Radeon R7 384 Cores (Kaveri Desktop) vs FirePro V7900

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
A300 A320 V5900 V7900 V7900 SDI
VS
#ad 
Buy on Amazon
340 OEM 350 350 640SP 350 Fake Card 350 OEM 350X OEM 360 360 896SP 360E 370 384 Cores (Kaveri Desktop)

Aggregate performance score

We've compared FirePro V7900 with Radeon R7 384 Cores (Kaveri Desktop), including specs and performance data.

FirePro V7900
2011
2 GB GDDR5, 151 Watt
5.40
+113%

V7900 outperforms R7 384 Cores (Kaveri Desktop) by a whopping 113% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Contents

Share:
FirePro V7900 FirePro V7900
R7 384 Cores (Kaveri Desktop) R7 384 Cores (Kaveri Desktop)

Primary details

GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.

Place in the ranking663872
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiency2.77no data
ArchitectureTeraScale 3 (2010−2013)GCN (2012−2015)
GPU code nameCaymanKaveri Spectre
Market segmentWorkstationDesktop
Release date24 May 2011 (14 years ago)14 January 2014 (12 years ago)

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 cores1280384
Core clock speed725 MHz720 MHz
Number of transistors2,640 millionno data
Manufacturing process technology40 nm28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)151 Wattno data
Texture fill rate58.00no data
Floating-point processing power1.856 TFLOPSno data
ROPs32no data
TMUs80no data
L1 Cache320 KBno data
L2 Cache512 KBno data

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 supportPCIe 2.1 x16no data
InterfacePCIe 2.0 x16no data
Length279 mmno data
Width1-slotno data
Form factorfull height / full lengthno data
Supplementary power connectors1x 6-pinno data

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 typeGDDR5no data
Maximum RAM amount2 GBno data
Memory bus width256 Bitno data
Memory clock speed1250 MHzno data
Memory bandwidth160 GB/sno data
Shared memory-+

Connectivity and outputs

This section shows the types and number of video connectors on each GPU. The data applies specifically to desktop reference models (for example, NVIDIA’s Founders Edition). OEM partners often modify both the number and types of ports. On notebook GPUs, video‐output options are determined by the laptop’s design rather than the graphics chip itself.

Display Connectors4x DisplayPortno data
StereoOutput3D+-
DisplayPort count4no data
Dual-link DVI support+-

API and SDK support

List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.

DirectX11.2 (11_0)12 (FL 12_0)
Shader Model5.0no data
OpenGL4.4no data
OpenCL1.2no data
VulkanN/A-

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 HD27−30
+92.9%
14
−92.9%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low

Counter-Strike 2 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Resident Evil 4 Remake 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%

Full HD
Medium

Battlefield 5 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Far Cry 5 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Fortnite 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Valorant 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%

Full HD
High

Battlefield 5 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Dota 2 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Far Cry 5 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Fortnite 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 9
+0%
9
+0%
Metro Exodus 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Valorant 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%

Full HD
Ultra

Battlefield 5 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Dota 2 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Far Cry 5 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Valorant 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%

Full HD
Epic

Fortnite 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%

1440p
High

Counter-Strike 2 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Metro Exodus 0−1 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Valorant 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%

1440p
Ultra

Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Far Cry 5 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%

1440p
Epic

Fortnite 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%

4K
High

Grand Theft Auto V 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Valorant 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%

4K
Ultra

Cyberpunk 2077 0−1 0−1
Dota 2 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Far Cry 5 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%

4K
Epic

Fortnite 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%

This is how FirePro V7900 and R7 384 Cores (Kaveri Desktop) compete in popular games:

  • FirePro V7900 is 93% faster in 1080p

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 51 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score 5.40 2.54
Recency 24 May 2011 14 January 2014
Chip lithography 40 nm 28 nm

FirePro V7900 has a 113% higher aggregate performance score.

R7 384 Cores (Kaveri Desktop), on the other hand, has an age advantage of 2 years, and a 43% more advanced lithography process.

The FirePro V7900 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon R7 384 Cores (Kaveri Desktop) in performance tests.

Be aware that FirePro V7900 is a workstation graphics card while Radeon R7 384 Cores (Kaveri Desktop) is a desktop one.

Other comparisons

We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.

FirePro V7900 FirePro V7900
vs
Quadro K620 Quadro K620
R7 384 Cores (Kaveri Desktop) Radeon R7 384 Cores (Kaveri Desktop)
vs
R5 430 OEM Radeon R5 430 OEM
FirePro V7900 FirePro V7900
vs
GRID M60-4A GRID M60-4A
FirePro V5900 FirePro V5900
vs
6000 SDI 6000 SDI
FirePro V5900 FirePro V5900
vs
7800 GT 7800 GT
FirePro V5900 FirePro V5900
vs
GTX 1650 TU106 1650 TU106
FirePro V5900 FirePro V5900
vs
UHD Graphics 64EU 64EU
FirePro V5900 FirePro V5900
vs
RX 6750 GRE 12 GB 6750 GRE 12 GB
FirePro V7900 FirePro V7900
vs
FX 3450 3450
FirePro V7900 FirePro V7900
vs
RX 550X 550X
FirePro V7900 FirePro V7900
vs
UHD Graphics Xe G4 48EUs Xe G4 48EUs
V7900 SDI FirePro V7900 SDI
vs
ATI HD 2400 2400
V7900 SDI FirePro V7900 SDI
vs
RTX 3070 Mobile 3070 Mobile

Community ratings

Here you can see the user ratings of the compared graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.

3.6 18 votes

Rate FirePro V7900 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.8 23 votes

Rate Radeon R7 384 Cores (Kaveri Desktop) on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about FirePro V7900 or Radeon R7 384 Cores (Kaveri Desktop), agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.