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 290X review: 117 specs compared

Avg. price:~£440VRAM:4 GBMemory bus width:512 bitThermal Design Power (TDP):290 W

AMD Radeon R9 290X Review: Compare 117 technical specifications and 42 expert and video reviews to see how this product ranks in the Graphics cards category and whether it is worth buying.

AMD Radeon R9 290X
6.1/10

Overall score

Score
6.1/ 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 88% of models
Score components

40%

4.4

Technical score

25%

8.0

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 88% of graphics cards
6.7

Value for money

Value for money
6.7/ 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 83% of models
Score components

70%

6.1

Overall score

30%

8.2

Price

▼Worse than 83%
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 91% of models
Score components

44%

2.9

Performance

24%

3.8

Memory

12%

6.6

Power

11%

6.3

Features

5%

8.4

Design

4%

6.6

Connectivity

▼Worse than 91%
8.0

Reviews score

Reviews score
8.0/ 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 51% of models

80%

7.6

Average grade

20%

9.5

Popularity

Grades by review (42)
25 reviews: 13 with a printed score, 12 estimated from the review. 17 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 51%
?

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-r9-290x
amd-radeon-r9-290x
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 290X

Based on 24 · 25

Reviewers praise its strong gaming performance, but widely criticise its heavy power draw, while opinions on noise lean negative.
Praised
Mixed views
Criticised
Pick a topic to see who said what

What owners say about the AMD Radeon R9 290X

Based on 218 owners sharing their experience in online comments

67%positive14%mixed19%negative

Owners admire its lasting gaming performance, while high temperatures and loud cooling remain the biggest frustrations.

What owners dislike

  • Stock coolers, especially the DirectCU II and reference designs, let temperatures reach 85 to 95C under load, causing throttling.37
  • The reference cooler spins up loudly under load, and owners say it sounds like a jet engine, especially at higher fan speeds.23
  • Owners report cards dying after a few years, sometimes after fan failures, overheating or prolonged use under heavy load.12
  • Owners say newer demanding games drop below 60fps at 1080p or 1440p, forcing lower settings.10
  • Owners say it draws about 250 to 300W under load, which strains older power supplies and drives up electricity use.7
  • Owners say the card dumps a lot of heat into the room, making rooms noticeably hotter during long gaming sessions.7
  • Owners report fans, including the middle one on some models, failing or not spinning up, sometimes needing manual fan control.6
  • Owners say it trails the GTX 1060 6GB and the GTX 780 in some tests, and the 290X is less stable when overclocked.5
  • Owners say it is very long and takes up three slots, so it fills a lot of case space.3
  • Some owners report black screens or no video output, especially when overclocked or after one to two hours of play.3

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

Loading category ranking...

Technical Specifications of graphics card AMD Radeon R9 290X

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 91% of models
Score components:

44%

2.9

Performance

24%

3.8

Memory

12%

6.6

Power

11%

6.3

Features

5%

8.4

Design

4%

6.6

Connectivity

4.4
Reviews score
8.0
List score
?
Value for money
Value for money
6.7/ 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 83% of models
Score components:

70%

6.1

Overall score

30%

8.2

Price

6.7
3DMark Time Spy benchmark score
4,308 points
Market range: <4.1k points – >30.1k points
This graphics card scores 4,308 points in 3DMark Time Spy, which is lower than 89.2% 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
6,720 points
Market range: <7.7k points – >36k points
This graphics card scores 6,720 points in PassMark G3D, which is lower than 90.9% of graphics cards.
PassMark (DirectCompute) result
3,306 points
Market range: <3.1k points – >26.3k points
This graphics card scores 3,306 points in PassMark DirectCompute, which is lower than 89% of graphics cards.
FP32 performance
5.6 TFLOPS
Market range: <3.94 TFLOPS – >56.3 TFLOPS
This graphics card delivers 5.6 TFLOPS FP32 performance, which is lower than that of 85% 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.
vendor-name or prompt-tail contamination removed; Vulkan version unresolved.
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
5.4 Gbps
Market range: <5.4 Gbps – >80 Gbps
This graphics card supports DisplayPort link rates up to 5.4 Gbps, which is slower than on 87.9% of graphics cards and equal to 6% of graphics cards.
Show more
What reviewers say
Thermal Design Power (TDP)
290 W
Market range: <86 W – >360 W
This graphics card has a TDP of 290 W, which is higher than that of 71.2% of graphics cards and equal to that of 0.5% of graphics cards.
Power consumption while under peak load
286 W
Market range: <106 W – >365 W
This graphics card draws 286 W under peak load, which is higher than 69.1% of graphics cards and equal to 0.1% 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
348 W
Market range: <107 W – >400 W
This graphics card has a board power limit of 348 W, which is higher than that of 82.1% of graphics cards.
PCIe power spec
290 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
950 g
Market range: <541 g – >2k g
This graphics card weighs 950 g, which is lighter than 59% of Graphics cards and equal to 0.4% of Graphics cards.
Show more
What reviewers say

AMD Radeon R9 290X 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
  • 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
  • 4 more GPUs supported
    This graphics card supports more GPUs in multi-GPU mode than the average graphics card (4 vs 0). The average graphics card supports 0 GPUs in multi-GPU mode.
    4 vs 0
  • 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
  • 11.1% higher review score
    Reviews score
    8.0/ 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 51% of models

    80%

    7.6

    Average grade

    20%

    9.5

    Popularity

    Grades by review (42)
    25 reviews: 13 with a printed score, 12 estimated from the review. 17 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.
    8.0 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
  • Supports multi-GPU linking
    This graphics card supports multi-GPU linking, the average graphics card does not.
  • 11.1% higher review score
    Reviews score
    8.0/ 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 51% of models

    80%

    7.6

    Average grade

    20%

    9.5

    Popularity

    Grades by review (42)
    25 reviews: 13 with a printed score, 12 estimated from the review. 17 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.
    8.0 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
  • 4 more GPUs supported
    This graphics card supports more GPUs in multi-GPU mode than the average graphics card (4 vs 0). The average graphics card supports 0 GPUs in multi-GPU mode.
    4 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
  • 60.1% lower boost clock speed
    This graphics card has a lower boost GPU clock than the average graphics card (1,000 MHz vs 2,505 MHz). The average graphics card has a boost GPU clock of 2,505 MHz.
    1,000 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
  • 58.3% lower base clock speed
    This graphics card has a lower base GPU clock than the average graphics card (800 MHz vs 1920 MHz). The average graphics card has a base GPU clock of 1920 MHz.
    800 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
  • 10.7% worse value for money
    AMD Radeon R9 290X has worse value for money than the average graphics card (6.7 vs 7.4).
    6.7 vs 7.41
  • 60.1% lower boost clock speed
    This graphics card has a lower boost GPU clock than the average graphics card (1,000 MHz vs 2,505 MHz). The average graphics card has a boost GPU clock of 2,505 MHz.
    1,000 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
  • 58.3% lower base clock speed
    This graphics card has a lower base GPU clock than the average graphics card (800 MHz vs 1920 MHz). The average graphics card has a base GPU clock of 1920 MHz.
    800 MHz vs 1,920 MHz
  • No CUDA support
    This graphics card does not support CUDA, the average graphics card does.
  • 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
  • 53.4% lower texture rate
    This graphics card has a lower texture rate than the average graphics card (176 GTexel/s vs 378 GTexel/s). The average graphics card has a texture rate of 378 GTexel/s.
    176 GTexel/s vs 378 GTexel/s
  • 60.3% lower pixel rate
    This graphics card has a lower pixel rate than the average graphics card (64 GPixel/s vs 161.3 GPixel/s). The average graphics card has a pixel rate of 161.3 GPixel/s.
    64 GPixel/s vs 161.3 GPixel/s
  • 75.2% lower FP32 performance
    This graphics card has a lower FP32 performance than the average graphics card (5.6 TFLOPS vs 22.6 TFLOPS). The average graphics card has FP32 performance of 22.6 TFLOPS.
    5.6 TFLOPS vs 22.6 TFLOPS
  • 10 years older
    This graphics card was released earlier than the average graphics card (2013 vs 2023).
    October 2013
    2013 vs 2023
  • 70.3% lower PassMark score
    This graphics card has a lower PassMark score than the average graphics card (6,720 points vs 22,638 points). The average graphics card has a PassMark score of 22,638 points.
    6,720 points vs 22,638 points
  • 70.9% lower gaming score
    This graphics card has a lower gaming score than the average graphics card (4,308 points vs 14,779 points). The average graphics card has a gaming score of 14,779 points.
    4,308 points vs 14,779 points
  • 72.6% lower compute score
    This graphics card has a lower compute score than the average graphics card (3,306 points vs 12,70.5 points). The average graphics card has a compute score of 12,070.5 points.
    3,306 points vs 12,070.5 points
  • 75.6% lower FP16 performance
    This graphics card has a lower FP16 performance than the average graphics card (7.2 TFLOPS vs 29.5 TFLOPS). The average graphics card has FP16 performance of 29.5 TFLOPS.
    7.2 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
  • 95.8% smaller L2 cache
    This graphics card has fewer L2 cache than the average graphics card (1 MB vs 24 MB). The average graphics card has 24 MB L2 cache.
    1 MB vs 24 MB
  • 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).
    vendor-name or prompt-tail contamination removed; Vulkan version unresolved.
    1.2 vs 1.4
  • 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 (1.2 vs 3).
    1.2 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 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
  • Older HDCP version
    This graphics card supports an older HDCP version than the average graphics card (1.4 vs 2.3).
    1.4 vs 2.3
  • 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 monitors per output type
    This graphics card supports fewer monitors per output type than the average graphics card (1 vs 3). The average graphics card supports 3 monitors per output type.
    1 vs 3
  • 75% lower DisplayPort bandwidth
    This graphics card has a lower DisplayPort bandwidth than the average graphics card (5.4 Gbps vs 21.6 Gbps). The average graphics card has DisplayPort bandwidth of 21.6 Gbps.
    5.4 Gbps vs 21.6 Gbps
  • 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.
  • 34.9% higher TDP
    This graphics card has a higher TDP than the average graphics card (290 W vs 215 W). The average graphics card has a TDP of 215 W.
    290 W vs 215 W
  • 58.2% higher board power limit
    This graphics card has a higher board power limit than the average graphics card (348 W vs 220 W). The average graphics card has a board power limit of 220 W.
    348 W vs 220 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
  • 9.8 dB noisier under load
    This graphics card has a higher load noise level than the average graphics card (45.2 dB vs 35.4 dB). The average graphics card has a load noise level of 35.4 dB.
    45.2 dB vs 35.4 dB
  • 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
  • 12 °C higher idle temperature
    This graphics card has a higher idle temperature than the average graphics card (49 °C vs 37 °C). The average graphics card has an idle temperature of 37 °C.
    49 °C vs 37 °C
  • 66.7% higher idle power draw
    This graphics card has a higher idle power draw than the average graphics card (20 W vs 12 W). The average graphics card has an idle power draw of 12 W.
    20 W vs 12 W
  • No backplate
    This graphics card does not include a backplate, the average graphics card does.

Video reviews

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

4.0
Naive Linux
≈ estimated
30/04/2026
Linux gaming benchmarks · 1080p tests in six games
Verdict
AMD Radeon R9 290X isn't worth buying today, but it still handles 1080p fine if you already own one.
7.0
Dragon Systems
≈ estimated
30/10/2025
Retrospective · 1080p game tests with an older Sapphire card
Verdict
AMD Radeon R9 290X is still playable at 1080p with reduced settings, but it is a bottom-tier experience for newer games.
7.0
Socket Sanctuary
≈ estimated
26/08/2025
Retrospective · 1080p game benchmarks and memory limits
Verdict
AMD Radeon R9 290X still runs many games at 1080p, but its 4 GB of memory holds back newer titles.
7.0
Dragon Systems
≈ estimated
02/03/2025
Retrospective · Gameplay tests in six games at 1080p
Verdict
AMD Radeon R9 290X is surprisingly playable for a 12-year-old card, though it offers little in newer games.
7.0
Dragon Systems
≈ estimated
25/02/2025
First test · Cyberpunk 2077 at 1080p with upscaling
Verdict
AMD Radeon R9 290X is a 1080p card rather than a 1440p one, and it is playable but unimpressive with upscaling.
6.0
Dragon Systems
≈ estimated
25/02/2025
Single-game test · Fortnite performance at 1440p
Verdict
AMD Radeon R9 290X is playable in Fortnite, but frame rate dips make it less consistent than it should be.
5.0
Older Tech Today
≈ estimated
15/02/2025
Hands-on review · benchmarks across many modern games
Verdict
AMD Radeon R9 290X is an awkward buy: old and power-hungry, with heat stress and a limited lifespan, though playable in easier games.
8.0
Live Games IT
≈ estimated
01/10/2024
Retrospective · gaming tests across many recent titles
Verdict
AMD Radeon R9 290X has aged surprisingly well and still runs many games, though some titles are unplayable.
6.0
Older Tech Today
≈ estimated
18/11/2023
Hands-on review · game benchmarks and card repair
Verdict
AMD Radeon R9 290X is a good deal when it is cheap and repaired, but not at typical resale prices.
7.0
Nexus Tech
≈ estimated
07/12/2022
Hands-on review · benchmarks and game tests
Verdict
AMD Radeon R9 290X is still usable in 2022 with sensible settings, but it is power-hungry, aging and short on DirectX 12 support.
4.0
Iceberg Tech
≈ estimated
21/10/2022
Hands-on review · 2022 benchmarks across 12 games
Verdict
AMD Radeon R9 290X is probably not worth buying now, especially against Maxwell, Polaris or RDNA cards at similar prices.
6.0
Older Tech Today
≈ estimated
06/09/2022
Hands-on review · game benchmarks and used-GPU value
Verdict
AMD Radeon R9 290X is fine for 1080p gaming, but an odd buy at typical prices and only tempting when cheap.
More graded video reviews (10)
creator’s own scoreestimated by us

Expert reviews

In-depth analysis and verdict from leading tech publications

9.5
techspot.com
✓ explicit
24/10/2013
Feature review · Multi-screen support
Verdict
The Radeon R9 290X is AMD's most powerful GPU, suited to multi-screen setups, but it draws up to 300W and its fan ramps up in heavy gaming.
8.0
pcmag.com
✓ explicit
15/02/2014
Full review · High-end single GPU
Verdict
The Radeon R9 290X is a strong single-GPU card for 4K gaming, but it runs hot and gets loud at full power.
9.4
impulsegamer.com
✓ explicit
04/12/2013
Benchmark test · Full HD gaming
Verdict
The Radeon R9 290X runs tested games at around 90fps or more at 1080p, but smooth 4K gaming needs two cards.
8.0
uk.pcmag.com
✓ explicit
15/02/2014
Full review · Top-end single card
Verdict
The Radeon R9 290X is a strong high-end single card for 4K gaming and Mantle, but it runs hot and is noisy when pushed hard.
9.0
tomshardware.com
≈ estimated
23/10/2013
Lab test · Gaming performance
Verdict
The AMD Radeon R9 290X beats the GTX 780 and often the Titan in gaming, but its old cooler lets clock speeds drop once the chip hits 95°C.
10
expertreviews.co.uk
✓ explicit
24/10/2013
Hands-on test · High-resolution gaming
Verdict
The AMD R9 290X runs most games smoothly at 1080p and beats the GTX 780 in tests, but Crysis 3 at 1440p is too jerky.
nitroware.net
27/10/2013
Not graded yet
8.0
computerbase.de
≈ estimated
24/10/2013
Benchmark test · High-end card
Verdict
The AMD Radeon R9 290X is a fast single-chip card that beats Nvidia's GTX Titan at high resolutions, but draws a lot of power under load.
9.0
gamestar.de
✓ explicit
24/10/2013
Benchmark test · Two modes
Verdict
The AMD Radeon R9 290X is fast, with a wide memory bus and a switch between quiet and maximum-speed modes, but maximum speed is loud and power-hungry.
9.0
chip.de
≈ estimated
24/10/2013
Gaming test · Compact flagship
Verdict
The AMD Radeon R9 290X is a fast, compact card for demanding gamers, but it draws a lot of power and gets loud in its maximum mode.
8.0
hardwareluxx.de
≈ estimated
26/12/2013
Hands-on test · Custom cooler
Verdict
The ASUS Radeon R9 290X DirectCU II OC keeps its full boost speed in every game test thanks to its custom cooler, but it needs good case airflow.
7.0
hardwareluxx.de
≈ estimated
10/02/2014
Lab test · Water-cooled card
Verdict
The PowerColor Radeon R9 290X LCS stays under 50°C and holds 1,060 MHz in every game, but only suits buyers who already run water cooling.
6.0
hardwareluxx.de
≈ estimated
17/02/2014
Benchmark test · WindForce cooler
Verdict
The Gigabyte Radeon R9 290X WindForce 3X OC holds its boost in every game in Uber mode, but gains less from factory tuning than rivals.
8.9
gamestar.de
✓ explicit
27/02/2014
Gaming test · Overclocked card
Verdict
The Sapphire Radeon R9 290X Tri-X is a factory-overclocked card with a three-fan cooler built to run cooler and quieter than AMD's reference model, but offers no mode choice.
7.0
hardwareluxx.de
≈ estimated
21/04/2014
Benchmark test · Custom cooler
Verdict
The MSI Radeon R9 290X Gaming holds its 1,030 MHz boost without slowing down under load, but its memory stays at standard speed.
6.0
hardwareluxx.de
≈ estimated
15/05/2014
Benchmark test · Factory overclock
Verdict
The HIS R9 290X iPower IceQ X² Turbo runs its faster memory and core speeds steadily, but gets hotter than other custom cards at 83 to 86°C.
10
lesnumeriques.com
✓ explicit
10/01/2014
Lab test · Quieter cooling
Verdict
The ASUS R9 290X DirectCU II OC is a quieter, slightly faster take on the reference card, though it remains clearly audible during gaming.
8.0
lesnumeriques.com
✓ explicit
13/10/2014
Lab test · Silent and Uber modes
Verdict
The AMD Radeon R9 290X is fast but loud, with Silent mode only a little quieter than the GTX 780 and Uber mode trading heavy noise for speed.
8.0
lesnumeriques.com
✓ explicit
13/10/2014
Lab test · Overclocking edition
Verdict
The ROG Matrix R9 290X Platinum is built for overclockers, reaching 1,150 MHz core on the test card, but it runs loud in games and draws more power.
7.0
geeknetic.es
✓ explicit
24/10/2013
Full review · Reference design
Verdict
The Radeon R9 290X is AMD's most powerful chip to date, with a wide 512-bit bus, but it lacks HDMI 2.0, so 4K TVs top out at 30Hz.

Third-party reviews

What customers like about AMD Radeon R9 290X

  • Excellent price-to-performance ratio compared to contemporary rivals like the GTX Titan and GTX 780
  • Strong performance at high resolutions, including solid support for 4K gaming
  • High memory bandwidth thanks to a 512-bit bus and 4GB of VRAM
  • Innovative features at launch, such as the Mantle API and TrueAudio technology
  • No requirement for a physical bridge for CrossFire multi-GPU setups
  • Long-term driver support and longevity for 1080p/1440p gaming years after release

What customers don't like about AMD Radeon R9 290X

  • High operating temperatures, frequently reaching a target of 95°C under load
  • Extreme noise levels from the reference blower-style cooler, especially in 'Uber' mode
  • High power consumption, particularly during multi-monitor use and high-load gaming
  • Performance throttling occurs when the card hits its thermal ceiling in 'Quiet' mode
  • Reference cooling solution is often described as inadequate for the chip's heat output
  • High idle power draw compared to competing NVIDIA architectures

Verdict

The AMD Radeon R9 290X is a high-end graphics card based on the 28nm 'Hawaii XT' architecture, featuring 2,816 stream processors, 176 texture units, and 64 ROPs. It is equipped with 4GB of GDDR5 memory on a wide 512-bit interface, delivering a significant 320GB/s of bandwidth and a core boost clock of up to 1,000 MHz. Key pros include exceptional 4K gaming performance for its era, a competitive price-to-performance ratio against contemporary rivals, and innovative features like the Mantle API and TrueAudio technology. However, it is widely noted for high power consumption (rated up to 290W-300W), running very hot with target temperatures often reaching 94°C, and having a reference cooling solution that can be significantly loud under load.

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

No results found