayPort outputs
    This graphics card has fewer DisplayPort outputs than the average graphics card (1 vs 3). The average graphics card has 3 DisplayPort outputs.
    1 vs 3
  • No AV1 encoding
    This graphics card does not support AV1 encoding, the average graphics card does.
  • No AV1 decoding
    This graphics card does not support AV1 decoding, the average graphics card does.
  • No DSC support
    This graphics card does not support DSC, the average graphics card does.
  • More basic codec support
    This graphics card encodes more basic formats than the average graphics card (H.264 vs H.264/H.265/AV1/VP9).
    H.264 vs H.264/H.265/AV1/VP9
  • Older DisplayPort version
    This graphics card supports an older DisplayPort version than the average graphics card (1.2 vs 1.4a).
    1.2 vs 1.4a
  • Lower display resolution
    This graphics card supports a lower maximum digital resolution than the average graphics card (4096x2160 vs 7680x4320). The average graphics card supports a maximum digital resolution of 7680x4320.
    4096x2160 vs 7680x4320
  • 2 fewer fans
    This graphics card has fewer fans than the average graphics card (1 vs 3).
    1 vs 3
  • No fan stop
    This graphics card does not support fan stop, the average graphics card does.
  • 16.3% higher TDP
    This graphics card has a higher TDP than the average graphics card (250 W vs 215 W). The average graphics card has a TDP of 215 W.
    250 W vs 215 W
  • 27 °C higher load temperature
    This graphics card has a higher load temperature than the average graphics card (94 °C vs 67 °C). The average graphics card has a load temperature of 67 °C.
    94 °C vs 67 °C
  • 42 dB noisier at idle
    This graphics card has a higher idle noise level than the average graphics card (42 dB vs 0 dB). The average graphics card has an idle noise level of 0 dB.
    42 dB vs 0 dB
  • 25% higher board power limit
    This graphics card has a higher board power limit than the average graphics card (275 W vs 220 W). The average graphics card has a board power limit of 220 W.
    275 W vs 220 W
  • 7.6 dB noisier under load
    This graphics card has a higher load noise level than the average graphics card (43 dB vs 35.4 dB). The average graphics card has a load noise level of 35.4 dB.
    43 dB vs 35.4 dB
  • 33.3% higher idle power draw
    This graphics card has a higher idle power draw than the average graphics card (16 W vs 12 W). The average graphics card has an idle power draw of 12 W.
    16 W vs 12 W
  • No backplate
    This graphics card does not include a backplate, the average graphics card does.
  • No RGB lighting
    This graphics card does not include RGB lighting, the average graphics card does.

Video reviews

Hands-on testing, unboxing, and real-world video evaluations

7.0
Ex-IT guy
≈ estimated
11/04/2025
Hands-on test · gaming, rendering and power draw
Verdict
AMD Radeon R9 290 is pretty decent for gaming, but it's power hungry and offers no real gain in rendering.
9.0
DanielC
≈ estimated
04/01/2024
Hands-on review · 10 game benchmarks at 1080p
Verdict
AMD Radeon R9 290 is still a capable, cheap backup card and well worth buying at a low price.
8.0
ProYamYamPC
≈ estimated
03/12/2023
Hands-on review · game benchmarks and budget value
Verdict
AMD Radeon R9 290 is a decent budget card for esports and older AAA games if its limitations are acceptable.
6.0
TechLabUK
≈ estimated
03/10/2023
Long-term retest · 2023 games on an older card
Verdict
AMD Radeon R9 290 is a mixed bag: some newer games won't launch, while others run well at 1080p.
7.0
ProYamYamPC
≈ estimated
14/08/2022
Hands-on review · gaming tests and 2022 verdict
Verdict
AMD Radeon R9 290 is only worth it if cheap or for older games, and not recommended for the latest AAA titles.
4.0
TechLabUK
≈ estimated
30/06/2022
Hands-on test · 1080p gaming and FSR tests
Verdict
AMD Radeon R9 290 is still playable in many games, but it's old, no longer supported, and not worth the asking price.
9.0
Ethically Sourced Hardware
≈ estimated
27/07/2021
Revisit · 11 benchmarks and game tests
Verdict
AMD Radeon R9 290 is surprisingly capable at 1080p in modern games, a fine stopgap despite its age.
7.0
DontCallTechSupport
≈ estimated
05/07/2021
Hands-on review · 2021 benchmarks at 1080p and 1440p
Verdict
AMD Radeon R9 290 is fine for 1080p gaming at medium settings, but not for 1440p or demanding new games.
8.0
Axial GT
≈ estimated
14/06/2021
Buying recommendation · 1080p benchmarks for a stopgap build
Verdict
AMD Radeon R9 290 is a solid budget stopgap for 1080p, though its power needs and age are real drawbacks.
8.0
Absolute Budget Tech
≈ estimated
15/05/2020
Revisit · 2020 benchmarks and overclocking tests
Verdict
AMD Radeon R9 290 still performs well at stock speeds for 2020, but its power draw is high and overclocking is not advised.
7.0
Hardware Unboxed
≈ estimated
02/04/2019
Revisit review · 33-game benchmarks and comparisons
Verdict
AMD Radeon R9 290 is still usable today with some tweaks, but it is only worth buying very cheaply.
9.5
Tech Showdown
≈ estimated
19/03/2019
Retrospective · personal ownership and launch-era testing
Verdict
AMD Radeon R9 290 remains one of the best-value graphics cards ever made, with reference-model heat as its main drawback.
More graded video reviews (4)
creator’s own scoreestimated by us

Expert reviews

In-depth analysis and verdict from leading tech publications

9.0
overclockers.com
≈ estimated
05/11/2013
Cooling test · Reference card
Verdict
The AMD Radeon R9 290 performs close to the GTX 780, but its reference blower cooler is loud and slows itself down unless fan speed is raised.
9.5
hothardware.com
✓ explicit
05/11/2013
Technical overview · Reference card
Verdict
The Radeon R9 290 is a cut-down R9 290X with some processing units disabled and a lower clock, keeping the same memory and features but running hot.
9.5
pcgamer.com
✓ explicit
05/11/2013
Benchmark review · Gaming tests
Verdict
The AMD Radeon R9 290 comes close to the R9 290X with quieter fans, though it still runs hot and is far louder than Nvidia's top cards.
9.0
pcmag.com
✓ explicit
15/02/2014
Benchmark review · Frame rate tests
Verdict
The AMD Radeon R9 290 is nearly as fast as the R9 290X at 1080p, so it suits buyers who can live with a loud, warm card for strong performance.
9.0
au.pcmag.com
✓ explicit
16/07/2014
Benchmark review · Heat and noise
Verdict
The AMD Radeon R9 290 comes close to the R9 290X in performance and is a strong buy for gaming, though it is loud and runs warm.
10
techpowerup.com
✓ explicit
04/11/2013
Technical overview · Card comparison
Verdict
The AMD Radeon R9 290 is a trimmed Hawaii card with fewer processing units and a lower clock, which suits buyers who want near R9 290X performance.
9.5
techspot.com
✓ explicit
05/11/2013
Feature review · Display outputs
Verdict
The AMD Radeon R9 290 shares the R9 290X's cooler and memory, and suits multi-monitor setups and tiled 4K screens.
6.0
computerbase.de
≈ estimated
05/11/2013
Lab test · Fan speed boost
Verdict
The Radeon R9 290 is close to the R9 290X in speed, but a late driver change made its fan much louder.
6.0
pcwelt.de
≈ estimated
05/11/2013
Lab test · Hawaii chip
Verdict
The Radeon R9 290 is a strong card for gaming above Full HD, but it runs hot and loud, drawing 395 watts under load.
8.8
gamestar.de
✓ explicit
05/11/2013
Hardware test · Driver extras
Verdict
The AMD Radeon R9 290 looks almost identical to the R9 290X and keeps its 4 GB memory and 512-bit bus, with fewer shader units and a lower clock.
8.7
gamestar.de
✓ explicit
02/05/2014
Custom card test · Quieter cooling
Verdict
The Asus Radeon R9 290 DirectCU II OC is a quieter, slightly faster take on the reference card, though its box is bare and the overclock is small.
9.0
hardwareluxx.de
≈ estimated
10/05/2014
Benchmark test · Triple-fan cooler
Verdict
The Sapphire Radeon R9 290 Vapor-X Tri-X OC is quiet at idle and holds its boost clock through long gaming sessions, but draws more power than AMD's card.
8.0
lesnumeriques.com
✓ explicit
13/10/2014
Lab test · Reference cooler
Verdict
The Radeon R9 290 is almost as fast as the R9 290X and matches the GeForce GTX 780 in games, but its fan gets loud quickly.
7.0
tomshardware.fr
≈ estimated
05/11/2013
Early review · Cooler test
Verdict
The Radeon R9 290 is a good chip held back by its loud reference cooler, and retail cards may be slower than the sample tested.
7.0
ginjfo.com
≈ estimated
04/12/2020
Gaming test · Modern games
Verdict
The XFX R9 290 Black OC plays Full HD well with some settings lowered, but its 4 GB memory struggles with newer games.
9.0
conseil-config.com
≈ estimated
22/08/2014
Hands-on test · Twin Frozr cooler
Verdict
The MSI R9 290 Gaming OC is a compact, solidly built card with a factory overclock, but it runs hot and draws much power.
6.0
hardware.fr
≈ estimated
24/10/2013
Lab test · Reference cooler
Verdict
The AMD Radeon R9 290 reference card was too loud at launch; a driver update that raised its fan limit made it bearable, though still noisy.
8.0
lesnumeriques.com
✓ explicit
31/10/2014
Lab test · Quiet custom cooler
Verdict
The XFX Radeon R9 290 Black is a noticeably quieter, cooler version of AMD's card with room to overclock, but it is long and its factory boost fades quickly.
9.0
geeknetic.es
✓ explicit
05/11/2013
Full review · Hawaii chip
Verdict
The Radeon R9 290 is a slightly trimmed R9 290X, with 10 percent fewer shader units, suited to high-end gaming.
9.0
xataka.com
≈ estimated
28/09/2017
Lab test · Benchmarks and games
Verdict
The Radeon R9 290 comes close to the R9 290X and matches the GeForce GTX 780, but its fan is loud at full load.

Third-party reviews

What customers like about AMD Radeon R9 290

  • Excellent price-to-performance ratio, often rivaling more expensive cards like the GTX 780
  • Strong high-resolution performance, including capabilities for 1440p and entry-level 4K gaming
  • Aged well over time due to GCN architecture and driver optimizations (FineWine)
  • Support for modern APIs like DirectX 12 and Vulkan
  • Includes features like AMD TrueAudio and Eyefinity for multi-monitor setups

What customers don't like about AMD Radeon R9 290

  • Runs very hot, with reference models designed to operate at 95°C
  • Reference blower-style coolers are extremely noisy under heavy load
  • High power consumption compared to modern and contemporaneous NVIDIA equivalents
  • Official driver support ended in mid-2022
  • Prone to thermal throttling on reference designs without custom fan curves or aftermarket cooling

Verdict

The AMD Radeon R9 290 is a high-end graphics card built on the 28 nm 'Hawaii' architecture, featuring 2,560 stream processors, a 947 MHz core clock, and 4GB of GDDR5 memory on a massive 512-bit bus providing 320 GB/s of bandwidth. Its main strengths include exceptional price-to-performance value at launch, robust 1080p and 1440p gaming capabilities, and support for features like DirectX 12 and AMD TrueAudio. However, the card is known for high power consumption with a 275W TDP, significant heat generation reaching up to 95°C under load, and loud fan noise on reference cooling models.

Compare AMD Radeon R9 290 with other products in the Graphics cards category

1Product to compare no. 1
VS
2Product to compare no. 2
VS
3Product to compare no. 3 (optional)

Graphic comparison of AMD Radeon R9 290 and other products in the Graphics cards category

No results found