
Radeon PRO W6400
Popular choices:

Radeon R9 290
Popular choices:
Performance Spectrum - GPU
About G3D Mark
G3D Mark is a standard benchmark that measures graphics performance in real-world gaming scenarios. It simplifies comparing cards from different brands, where higher scores directly correlate with better fps and smoother gaming experiences.
Head-to-Head Verdict, Benchmarks, Value & Long-Term Outlook
This comparison brings together gaming FPS, raw graphics performance, VRAM, feature set, power efficiency, pricing context, and long-term value so you can see which GPU actually makes more sense.
Radeon PRO W6400
2022Why buy it
- ✅Costs $170 less on MSRP ($229 MSRP vs $399 MSRP).
- ✅Delivers 79.4% more G3D Mark for each dollar spent, at 36.8 vs 20.5 G3D/$ ($229 MSRP vs $399 MSRP).
- ✅More future proof: RDNA 2.0 (2020−2025) on 6nm with a newer platform for upcoming games.
- ✅Draws 50W instead of 275W, a 225W reduction.
- ✅Measures 168mm instead of 275mm, a 107mm shorter card that is more SFF-friendly.
Trade-offs
- ❌Fewer clear downsides in this head-to-head, aside from the usual pricing and availability swings.
Radeon R9 290
2013Why buy it
- ✅Competitive enough if your priority is price, power, or specific feature preference.
Trade-offs
- ❌Poor future-proofing: 2013-era hardware with 4 GB of VRAM is already a legacy-tier option for modern games.
- ❌74.2% HIGHER MSRP$399 MSRPvs$229 MSRP
- ❌Lower G3D Mark per dollar, at 20.5 vs 36.8 G3D/$ ($399 MSRP vs $229 MSRP).
- ❌450% higher power demand at 275W vs 50W.
- ❌63.7% longer card at 275mm vs 168mm.
Radeon PRO W6400
2022Radeon R9 290
2013Why buy it
- ✅Costs $170 less on MSRP ($229 MSRP vs $399 MSRP).
- ✅Delivers 79.4% more G3D Mark for each dollar spent, at 36.8 vs 20.5 G3D/$ ($229 MSRP vs $399 MSRP).
- ✅More future proof: RDNA 2.0 (2020−2025) on 6nm with a newer platform for upcoming games.
- ✅Draws 50W instead of 275W, a 225W reduction.
- ✅Measures 168mm instead of 275mm, a 107mm shorter card that is more SFF-friendly.
Why buy it
- ✅Competitive enough if your priority is price, power, or specific feature preference.
Trade-offs
- ❌Fewer clear downsides in this head-to-head, aside from the usual pricing and availability swings.
Trade-offs
- ❌Poor future-proofing: 2013-era hardware with 4 GB of VRAM is already a legacy-tier option for modern games.
- ❌74.2% HIGHER MSRP$399 MSRPvs$229 MSRP
- ❌Lower G3D Mark per dollar, at 20.5 vs 36.8 G3D/$ ($399 MSRP vs $229 MSRP).
- ❌450% higher power demand at 275W vs 50W.
- ❌63.7% longer card at 275mm vs 168mm.
Quick Answers
So, is Radeon PRO W6400 better than Radeon R9 290?
Which one is more future-proof for 2026 and beyond?
Which one is the smarter buy today, not just the cheaper card?
Is Radeon R9 290 still worth buying for gaming in 2026?
Games Benchmarks
Real-world benchmarks and performance projections based on comprehensive hardware analysis and comparative metrics. Values represent expected performance on High/Ultra settings at 1080p, 1440p, and 4K. Modeled using a Ryzen 7 9800X3D reference profile to minimize specific CPU bottlenecks.
Note: Performance behavior can vary per game. Specific architectures may perform better or worse depending on game engine optimizations and API implementation.

Path of Exile 2
| Preset | Radeon PRO W6400 | Radeon R9 290 |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 132 FPS | 83 FPS |
| medium | 118 FPS | 71 FPS |
| high | 101 FPS | 59 FPS |
| ultra | 75 FPS | 39 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 118 FPS | 72 FPS |
| medium | 100 FPS | 64 FPS |
| high | 83 FPS | 47 FPS |
| ultra | 62 FPS | 30 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 49 FPS | 26 FPS |
| medium | 46 FPS | 25 FPS |
| high | 34 FPS | 17 FPS |
| ultra | 30 FPS | 14 FPS |

Counter-Strike 2
| Preset | Radeon PRO W6400 | Radeon R9 290 |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 169 FPS | 185 FPS |
| medium | 134 FPS | 156 FPS |
| high | 99 FPS | 129 FPS |
| ultra | 66 FPS | 100 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 110 FPS | 132 FPS |
| medium | 86 FPS | 103 FPS |
| high | 64 FPS | 83 FPS |
| ultra | 46 FPS | 64 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 57 FPS | 60 FPS |
| medium | 44 FPS | 49 FPS |
| high | 35 FPS | 44 FPS |
| ultra | 22 FPS | 36 FPS |

League of Legends
| Preset | Radeon PRO W6400 | Radeon R9 290 |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 377 FPS | 368 FPS |
| medium | 303 FPS | 295 FPS |
| high | 249 FPS | 246 FPS |
| ultra | 190 FPS | 184 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 265 FPS | 276 FPS |
| medium | 228 FPS | 221 FPS |
| high | 186 FPS | 184 FPS |
| ultra | 142 FPS | 138 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 155 FPS | 184 FPS |
| medium | 143 FPS | 147 FPS |
| high | 102 FPS | 123 FPS |
| ultra | 70 FPS | 92 FPS |

Valorant
| Preset | Radeon PRO W6400 | Radeon R9 290 |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 285 FPS | 152 FPS |
| medium | 206 FPS | 123 FPS |
| high | 180 FPS | 105 FPS |
| ultra | 146 FPS | 87 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 210 FPS | 110 FPS |
| medium | 149 FPS | 90 FPS |
| high | 132 FPS | 78 FPS |
| ultra | 104 FPS | 62 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 105 FPS | 64 FPS |
| medium | 76 FPS | 49 FPS |
| high | 67 FPS | 39 FPS |
| ultra | 51 FPS | 28 FPS |
Technical Specifications
Side-by-side comparison of Radeon PRO W6400 and Radeon R9 290

Radeon PRO W6400
Radeon PRO W6400
The Radeon PRO W6400 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in January 19 2022. It features the RDNA 2.0 architecture. The core clock ranges from 2331 MHz to 2331 MHz. It has 768 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 50W. Manufactured using 6 nm process technology. It features 12 dedicated ray tracing cores for enhanced lighting effects. G3D Mark benchmark score: 8,428 points.

Radeon R9 290
Radeon R9 290
The Radeon R9 290 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in November 5 2013. It features the GCN 2.0 architecture. The core clock speed is 947 MHz. It has 2560 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 275W. Manufactured using 28 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 8,184 points. Launch price was $399.
Graphics Performance
The Radeon PRO W6400 scores 8,428 and the Radeon R9 290 reaches 8,184 in the G3D Mark benchmark — just a 3% difference, making them near-identical in rasterization performance. The Radeon PRO W6400 is built on RDNA 2.0 while the Radeon R9 290 uses GCN 2.0, both on 6 nm vs 28 nm. Shader units: 768 (Radeon PRO W6400) vs 2,560 (Radeon R9 290). Raw compute: 3.58 TFLOPS (Radeon PRO W6400) vs 4.849 TFLOPS (Radeon R9 290).
| Feature | Radeon PRO W6400 | Radeon R9 290 |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 8,428+3% | 8,184 |
| Architecture | RDNA 2.0 | GCN 2.0 |
| Process Node | 6 nm | 28 nm |
| Shading Units | 768 | 2560+233% |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 3.58 TFLOPS | 4.849 TFLOPS+35% |
| ROPs | 32 | 64+100% |
| TMUs | 48 | 160+233% |
| L1 Cache | 256 KB | 640 KB+150% |
| L2 Cache | 1 MB | 1 MB |
| Frame Generation | FSR upscaling + RSR | FSR upscaling |
Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)
| Feature | Radeon PRO W6400 | Radeon R9 290 |
|---|---|---|
| Upscaling Tech | FSR Upscaling / FSR 4 | FSR Upscaling / FSR 4 |
| Frame Generation | Not Supported | Not Supported |
| Ray Reconstruction | No | No |
| Low Latency | AMD Anti-Lag | AMD Anti-Lag |
Video Memory (VRAM)
Both cards feature 4 GB of video memory. Bus width: 256-bit vs 512-bit.
| Feature | Radeon PRO W6400 | Radeon R9 290 |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 4 GB | 4 GB |
| Memory Type | GDDR6 | GDDR5 |
| Bus Width | 256-bit | 512-bit+100% |
| L2 Cache | 1 MB | 1 MB |
Display & API Support
DirectX support: 12.2 (Radeon PRO W6400) vs 12.0 (Radeon R9 290). Vulkan: 1.2 vs 1.2. OpenGL: 4.6 vs 4.6. Maximum simultaneous displays: 2 vs 6.
| Feature | Radeon PRO W6400 | Radeon R9 290 |
|---|---|---|
| DirectX | 12.2+2% | 12.0 |
| Vulkan | 1.2 | 1.2 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| Max Displays | 2 | 6+200% |
Media & Encoding
Hardware encoder: VCN 3.0 (Radeon PRO W6400) vs VCE 2.0 (Radeon R9 290). Decoder: VCN 3.0 vs UVD 4.2. Supported codecs: MPEG-2,H.264,HEVC,VP9,AV1 (Decode) (Radeon PRO W6400) vs MPEG-2,H.264,VC-1 (Radeon R9 290).
| Feature | Radeon PRO W6400 | Radeon R9 290 |
|---|---|---|
| Encoder | VCN 3.0 | VCE 2.0 |
| Decoder | VCN 3.0 | UVD 4.2 |
| Codecs | MPEG-2,H.264,HEVC,VP9,AV1 (Decode) | MPEG-2,H.264,VC-1 |
Power & Dimensions
The Radeon PRO W6400 draws 50W versus the Radeon R9 290's 275W — a 138.5% difference. The Radeon PRO W6400 is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 500W (Radeon PRO W6400) vs 750W (Radeon R9 290). Power connectors: PCIe-powered vs 6-pin + 8-pin. Card length: 168mm vs 275mm, occupying 1 vs 2 slots. Typical load temperature: 70°C vs 95°C.
| Feature | Radeon PRO W6400 | Radeon R9 290 |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 50W-82% | 275W |
| Recommended PSU | 500W-33% | 750W |
| Power Connector | PCIe-powered | 6-pin + 8-pin |
| Length | 168mm | 275mm |
| Height | 69mm | 109mm |
| Slots | 1-50% | 2 |
| Temp (Load) | 70°C-26% | 95°C |
| Perf/Watt | 168.6+466% | 29.8 |
Value Analysis
The Radeon PRO W6400 launched at $229 MSRP, while the Radeon R9 290 launched at $399. The Radeon PRO W6400 costs 42.6% less ($170 savings) on MSRP. Performance per dollar on MSRP (G3D Mark / MSRP): 36.8 (Radeon PRO W6400) vs 20.5 (Radeon R9 290) — the Radeon PRO W6400 offers 79.5% better value. The Radeon PRO W6400 is the newer GPU (2022 vs 2013).
| Feature | Radeon PRO W6400 | Radeon R9 290 |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $229-43% | $399 |
| Performance per Dollar | 36.8+80% | 20.5 |
| Codename | Navi 24 | Hawaii |
| Release | January 19 2022 | November 5 2013 |
| Ranking | #308 | #316 |
Top Performing GPUs
The most powerful gpus ranked by G3D Mark benchmark scores.












