Radeon R9 M390 vs GeForce GTX 980 Ti
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GTX 980 Ti with Radeon R9 M390, including specs and performance data.
GTX 980 Ti outperforms R9 M390 by a whopping 265% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Contents
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 175 | 507 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 12.20 | no data |
| Power efficiency | 9.99 | no data |
| Architecture | Maxwell 2.0 (2014−2019) | GCN (2012−2015) |
| GPU code name | GM200 | Pitcairn |
| Market segment | Desktop | Laptop |
| Release date | 2 June 2015 (10 years ago) | 9 June 2015 (10 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $649 | no data |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.
Performance to price scatter graph
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 | 2816 | 1024 |
| Core clock speed | 1000 MHz | no data |
| Boost clock speed | 1075 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 8,000 million | 5000 Million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 250 Watt | no data |
| Texture fill rate | 189.4 | no data |
| Floating-point processing power | 6.06 TFLOPS | no data |
| ROPs | 96 | no data |
| TMUs | 176 | no 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).
| Laptop size | no data | large |
| Bus support | PCI Express 3.0 | PCIe 3.0 |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | no data |
| Length | 267 mm | no data |
| Height | 4.376" (11.1 cm) | no data |
| Width | 2-slot | no data |
| Recommended system power (PSU) | 600 Watt | no data |
| Supplementary power connectors | 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin | no data |
| SLI options | + | - |
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 | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 6 GB | 2 GB |
| Memory bus width | 384 Bit | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 7.0 GB/s | no data |
| Memory bandwidth | 336.5 GB/s | no 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 Connectors | Dual Link DVI-I, HDMI 2.0, 3x DisplayPort 1.2 | no data |
| Multi monitor support | 4 displays | no data |
| Eyefinity | - | + |
| HDMI | + | - |
| HDCP | + | - |
| Maximum VGA resolution | 2048x1536 | no data |
| G-SYNC support | + | - |
| Audio input for HDMI | Internal | no data |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| FreeSync | - | + |
| HD3D | - | + |
| PowerTune | - | + |
| DualGraphics | - | + |
| ZeroCore | - | + |
| Switchable graphics | - | + |
| GameStream | + | - |
| GeForce ShadowPlay | + | - |
| GPU Boost | 2.0 | no data |
| GameWorks | + | - |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (12_1) | DirectX® 12 |
| Shader Model | 6.4 | no data |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.4 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | Not Listed |
| Vulkan | 1.1.126 | - |
| Mantle | - | + |
| CUDA | + | - |
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.
3DMark 11 Performance GPU
3DMark 11 is an obsolete DirectX 11 benchmark by Futuremark. It used four tests based on two scenes, one being few submarines exploring the submerged wreck of a sunken ship, the other is an abandoned temple deep in the jungle. All the tests are heavy with volumetric lighting and tessellation, and despite being done in 1280x720 resolution, are relatively taxing. Discontinued in January 2020, 3DMark 11 is now superseded by Time Spy.
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 | 100
+133%
| 43
−133%
|
| 1440p | 49
+308%
| 12−14
−308%
|
| 4K | 51
+155%
| 20
−155%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 6.49 | no data |
| 1440p | 13.24 | no data |
| 4K | 12.73 | no data |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 180−190
+288%
|
45−50
−288%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 75−80
+317%
|
18−20
−317%
|
| God of War | 75−80
+328%
|
18−20
−328%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 120−130
+200%
|
40−45
−200%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 180−190
+288%
|
45−50
−288%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 75−80
+317%
|
18−20
−317%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 100−110
+269%
|
27−30
−269%
|
| Fortnite | 140−150
+169%
|
55−60
−169%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 120−130
+223%
|
40−45
−223%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 100−110
+289%
|
27−30
−289%
|
| God of War | 75−80
+328%
|
18−20
−328%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 130−140
+303%
|
30−35
−303%
|
| Valorant | 200−210
+129%
|
85−90
−129%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 120−130
+200%
|
40−45
−200%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 180−190
+288%
|
45−50
−288%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 270−280
+97.9%
|
140−150
−97.9%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 75−80
+317%
|
18−20
−317%
|
| Dota 2 | 130−140
+106%
|
65−70
−106%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 100−110
+269%
|
27−30
−269%
|
| Fortnite | 140−150
+169%
|
55−60
−169%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 120−130
+223%
|
40−45
−223%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 100−110
+289%
|
27−30
−289%
|
| God of War | 75−80
+328%
|
18−20
−328%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 34
+0%
|
34
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 75−80
+328%
|
18−20
−328%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 130−140
+303%
|
30−35
−303%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 110−120
+255%
|
31
−255%
|
| Valorant | 200−210
+129%
|
85−90
−129%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 94
+135%
|
40−45
−135%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 75−80
+317%
|
18−20
−317%
|
| Dota 2 | 130−140
+106%
|
65−70
−106%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 77
+166%
|
27−30
−166%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 72
+80%
|
40−45
−80%
|
| God of War | 75−80
+328%
|
18−20
−328%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 72
+118%
|
30−35
−118%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 59
+228%
|
18
−228%
|
| Valorant | 200−210
+129%
|
85−90
−129%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 88
+60%
|
55−60
−60%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 75−80
+365%
|
16−18
−365%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 230−240
+230%
|
70−75
−230%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 65−70
+442%
|
12−14
−442%
|
| Metro Exodus | 45−50
+370%
|
10−11
−370%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180
+272%
|
45−50
−272%
|
| Valorant | 230−240
+136%
|
100−110
−136%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 85−90
+300%
|
21−24
−300%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 35−40
+414%
|
7−8
−414%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 75−80
+316%
|
18−20
−316%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 90−95
+314%
|
21−24
−314%
|
| God of War | 40−45
+367%
|
9−10
−367%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 55−60
+392%
|
12−14
−392%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 85−90
+347%
|
18−20
−347%
|
4K
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 35−40
+1100%
|
3−4
−1100%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 79
+295%
|
20−22
−295%
|
| Metro Exodus | 30−33
+500%
|
5−6
−500%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 44
+267%
|
12
−267%
|
| Valorant | 200−210
+328%
|
45−50
−328%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 40
+264%
|
10−12
−264%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 35−40
+1100%
|
3−4
−1100%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 16−18
+433%
|
3−4
−433%
|
| Dota 2 | 132
+300%
|
30−35
−300%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 30
+233%
|
9−10
−233%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 42
+180%
|
14−16
−180%
|
| God of War | 27−30
+300%
|
7−8
−300%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 26
+189%
|
9−10
−189%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 32
+256%
|
9−10
−256%
|
This is how GTX 980 Ti and R9 M390 compete in popular games:
- GTX 980 Ti is 133% faster in 1080p
- GTX 980 Ti is 308% faster in 1440p
- GTX 980 Ti is 155% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Counter-Strike 2, with 4K resolution and the High Preset, the GTX 980 Ti is 1100% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- GTX 980 Ti performs better in 64 tests (98%)
- there's a draw in 1 test (2%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 32.72 | 8.96 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 6 GB | 2 GB |
GTX 980 Ti has a 265.2% higher aggregate performance score, and a 200% higher maximum VRAM amount.
The GeForce GTX 980 Ti is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon R9 M390 in performance tests.
Be aware that GeForce GTX 980 Ti is a desktop graphics card while Radeon R9 M390 is a notebook one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
