Radeon R9 380 vs Apple M1 8-Core GPU
Aggregate performance score
We've compared M1 8-Core GPU with Radeon R9 380, including specs and performance data.
R9 380 outperforms Apple M1 8-Core GPU by a moderate 16% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 379 | 343 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 9.20 |
| Power efficiency | no data | 5.77 |
| Architecture | no data | GCN 3.0 (2014−2019) |
| GPU code name | no data | Antigua |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop |
| Design | no data | reference |
| Release date | 10 November 2020 (4 years ago) | 18 June 2015 (9 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $199 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
Detailed specifications
General parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 8 | 1792 |
| Compute units | no data | 28 |
| Core clock speed | 1278 MHz | no data |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 970 MHz |
| Number of transistors | no data | 5,000 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 5 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | no data | 190 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | no data | 108.6 |
| Floating-point processing power | no data | 3.476 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | no data | 32 |
| TMUs | no data | 112 |
Form factor & compatibility
Information on compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For desktop graphics cards it's interface and bus (motherboard compatibility), additional power connectors (power supply compatibility).
| Bus support | no data | PCIe 3.0 |
| Interface | no data | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Length | no data | 221 mm |
| Width | no data | 2-slot |
| Form factor | no data | full height / full length / dual slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | 2 x 6-pin |
| Bridgeless CrossFire | - | + |
VRAM capacity and type
Parameters of VRAM installed: its type, size, bus, clock and resulting bandwidth. Integrated GPUs have no dedicated video RAM and use a shared part of system RAM.
| Memory type | no data | GDDR5 |
| High bandwidth memory (HBM) | no data | - |
| Maximum RAM amount | no data | 4 GB |
| Memory bus width | no data | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | no data | 970 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | no data | 182.4 GB/s |
| Shared memory | + | - |
Connectivity and outputs
Types and number of video connectors present on the reviewed GPUs. As a rule, data in this section is precise only for desktop reference ones (so-called Founders Edition for NVIDIA chips). OEM manufacturers may change the number and type of output ports, while for notebook cards availability of certain video outputs ports depends on the laptop model rather than on the card itself.
| Display Connectors | no data | 2x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort |
| Eyefinity | - | + |
| Number of Eyefinity displays | no data | 6 |
| HDMI | - | + |
| DisplayPort support | - | + |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| CrossFire | - | + |
| FRTC | - | + |
| FreeSync | - | + |
| HD3D | - | + |
| LiquidVR | - | + |
| PowerTune | - | + |
| TrueAudio | - | + |
| ZeroCore | - | + |
| VCE | - | + |
| DDMA audio | no data | + |
API compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | no data | DirectX® 12 |
| Shader Model | no data | 6.3 |
| OpenGL | no data | 4.5 |
| OpenCL | no data | 2.0 |
| Vulkan | - | + |
| Mantle | - | + |
Synthetic benchmark performance
Non-gaming benchmark results comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.
Combined synthetic benchmark score
This is our combined benchmark score. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.
3DMark Ice Storm GPU
Ice Storm Graphics is an obsolete benchmark, part of 3DMark suite. Ice Storm was used to measure entry level laptops and Windows-based tablets performance. It utilizes DirectX 11 feature level 9 to display a battle between two space fleets near a frozen planet in 1280x720 resolution. Discontinued in January 2020, it is now superseded by 3DMark Night Raid.
Gaming performance
Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.
Average FPS across all PC games
Here are the average frames per second in a large set of popular games across different resolutions:
| Full HD | 27
−141%
| 65
+141%
|
| 4K | 21−24
−28.6%
| 27
+28.6%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | no data | 3.06 |
| 4K | no data | 7.37 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 21−24
−17.4%
|
27−30
+17.4%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 27−30
−14.8%
|
30−35
+14.8%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 45−50
−13.3%
|
50−55
+13.3%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 21−24
−17.4%
|
27−30
+17.4%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 27−30
−14.8%
|
30−35
+14.8%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 55−60
−18.2%
|
65−70
+18.2%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 35−40
−16.7%
|
40−45
+16.7%
|
| Metro Exodus | 35−40
−13.2%
|
40−45
+13.2%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 30−35
−11.8%
|
35−40
+11.8%
|
| Valorant | 55−60
−16.4%
|
60−65
+16.4%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 45−50
−13.3%
|
50−55
+13.3%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 21−24
−17.4%
|
27−30
+17.4%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 27−30
−14.8%
|
30−35
+14.8%
|
| Dota 2 | 50−55
−14%
|
55−60
+14%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 50−55
−9.6%
|
55−60
+9.6%
|
| Fortnite | 75−80
−14.3%
|
85−90
+14.3%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 55−60
−18.2%
|
65−70
+18.2%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 35−40
−16.7%
|
40−45
+16.7%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 45−50
−16.3%
|
55−60
+16.3%
|
| Metro Exodus | 35−40
−13.2%
|
40−45
+13.2%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 100−105
−13%
|
110−120
+13%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 30−35
−11.8%
|
35−40
+11.8%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 40−45
−23.8%
|
52
+23.8%
|
| Valorant | 55−60
−16.4%
|
60−65
+16.4%
|
| World of Tanks | 180−190
−10.4%
|
200−210
+10.4%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 45−50
−13.3%
|
50−55
+13.3%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 21−24
−17.4%
|
27−30
+17.4%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 27−30
−14.8%
|
30−35
+14.8%
|
| Dota 2 | 50−55
−14%
|
55−60
+14%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 50−55
−9.6%
|
55−60
+9.6%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 55−60
−18.2%
|
65−70
+18.2%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 35−40
−16.7%
|
40−45
+16.7%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 100−105
−13%
|
110−120
+13%
|
| Valorant | 55−60
−16.4%
|
60−65
+16.4%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Dota 2 | 20−22
−20%
|
24−27
+20%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 20−22
−20%
|
24−27
+20%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 100−110
−34.9%
|
140−150
+34.9%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 12−14
−16.7%
|
14−16
+16.7%
|
| World of Tanks | 95−100
−14.6%
|
110−120
+14.6%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 27−30
−18.5%
|
30−35
+18.5%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 30−35
+0%
|
30−35
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 10−11
−20%
|
12−14
+20%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 30−35
−21.9%
|
35−40
+21.9%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 30−35
−21.2%
|
40−45
+21.2%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 21−24
−19%
|
24−27
+19%
|
| Metro Exodus | 27−30
−20.7%
|
35−40
+20.7%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 18−20
−16.7%
|
21−24
+16.7%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
−17.6%
|
40−45
+17.6%
|
4K
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 9−10
−22.2%
|
10−12
+22.2%
|
| Dota 2 | 24−27
−12.5%
|
27−30
+12.5%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 24−27
−12.5%
|
27−30
+12.5%
|
| Metro Exodus | 9−10
−22.2%
|
10−12
+22.2%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 40−45
−17.5%
|
45−50
+17.5%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 9−10
−11.1%
|
10−11
+11.1%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 24−27
−12.5%
|
27−30
+12.5%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 12−14
−15.4%
|
14−16
+15.4%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 9−10
−22.2%
|
10−12
+22.2%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
−25%
|
5−6
+25%
|
| Dota 2 | 24−27
−12.5%
|
27−30
+12.5%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 16−18
−17.6%
|
20−22
+17.6%
|
| Fortnite | 14−16
−20%
|
18−20
+20%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 18−20
−21.1%
|
21−24
+21.1%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 10−11
−20%
|
12−14
+20%
|
| Valorant | 14−16
−20%
|
18−20
+20%
|
This is how Apple M1 8-Core GPU and R9 380 compete in popular games:
- R9 380 is 141% faster in 1080p
- R9 380 is 29% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS, with 1440p resolution and the High Preset, the R9 380 is 35% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- R9 380 is ahead in 63 tests (98%)
- there's a draw in 1 test (2%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 13.70 | 15.89 |
| Recency | 10 November 2020 | 18 June 2015 |
| Chip lithography | 5 nm | 28 nm |
Apple M1 8-Core GPU has an age advantage of 5 years, and a 460% more advanced lithography process.
R9 380, on the other hand, has a 16% higher aggregate performance score.
The Radeon R9 380 is our recommended choice as it beats the M1 8-Core GPU in performance tests.
Be aware that Apple M1 8-Core GPU is a notebook card while Radeon R9 380 is a desktop one.
Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
