Radeon R9 390 vs GeForce RTX 2080 Mobile
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce RTX 2080 Mobile with Radeon R9 390, including specs and performance data.
RTX 2080 Mobile outperforms R9 390 by an impressive 72% 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 | 147 | 286 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 10.10 |
| Power efficiency | 18.51 | 5.87 |
| Architecture | Turing (2018−2022) | GCN 2.0 (2013−2017) |
| GPU code name | TU104B | Grenada |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop |
| Design | no data | reference |
| Release date | 29 January 2019 (6 years ago) | 18 June 2015 (10 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $329 |
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 | 2944 | 2560 |
| Core clock speed | 1380 MHz | no data |
| Boost clock speed | 1590 MHz | 1000 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 13,600 million | 6,200 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 12 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 150 Watt | 275 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 292.6 | 160.0 |
| Floating-point processing power | 9.362 TFLOPS | 5.12 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 64 | 64 |
| TMUs | 184 | 160 |
| Tensor Cores | 368 | no data |
| Ray Tracing Cores | 46 | 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 | large | no data |
| Bus support | no data | PCIe 3.0 |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Length | no data | 275 mm |
| Width | no data | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | 1 x 6-pin, 1 x 8-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 | GDDR6 | GDDR5 |
| High bandwidth memory (HBM) | no data | - |
| Maximum RAM amount | 8 GB | 0 MB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 512 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 14000 MHz | 1000 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 384.0 GB/s | 384 GB/s |
| 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 | No outputs | 2x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort |
| Eyefinity | - | + |
| Number of Eyefinity displays | no data | 6 |
| HDMI | - | + |
| DisplayPort support | - | + |
| G-SYNC support | + | - |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| CrossFire | - | + |
| FreeSync | - | + |
| PowerTune | - | + |
| TrueAudio | - | + |
| VCE | - | + |
| DDMA audio | no data | + |
| VR Ready | + | no data |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 Ultimate (12_1) | DirectX® 12 |
| Shader Model | 6.5 | 6.3 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 2.0 |
| Vulkan | 1.2.131 | + |
| Mantle | - | + |
| CUDA | 7.5 | - |
| DLSS | + | - |
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 Fire Strike Graphics
Fire Strike is a DirectX 11 benchmark for gaming PCs. It features two separate tests displaying a fight between a humanoid and a fiery creature made of lava. Using 1920x1080 resolution, Fire Strike shows off some realistic graphics and is quite taxing on hardware.
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 | 142
+77.5%
| 80−85
−77.5%
|
| 1440p | 94
+88%
| 50−55
−88%
|
| 4K | 65
+85.7%
| 35−40
−85.7%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | no data | 4.11 |
| 1440p | no data | 6.58 |
| 4K | no data | 9.40 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 200−210
+85.5%
|
110−120
−85.5%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 85−90
+88.9%
|
45−50
−88.9%
|
| God of War | 85−90
+76%
|
50−55
−76%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 132
+76%
|
75−80
−76%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 200−210
+85.5%
|
110−120
−85.5%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 85−90
+88.9%
|
45−50
−88.9%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 104
+73.3%
|
60−65
−73.3%
|
| Fortnite | 206
+87.3%
|
110−120
−87.3%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 147
+72.9%
|
85−90
−72.9%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 110−120
+78.5%
|
65−70
−78.5%
|
| God of War | 85−90
+76%
|
50−55
−76%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 243
+73.6%
|
140−150
−73.6%
|
| Valorant | 276
+72.5%
|
160−170
−72.5%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 118
+81.5%
|
65−70
−81.5%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 200−210
+85.5%
|
110−120
−85.5%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 270−280
+73.8%
|
160−170
−73.8%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 85−90
+88.9%
|
45−50
−88.9%
|
| Dota 2 | 131
+74.7%
|
75−80
−74.7%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 97
+76.4%
|
55−60
−76.4%
|
| Fortnite | 169
+77.9%
|
95−100
−77.9%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 145
+81.3%
|
80−85
−81.3%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 110−120
+78.5%
|
65−70
−78.5%
|
| God of War | 85−90
+76%
|
50−55
−76%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 101
+83.6%
|
55−60
−83.6%
|
| Metro Exodus | 90
+80%
|
50−55
−80%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 214
+78.3%
|
120−130
−78.3%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 174
+74%
|
100−105
−74%
|
| Valorant | 266
+77.3%
|
150−160
−77.3%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 117
+80%
|
65−70
−80%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 85−90
+88.9%
|
45−50
−88.9%
|
| Dota 2 | 125
+78.6%
|
70−75
−78.6%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 96
+74.5%
|
55−60
−74.5%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 139
+73.8%
|
80−85
−73.8%
|
| God of War | 85−90
+76%
|
50−55
−76%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 174
+74%
|
100−105
−74%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 95
+72.7%
|
55−60
−72.7%
|
| Valorant | 205
+86.4%
|
110−120
−86.4%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 155
+72.2%
|
90−95
−72.2%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 90−95
+82%
|
50−55
−82%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 250−260
+82.9%
|
140−150
−82.9%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 70−75
+85%
|
40−45
−85%
|
| Metro Exodus | 55
+83.3%
|
30−33
−83.3%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180
+75%
|
100−105
−75%
|
| Valorant | 260
+73.3%
|
150−160
−73.3%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 115
+76.9%
|
65−70
−76.9%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 40−45
+75%
|
24−27
−75%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 82
+82.2%
|
45−50
−82.2%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 122
+74.3%
|
70−75
−74.3%
|
| God of War | 45−50
+77.8%
|
27−30
−77.8%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 65−70
+72.5%
|
40−45
−72.5%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 124
+77.1%
|
70−75
−77.1%
|
4K
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 40−45
+75%
|
24−27
−75%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 75−80
+73.3%
|
45−50
−73.3%
|
| Metro Exodus | 35
+94.4%
|
18−20
−94.4%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 65
+85.7%
|
35−40
−85.7%
|
| Valorant | 240
+84.6%
|
130−140
−84.6%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 68
+94.3%
|
35−40
−94.3%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 40−45
+75%
|
24−27
−75%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 18−20
+90%
|
10−11
−90%
|
| Dota 2 | 119
+83.1%
|
65−70
−83.1%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 52
+73.3%
|
30−33
−73.3%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 82
+82.2%
|
45−50
−82.2%
|
| God of War | 30−35
+72.2%
|
18−20
−72.2%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 61
+74.3%
|
35−40
−74.3%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 61
+74.3%
|
35−40
−74.3%
|
This is how RTX 2080 Mobile and R9 390 compete in popular games:
- RTX 2080 Mobile is 78% faster in 1080p
- RTX 2080 Mobile is 88% faster in 1440p
- RTX 2080 Mobile is 86% faster in 4K
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 36.45 | 21.18 |
| Recency | 29 January 2019 | 18 June 2015 |
| Chip lithography | 12 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 150 Watt | 275 Watt |
RTX 2080 Mobile has a 72.1% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 3 years, a 133.3% more advanced lithography process, and 83.3% lower power consumption.
The GeForce RTX 2080 Mobile is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon R9 390 in performance tests.
Be aware that GeForce RTX 2080 Mobile is a notebook graphics card while Radeon R9 390 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.
