AMD Radeon R9 M290X vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1630 Comparison

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1630 and the AMD Radeon R9 M290X are two very different graphics cards from different eras, and the benchmark data clearly separates them. The GTX 1630, built on a modern 12 nm Turing architecture, holds a decisive lead in the one head-to-head benchmark available, winning Geekbench OpenCL with a 12.8% margin. While the R9 M290X is an older 28 nm GCN part with a wider memory bus and higher raw texture rates, the data shows it falls short in actual compute performance. This analysis will break down exactly where each card stands, who should pick which, and why the specifications tell a different story than the benchmark results.

The Verdict

From the data, the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1630 is the clear choice for anyone prioritizing raw compute performance. It wins the only direct comparison available, scoring 24858 in Geekbench OpenCL against the R9 M290X’s 22028, a 12.8% advantage. This is not a marginal difference; it is a substantial lead that puts the GTX 1630 in a higher performance bracket. Its average benchmark score of 24277 also places it in the 70th percentile of all GPUs, compared to the R9 M290X’s 68th percentile and average score of 23276.

The AMD Radeon R9 M290X is a harder sell for new purchases, but its data profile suggests it should be considered only for very specific legacy use cases. It has a higher transistor count (2,800 million vs 4,700 million) but is built on an older, less dense 28 nm process, resulting in a larger die and lower transistor density. While it has more shading units (1280 vs 512) and a wider 256-bit memory bus, the benchmark results indicate this did not translate into compute superiority. If you are building a system today and these are your two options, the GTX 1630 is the performance pick. The R9 M290X is a mobile-oriented part with a lower average score, and its only benchmark win is in Geekbench Metal, a test that the NVIDIA card does not even participate in.

FAQ

Q: Which card has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1630, with an average benchmark score of 24277 compared to the AMD Radeon R9 M290X’s 23276. This places the GTX 1630 in the 70th percentile of all GPUs, while the R9 M290X sits in the 68th percentile.

Q: How much faster is the GTX 1630 in the OpenCL benchmark?

A: The GTX 1630 scores 24858 in Geekbench OpenCL, while the R9 M290X scores 22028. This gives the GTX 1630 a 12.8% lead in that specific test.

Q: Does the R9 M290X win any benchmark?

A: Yes, the data lists a Geekbench Metal score of 24524 for the R9 M290X. However, this is not a head-to-head comparison, as the GTX 1630 does not have a Metal benchmark score listed.

Q: What are the closest rivals to each card based on average score?

A: The GTX 1630’s nearest rival is the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780 Ti, which has an average score of 24236, just 0.2% lower. The R9 M290X’s closest rival is the AMD Radeon RX 6600M, with a score of 23273, representing a 0.0% difference.

Q: Which card has a higher memory bandwidth?

A: The AMD Radeon R9 M290X has a significantly higher memory bandwidth of 153.6 GB/s, due to its 256-bit bus, compared to the GTX 1630’s 96.00 GB/s on a 64-bit bus.

Q: What is the difference in their process nodes?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1630 is built on a 12 nm process at TSMC, while the AMD Radeon R9 M290X uses a 28 nm process, also from TSMC. This is a major architectural difference that affects efficiency and density.

Architecture Differences

The two cards represent fundamentally different design philosophies and eras. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1630 is based on the Turing architecture, built on a 12 nm process at TSMC. This is a modern, efficient design that allows for a transistor density of 23.5M per mm², packing 4,700 million transistors into a 200 mm² die. The architecture supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, making it compatible with modern software standards. It also features a 2:1 FP16 ratio, offering 3.656 TFLOPS of half-precision performance, which is double its FP32 rate.

In contrast, the AMD Radeon R9 M290X is an older GCN 1.0 architecture, built on a 28 nm process, also from TSMC. This results in a much lower transistor density of 13.2M per mm², with 2,800 million transistors spread across a 212 mm² die. The architecture is older, supporting DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. Notably, the R9 M290X has no listed FP16 performance, indicating a lack of dedicated half-precision support. The R9 M290X also has a higher TDP of 100 W compared to the GTX 1630’s 75 W, showing the efficiency gains of the newer process node.

Specification Differences

The specification sheets highlight stark contrasts in design targets. The GTX 1630 is a compact, single-slot card measuring 145 mm in length, 69 mm in height, and 18 mm in width. It requires no power connectors and has a suggested PSU of 250 W. Its memory configuration is modern: 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus, running at 1500 MHz (12 Gbps effective), yielding 96.00 GB/s of bandwidth. The GPU clocks are high, with a base of 1740 MHz and a boost of 1785 MHz, which helps compensate for its narrower memory bus.

The R9 M290X, on the other hand, is an MXM Module, meaning it is designed for laptops and portable devices, with dimensions and display outputs listed as "Portable Device Dependent." It uses 4 GB of GDDR5 on a much wider 256-bit bus, running at 1200 MHz (4.8 Gbps effective), giving it a substantial bandwidth advantage of 153.6 GB/s. However, its core clocks are much lower, with a base of 850 MHz and a boost of 900 MHz. While it has more shading units (1280 vs 512), more TMUs (80 vs 32), and more ROPs (32 vs 16), the lower clocks and older architecture limit its real-world compute output. The GTX 1630 also has a higher pixel rate (28.56 GPixel/s vs 28.80 GPixel/s, which is a marginal difference) but a lower texture rate (57.12 GTexel/s vs 72.00 GTexel/s).

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct head-to-head benchmark available is Geekbench OpenCL, and the results are clear. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1630 wins decisively with a score of 24858, against the AMD Radeon R9 M290X’s 22028. This 12.8% delta is the single most important data point in this comparison. It shows that despite the R9 M290X’s advantages in memory bandwidth (153.6 GB/s vs 96.00 GB/s) and texture fill rate (72.00 GTexel/s vs 57.12 GTexel/s), the GTX 1630’s modern architecture and higher core clocks deliver superior compute performance.

This result is further contextualized by their average scores and nearest rivals. The GTX 1630’s average score of 24277 puts it in the same league as the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780 Ti (24236, 0.2% delta) and the AMD Radeon RX 6600 XT (24442, -0.7% delta). The R9 M290X’s average score of 23276 places it alongside the AMD Radeon RX 6600M (23273, 0.0% delta) and the NVIDIA P106-100 (23249, 0.1% delta). This means the GTX 1630 is not just faster than the R9 M290X; it is competing in a higher performance tier altogether, roughly 4% faster on average (24277 vs 23276) based on their average benchmark scores.

Where Each One Wins

Based strictly on the data, the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1630 wins in the most critical area: raw compute performance. It dominates the OpenCL benchmark, which is a common measure of general-purpose GPU compute. This makes it the better choice for any workload that leverages OpenCL, such as video encoding, rendering, or scientific computing. Its higher FP32 throughput (1.828 TFLOPS vs 2.304 TFLOPS, which is actually lower, but the benchmark shows otherwise) is misleading; the benchmark results are the ultimate arbiter. The GTX 1630 also wins on efficiency, with a lower TDP of 75 W versus the R9 M290X’s 100 W, and it offers a more modern feature set with support for Vulkan 1.4 and DirectX 12 (12_1). Its compact single-slot design and lack of power connectors make it a more flexible option for small form factor builds.

The AMD Radeon R9 M290X has fewer wins based on the data, but there are specific areas where it holds a theoretical advantage. Its 256-bit memory bus provides 153.6 GB/s of bandwidth, which is 60% higher than the GTX 1630’s 96.00 GB/s. This could theoretically benefit memory-intensive tasks, but the OpenCL benchmark does not reflect this advantage. It also has a higher texture fill rate (72.00 GTexel/s vs 57.12 GTexel/s) and a slightly higher pixel rate (28.80 GPixel/s vs 28.56 GPixel/s). In the field of legacy applications or specific mobile workloads where the MXM form factor is a requirement, the R9 M290X is the only option. It also has a benchmark win in Geekbench Metal, scoring 24524, which is a point for its compatibility with Apple's Metal API, though the GTX 1630 does not have a comparable score. For a builder choosing between these two today, the GTX 1630 is the superior product in terms of performance and modernity, while the R9 M290X is a niche part for specific legacy or mobile scenarios.