AMD Radeon R9 M290X vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780 Ti Comparison

# NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780 Ti vs AMD Radeon R9 M290X

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780 Ti and AMD Radeon R9 M290X represent two very different approaches to high-performance graphics from the same era, with the former being a desktop flagship and the latter a mobile module. Their average benchmark scores sit close together—24,236 for the GTX 780 Ti versus 23,276 for the R9 M290X—a gap of roughly 4% that places both in the same performance tier. Yet the data reveals that these two GPUs win in completely different workloads, making the choice between them far less about overall averages and far more about which applications matter to the user.

Where Each One Wins

The head-to-head benchmark results paint a clear split: each GPU dominates one of the two available tests, and the victories are substantial in both directions. In Geekbench Metal, the AMD Radeon R9 M290X scores 24,524 against the GTX 780 Ti's 18,144, a 26% advantage that is impossible to dismiss. This is not a marginal edge; the M290X outperforms the 780 Ti by more than a quarter in Apple's Metal compute API, suggesting that GCN 1.0's architecture handles Metal workloads with notably greater efficiency than Kepler does.

The tables turn completely in Geekbench OpenCL, where the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780 Ti posts 27,326 versus 22,028 for the R9 M290X. That 24.1% lead for NVIDIA demonstrates that the 780 Ti's raw compute resources—its 2,880 shading units and 5.345 TFLOPS of FP32 throughput—translate into decisive OpenCL performance. The pattern is unambiguous: if the workload runs through Metal, the AMD part wins by a wide margin; if it runs through OpenCL, the NVIDIA part wins by a similarly wide margin.

The percentile rankings reinforce this split. The GTX 780 Ti sits at the 70th percentile among all GPUs, while the R9 M290X sits at the 68th percentile—a difference of just two percentile points that confirms these are closely matched parts overall. The nearest rivals data further contextualizes the NVIDIA card: it trails the GTX 1630 by 0.2%, leads the RTX 2080 SUPER by 0.3%, and leads the RX 6800S by 0.7% in average score, placing it in remarkably consistent company. The AMD card's nearest rivals include the RX 6600M (0% delta), Radeon Pro Vega 16 (0.1% ahead), and NVIDIA P106-100 (0.1% ahead), showing that the M290X also sits in a tight performance cluster.

Architecture Differences

The fundamental architectural divide between these two GPUs is stark. The GTX 780 Ti uses NVIDIA's GK110B chip built on the Kepler architecture, fabricated by TSMC on a 28 nm process with 7,080 million transistors on a 561 mm² die. The R9 M290X uses AMD's Neptune chip built on GCN 1.0, also on TSMC's 28 nm node, but with just 2,800 million transistors on a 212 mm² die. The transistor density tells an interesting story: AMD packs 13.2M transistors per mm² versus NVIDIA's 12.6M per mm², meaning the smaller AMD chip is actually denser, but the NVIDIA part deploys 2.5 times more total transistors overall.

Compute resources differ dramatically. The GTX 780 Ti fields 2,880 shading units, 240 texture mapping units, and 48 ROPs, while the R9 M290X offers 1,280 shading units, 80 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. These raw counts translate into a 5.345 TFLOPS FP32 rate for NVIDIA versus 2.304 TFLOPS for AMD—the 780 Ti delivers more than double the theoretical compute throughput. Pixel and texture rates follow suit: 55.68 GPixel/s and 222.7 GTexel/s for the 780 Ti, versus 28.80 GPixel/s and 72.00 GTexel/s for the M290X.

The memory subsystems also diverge significantly. The GTX 780 Ti uses 3 GB of GDDR5 on a 384-bit bus, yielding 336.6 GB/s of bandwidth from a 1753 MHz clock (7 Gbps effective). The R9 M290X provides 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, producing 153.6 GB/s from a 1200 MHz clock (4.8 Gbps effective). NVIDIA's memory bandwidth is more than double AMD's, though the M290X offers an extra gigabyte of capacity. Both support PCIe 3.0 x16, but the 780 Ti draws 250 W with a 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin power requirement and a 600 W suggested PSU, while the M290X consumes just 100 W as an MXM module with no external power connectors.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher raw compute performance?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780 Ti delivers 5.345 TFLOPS of FP32 throughput, more than double the R9 M290X's 2.304 TFLOPS, along with 2,880 shading units versus 1,280.

Q: Why does the AMD R9 M290X win in Geekbench Metal despite lower specs?

A: The M290X scores 24,524 in Metal versus 18,144 for the GTX 780 Ti, a 26% advantage. The data indicates GCN 1.0 architecture is substantially more efficient at executing Metal compute workloads than Kepler, despite having fewer shading units and lower theoretical FP32.

Q: What is the memory capacity and bandwidth difference?

A: The GTX 780 Ti has 3 GB of GDDR5 on a 384-bit bus with 336.6 GB/s bandwidth, while the M290X has 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus with 153.6 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: How do their average benchmark scores compare?

A: The GTX 780 Ti averages 24,236 across all benchmarks, placing it at the 70th percentile, while the M290X averages 23,276 at the 68th percentile—a difference of roughly 4% in the NVIDIA card's favor.

Q: What are the power requirements for each card?

A: The GTX 780 Ti is a dual-slot desktop card rated at 250 W TDP requiring 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin power connectors and a 600 W suggested PSU. The R9 M290X is an MXM module rated at 100 W TDP with no external power connectors.

Q: Which card has better OpenCL performance?

A: The GTX 780 Ti scores 27,326 in Geekbench OpenCL versus 22,028 for the M290X, a 24.1% advantage for NVIDIA.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ across nearly every measurable specification. The GTX 780 Ti uses the GK110B chip with Kepler architecture, while the M290X uses Neptune with GCN 1.0. Transistor counts are 7,080 million versus 2,800 million, and die sizes are 561 mm² versus 212 mm². Base clocks are 875 MHz for NVIDIA and 850 MHz for AMD, with boost clocks of 928 MHz and 900 MHz respectively. Memory clocks differ substantially: 1753 MHz (7 Gbps effective) for the 780 Ti versus 1200 MHz (4.8 Gbps effective) for the M290X.

Shading units, TMUs, and ROPs all favor NVIDIA overwhelmingly: 2,880/240/48 versus 1,280/80/32. Pixel rate is 55.68 GPixel/s versus 28.80 GPixel/s, and texture rate is 222.7 GTexel/s versus 72.00 GTexel/s. FP32 compute is 5.345 TFLOPS versus 2.304 TFLOPS. TDP is 250 W versus 100 W. The GTX 780 Ti is dual-slot with 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin connectors and a 600 W suggested PSU; the M290X is an MXM module with no power connectors and no suggested PSU. Display outputs are 2x DVI, 1x HDMI 1.4a, 1x DisplayPort 1.2 for NVIDIA versus "Portable Device Dependent" for AMD. The 780 Ti measures 267 mm in length, 111 mm in height, and 38 mm in width; the M290X has no listed dimensions. Both support DirectX 12 (11_1) and OpenGL 4.6, but Vulkan support differs slightly: 1.2.175 for NVIDIA versus 1.2.170 for AMD.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Geekbench Metal result is the single largest margin in this comparison, with the AMD Radeon R9 M290X scoring 24,524 against the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780 Ti's 18,144. The 26% delta in AMD's favor is striking given that the 780 Ti holds a more than 2-to-1 advantage in raw FP32 throughput and shading unit count. This result suggests that Metal's compute shaders on GCN 1.0 execute with far greater efficiency per FLOP than on Kepler, likely due to how the architecture schedules wavefronts and manages memory access patterns. The M290X also carries 4 GB of memory versus 3 GB, which could benefit certain Metal workloads that are capacity-sensitive, though the 780 Ti's 336.6 GB/s bandwidth is more than double the M290X's 153.6 GB/s.

The Geekbench OpenCL result reverses the outcome decisively. The GTX 780 Ti posts 27,326, beating the M290X's 22,028 by 24.1%. This is the NVIDIA card's strongest showing, and it aligns far more closely with the theoretical compute gap than the Metal result does. With 2,880 shading units, 240 TMUs, and a 384-bit memory bus, the 780 Ti has the resources to dominate OpenCL workloads that scale with raw parallelism and memory bandwidth. The 5.345 TFLOPS of FP32 throughput gives it more than double the M290X's 2.304 TFLOPS, and in OpenCL the data shows that advantage translating into a real-world benchmark win.

Looking at the broader benchmark landscape, the average scores of 24,236 for the GTX 780 Ti and 23,276 for the M290X reflect a near-tie that masks the divergent workload behavior. The GTX 780 Ti's nearest rivals include the GTX 1630 at 24,277 (−0.2%), the RTX 2080 SUPER at 24,170 (+0.3%), and the RX 6800S at 24,063 (+0.7%), all within 1% of its score. The M290X's nearest rivals are similarly tight: the RX 6600M at 23,273 (0.0%), Radeon Pro Vega 16 at 23,250 (+0.1%), and P106-100 at 23,249 (+0.1%). These clusters show both GPUs landing in highly competitive performance bands, with the 780 Ti sitting slightly higher in the overall distribution at the 70th percentile versus the M290X's 68th.

The wins are split evenly at one each, which is exactly what the head-to-head data shows: a 26% AMD victory in Metal and a 24.1% NVIDIA victory in OpenCL. Users who primarily run Metal-based applications—common in macOS ecosystems—would see substantially better performance from the R9 M290X. Those running OpenCL workloads would find the GTX 780 Ti delivering a similarly large advantage. The GTX 780 Ti also benefits from a 267 mm dual-slot desktop form factor with dedicated display outputs, while the M290X is an MXM module designed for portable systems where power consumption of 100 W and space constraints matter more than raw throughput.