AMD Radeon R9 M290X vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark database shows a fascinating split between these two mobile and desktop graphics cards. In the Geekbench Metal test, the AMD Radeon R9 M290X delivers a score of 24,524, which is a commanding 142.5% higher than the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780’s result of 10,114. That is not a marginal lead; it is a landslide in AMD’s favor, suggesting the M290X is far better optimized for Apple’s Metal API.

However, the story flips when looking at the OpenCL workload. The GTX 780 scores 22,863, edging past the M290X’s 22,028 by a 3.7% margin. The delta is modest, but it is a clear win for NVIDIA in a compute environment that both cards support equally well. The recorded data therefore indicates a 1-1 tie in head-to-head contests, with each GPU taking one discipline.

Notably, the GTX 780 also has a Vulkan benchmark result of 24,514 in the database, while the M290X has no recorded Vulkan score. The lack of a Vulkan figure for the AMD card limits direct comparison on that API, but the NVIDIA card’s score is competitive with the M290X’s Metal result, hinting at strong cross-API performance on the Kepler architecture.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different design philosophies. The AMD Radeon R9 M290X uses the Neptune chip based on GCN 1.0 architecture, manufactured on a 28 nm process at TSMC. It packs 2,800 million transistors into a die size of 212 mm², yielding a transistor density of 13.2 million per square millimeter. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780, on the other hand, uses the GK110 chip with Kepler architecture, also on 28 nm TSMC, but with 7,080 million transistors on a much larger 561 mm² die, resulting in a lower density of 12.6 million per square millimeter.

The raw compute resources diverge sharply. The GTX 780 fields 2,304 shading units, 192 texture mapping units, and 48 raster output pipelines. The M290X is smaller in these counts, with 1,280 shading units, 80 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. This explains the NVIDIA card’s higher theoretical throughput: 4.156 TFLOPS FP32 versus 2.304 TFLOPS on the AMD side, 173.2 GTexel/s versus 72.00 GTexel/s, and 43.30 GPixel/s versus 28.80 GPixel/s.

Memory configurations also differ. The M290X carries 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, with bandwidth capped at 153.6 GB/s. The GTX 780 has 3 GB of GDDR5 on a wider 384-bit interface, delivering 288.4 GB/s. Clock speeds are similar, with the M290X at 850 MHz base and 900 MHz boost, while the GTX 780 runs at 863 MHz base and 902 MHz boost. The effective memory rate is 4.8 Gbps on the AMD card versus 6 Gbps on the NVIDIA card.

Power and physical specs tell a different story. The M290X is an MXM module with no power connectors and a 100 W TDP, designed for portable systems. The GTX 780 is a dual-slot card, 267 mm long, 111 mm tall, and 38 mm wide, requiring one 6-pin and one 8-pin connector, with a 250 W TDP and a suggested 600 W power supply. Both support PCIe 3.0 x16, but the GTX 780 offers fixed display outputs (2x DVI, 1x HDMI 1.4a, 1x DisplayPort 1.2), while the M290X’s outputs are portable-device dependent.

In API support, the M290X lists DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. The GTX 780 lists DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.175. The NVIDIA card’s Vulkan version is slightly newer, but both are end-of-life products, with the M290X released in January 2014 and the GTX 780 in May 2013.

Where Each One Wins

The data points to clear strengths for each card. The M290X dominates in Metal-based workloads. Its 24,524 Metal score is not only far above the GTX 780 but also puts it ahead of the GTX 780’s best OpenCL result of 22,863. For tasks that rely on Apple’s Metal API, which includes many macOS creative and compute applications, the M290X is the obvious choice based on recorded measurements.

The GTX 780 wins in OpenCL, albeit narrowly. Its 22,863 score beats the M290X’s 22,028 by 3.7%, and its Vulkan result of 24,514 suggests strong performance in cross-platform compute and modern gaming APIs. The NVIDIA card also has a distinct advantage in raw throughput metrics: 4.156 TFLOPS FP32 versus 2.304 TFLOPS, 173.2 GTexel/s versus 72.00 GTexel/s, and 288.4 GB/s memory bandwidth versus 153.6 GB/s. These figures imply that for compute-heavy tasks that scale with shader count and memory bandwidth, the GTX 780 should pull ahead, despite the OpenCL benchmark showing only a small gap.

The M290X’s wins are more specialized. Its 100 W TDP and MXM form factor make it suitable for laptops and compact systems, where the GTX 780’s 250 W TDP and 267 mm length would not fit. The M290X also has 4 GB of VRAM, which is 1 GB more than the GTX 780, potentially helping in texture-heavy workloads at high resolutions, even if the bandwidth is lower.

FAQ

Q: Which card scores higher in the Geekbench Metal test?

A: The AMD Radeon R9 M290X scores 24,524, which is 142.5% higher than the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780’s 10,114.

Q: How do the two cards compare in OpenCL performance?

A: The GTX 780 scores 22,863, beating the M290X’s 22,028 by a margin of 3.7%.

Q: Does the GTX 780 have any benchmark that the M290X lacks?

A: Yes, the database records a Geekbench Vulkan score of 24,514 for the GTX 780, while no Vulkan score is listed for the M290X.

Q: What are the memory capacities and bus widths of these GPUs?

A: The M290X has 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus with 153.6 GB/s bandwidth. The GTX 780 has 3 GB of GDDR5 on a 384-bit bus with 288.4 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Which card has a higher transistor count?

A: The GTX 780 has 7,080 million transistors, while the M290X has 2,800 million.

Q: What is the TDP difference between the two cards?

A: The M290X is rated at 100 W, while the GTX 780 is rated at 250 W, requiring a 600 W suggested power supply.

The Verdict

The benchmark data separates these cards into distinct use cases. For anyone working in a macOS environment where Metal is the primary compute API, the AMD Radeon R9 M290X is the superior choice. Its Metal score is more than double that of the GTX 780, and its 4 GB VRAM plus lower power draw make it practical for portable systems. The M290X’s average benchmark score of 23,276 also places it in the 68th percentile of all GPUs, slightly ahead of the GTX 780’s average of 19,164 and 64th percentile.

For users prioritizing raw compute throughput, OpenCL workloads, or Vulkan-based applications, the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780 is the better pick. Its FP32 performance of 4.156 TFLOPS is nearly double the M290X’s 2.304 TFLOPS, and its memory bandwidth of 288.4 GB/s is almost twice as high. The OpenCL win, though small, is reinforced by the Vulkan score and far higher texture and pixel rates. The GTX 780 also has a higher shading unit count (2,304 versus 1,280), which benefits shader-heavy rendering.

The verdict is not a blanket winner. It is a split decision based on environment and workload. The M290X excels where Metal is the standard, while the GTX 780 excels in general compute and traditional desktop rendering. The GTX 780’s launch MSRP was 649 USD, but the database does not list a launch price for the M290X.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Radeon R9 M290X | NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780 |

|---------------|---------------------|------------------------|

| Chip | Neptune | GK110 |

| Architecture | GCN 1.0 | Kepler |

| Generation | Gem System (R9 M200) | GeForce 700 |

| Transistors | 2,800 million | 7,080 million |

| Die Size | 212 mm² | 561 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 13.2M / mm² | 12.6M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 850 MHz | 863 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 900 MHz | 902 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 1200 MHz, 4.8 Gbps effective | 1502 MHz, 6 Gbps effective |

| Memory Size | 4 GB | 3 GB |

| Memory Bus Width | 256 bit | 384 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 153.6 GB/s | 288.4 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 1280 | 2304 |

| TMUs | 80 | 192 |

| ROPs | 32 | 48 |

| Pixel Rate | 28.80 GPixel/s | 43.30 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 72.00 GTexel/s | 173.2 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Performance | 2.304 TFLOPS | 4.156 TFLOPS |

| TDP | 100 W | 250 W |

| Slot Width | MXM Module | Dual-slot |

| Power Connectors | None | 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin |

| Suggested PSU | Not listed | 600 W |

| Display Outputs | Portable Device Dependent | 2x DVI, 1x HDMI 1.4a, 1x DisplayPort 1.2 |

| DirectX Support | 12 (11_1) | 12 (11_0) |

| Vulkan Version | 1.2.170 | 1.2.175 |

| Dimensions | Not listed | 267 mm length, 111 mm height, 38 mm width |

| Release Date | 2014-01-08 | 2013-05-22 |

| Predecessor | Solar System | GeForce 600 |

| Successor | Polaris Mobile | GeForce 900 |

| Geekbench Metal | 24,524 | 10,114 |

| Geekbench OpenCL | 22,028 | 22,863 |

| Geekbench Vulkan | Not listed | 24,514 |

| Average Benchmark Score | 23,276 | 19,164 |

| Percentile vs All GPUs | 68 | 64 |