AMD Radeon Pro W5500X vs AMD Radeon R9 M290X Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains a single direct comparison between these two cards, and it is decisive. In the Geekbench Metal test, the AMD Radeon Pro W5500X scores 27,973 points against 24,524 points for the AMD Radeon R9 M290X. That is a 14.1% advantage for the newer card, a meaningful gap in raw compute performance under Apple's Metal API.

Looking at the broader benchmark landscape, the W5500X sits at the 73rd percentile of all GPUs in the database, while the R9 M290X lands at the 68th percentile. This aligns with the head-to-head result: the W5500X is not just faster in this one test, it also ranks higher across the entire database of recorded GPU scores.

The W5500X's average benchmark score is 27,973, which places it within a tight cluster of rivals. It is essentially tied with the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980 Ti, which scores 28,020 (a delta of -0.2% relative to the W5500X). It also edges out the AMD Radeon RX 7800M by 0.3% (27,883 points) and the AMD Radeon Pro Vega 20 by 0.5% (27,839 points). The only card in its immediate vicinity that beats it is the AMD FirePro S7150 at 28,117, a 0.5% lead.

The R9 M290X, by contrast, has an average benchmark score of 23,276, which is notably lower than its Metal score of 24,524. Its OpenCL score is 22,028, showing that its performance varies somewhat depending on the compute API. Its nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon RX 6600M at 23,273 (a delta of 0%), the AMD Radeon Pro Vega 16 at 23,250 (0.1%), and the NVIDIA P106-100 at 23,249 (0.1%). The AMD Radeon AI PRO R9700 leads that group slightly at 23,315 (-0.2% relative to the M290X).

The data shows a clear generational shift. The W5500X wins the only direct head-to-head test, and its percentile placement is five points higher. In practical terms, a 14.1% lead in Metal compute means the W5500X will complete GPU-accelerated tasks noticeably faster, whether that involves rendering, video processing, or other Metal-optimized workloads.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in the Geekbench Metal test?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro W5500X wins decisively with a score of 27,973 versus 24,524 for the AMD Radeon R9 M290X, a 14.1% advantage.

Q: How does the R9 M290X compare to its closest rivals?

A: The R9 M290X's average score of 23,276 places it within 0.2% of the AMD Radeon RX 6600M (23,273) and within 0.1% of both the AMD Radeon Pro Vega 16 (23,250) and the NVIDIA P106-100 (23,249). It trails the AMD Radeon AI PRO R9700 by 0.2%.

Q: What is the W5500X's standing among all GPUs in the database?

A: The W5500X sits at the 73rd percentile of all GPUs, placing it in the upper quarter of recorded cards. Its nearest rival, the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980 Ti, scores 28,020, a virtual tie with a -0.2% delta.

Q: Does the R9 M290X have any benchmark where it wins?

A: No. In the recorded head-to-head benchmarks, the W5500X wins 1 test and the R9 M290X wins 0 tests. The only direct comparison is Geekbench Metal, where the W5500X leads by 14.1%.

Q: What is the memory configuration difference?

A: The W5500X uses 8 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 128-bit bus, yielding 224.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The R9 M290X uses 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, yielding 153.6 GB/s of bandwidth. Despite the narrower bus, the W5500X has 45.8% more bandwidth.

Q: How do their compute capabilities differ?

A: The W5500X delivers 5.398 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, more than double the R9 M290X's 2.304 TFLOPS. The W5500X also supports FP16 at 10.80 TFLOPS (2:1 ratio), while the R9 M290X has no recorded FP16 capability.

Architecture Differences

The two cards come from entirely different architectural generations. The AMD Radeon Pro W5500X is built on the Navi 14 chip using RDNA 1.0 architecture, manufactured on a 7 nm process at TSMC. The AMD Radeon R9 M290X uses the Neptune chip with GCN 1.0 architecture, fabricated on a 28 nm process, also at TSMC.

The transistor counts tell a story of density. The W5500X packs 6,400 million transistors into a 158 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 40.5M per mm². The R9 M290X has 2,800 million transistors spread across a larger 212 mm² die, giving it a density of just 13.2M per mm². The W5500X achieves roughly three times the transistor density, a direct result of the 7 nm process node versus the older 28 nm node.

The rendering pipelines differ in scale. The W5500X has 1,536 shading units, 96 texture mapping units, and 32 raster operation pipelines. The R9 M290X has 1,280 shading units, 80 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. The W5500X has 20% more shading units and 20% more TMUs, with the same ROP count.

Pixel and texture throughput reflect these differences. The W5500X achieves 56.22 GPixel/s and 168.7 GTexel/s, while the R9 M290X manages 28.80 GPixel/s and 72.00 GTexel/s. The W5500X is roughly twice as fast in both fill-rate metrics.

Neither card features dedicated ray tracing cores or tensor cores, as both predate or omit those hardware blocks. The API support differs slightly: the W5500X supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, while the R9 M290X supports DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. The W5500X has a higher Vulkan version, indicating more modern driver support.

The R9 M290X includes a predecessor and successor in its lineage, listed as "Solar System" and "Polaris Mobile" respectively, while the W5500X shows no predecessor or successor in the database.

Specification Differences

The most striking specification gap is in process technology. The W5500X uses a 7 nm node while the R9 M290X uses 28 nm. This alone explains much of the performance and efficiency divide.

Memory capacity differs by a factor of two: the W5500X has 8 GB of GDDR6, the R9 M290X has 4 GB of GDDR5. Memory bandwidth favors the W5500X at 224.0 GB/s versus 153.6 GB/s, a 45.8% improvement. The bus width is narrower on the W5500X (128 bit versus 256 bit), but the faster GDDR6 memory compensates.

Clock speeds are substantially higher on the W5500X. Its base clock is 1187 MHz with a boost of 1757 MHz, while the R9 M290X runs at 850 MHz base and 900 MHz boost. The memory clock also differs: the W5500X runs at 1750 MHz (14 Gbps effective), while the R9 M290X runs at 1200 MHz (4.8 Gbps effective).

The power profiles are reversed in an interesting way. The W5500X has a higher TDP at 125 W, while the R9 M290X is rated at 100 W. However, the W5500X has a suggested PSU of 300 W, while the R9 M290X has no suggested PSU listed. The W5500X uses an Apple MPX bus interface and is dual-slot, while the R9 M290X is an MXM module with no power connectors and a PCIe 3.0 x16 interface.

Display outputs differ completely. The W5500X provides 2x HDMI 2.0b ports, while the R9 M290X's outputs are listed as "Portable Device Dependent," meaning its connectors vary by the laptop or chassis it ships in.

The release dates are separated by nearly six years: the W5500X launched on 2019-12-10, the R9 M290X on 2014-01-08. Both are end-of-life products. The launch MSRP for the W5500X was 599 USD, while the R9 M290X has no recorded launch MSRP.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear hierarchy. The AMD Radeon Pro W5500X wins the only direct head-to-head benchmark by 14.1%, ranks five percentile points higher in the overall database, and delivers more than double the FP32 compute throughput. It also has twice the memory capacity and 45.8% more bandwidth.

For any application that leverages Metal compute, the W5500X is the obvious choice. The 27,973 Metal score versus 24,524 is not a marginal difference; it represents a substantial performance lead in GPU-accelerated workloads. The W5500X also benefits from a much newer architecture, RDNA 1.0 versus GCN 1.0, which brings modern features and better Vulkan support (1.4 versus 1.2.170).

The R9 M290X is not without its merits. It has a lower TDP at 100 W versus 125 W, making it potentially easier to cool in tight chassis. Its MXM form factor suits upgradeable laptops, and its PCIe 3.0 x16 interface is more universally compatible than the Apple MPX bus. Its 256-bit bus width, while paired with slower GDDR5 memory, still offers reasonable bandwidth for its era.

However, the R9 M290X is strictly slower in every recorded compute metric. Its 2.304 TFLOPS of FP32 performance is less than half of the W5500X's 5.398 TFLOPS. Its pixel rate of 28.80 GPixel/s and texture rate of 72.00 GTexel/s are both roughly 42% of the W5500X's rates. The M290X also lacks any FP16 support, which matters for modern workloads that use mixed-precision computation.

The verdict is straightforward: the W5500X is the superior GPU in every measured category. The only reasons to choose the R9 M290X would be compatibility with an MXM slot or a lower power envelope, not performance.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon Pro W5500X wins in Metal compute performance, delivering a 14.1% higher score in Geekbench Metal. Its higher FP32 throughput (5.398 TFLOPS versus 2.304 TFLOPS) makes it better suited for GPU-accelerated rendering, video transcoding, and compute-heavy creative workloads. The 8 GB GDDR6 frame buffer doubles the R9 M290X's 4 GB, allowing larger textures and datasets to reside in VRAM. Its 224.0 GB/s bandwidth supports higher-resolution assets and smoother multi-tasking with large buffers.

The W5500X is also the better choice for modern API compatibility. Its Vulkan 1.4 support is ahead of the R9 M290X's Vulkan 1.2.170, and its DirectX 12 (12_1) feature level is higher than the M290X's 12 (11_1). For developers or users targeting the latest graphics features, the W5500X is the only viable option between the two.

The AMD Radeon R9 M290X wins in power efficiency per watt. Its 100 W TDP versus 125 W means lower peak power draw, which can be an advantage in thermally constrained systems. Its MXM Module form factor and PCIe 3.0 x16 interface make it compatible with a wider range of laptops and mobile workstations. The lack of power connectors simplifies installation in systems with limited PSU headroom.

The M290X also has the edge in bus width at 256 bit versus 128 bit. While the W5500X's GDDR6 memory compensates with higher effective clock speeds, the wider bus on the M290X can still be beneficial in certain memory-access patterns that favor parallelism over raw bandwidth.

For legacy applications that were optimized for the GCN architecture, the R9 M290X may offer more predictable driver behavior, given its longer market presence since 2014. But the database does not record any benchmark where the M290X outperforms the W5500X.

The W5500X wins in every recorded performance metric, all compute throughput figures, memory capacity, memory bandwidth, and API support. The R9 M290X wins only in form factor flexibility and lower power draw. For any user prioritizing performance, the W5500X is the clear recommendation. For users constrained by an MXM slot or a 100 W power budget, the M290X remains a serviceable fallback.