FireStream 9250 vs Radeon HD 6380G

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon HD 6380G with FireStream 9250, including specs and performance data.


HD 6380G
2011, $400
35 Watt
0.48

FireStream 9250 outperforms HD 6380G by a whopping 479% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking1305847
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiency1.061.43
ArchitectureTeraScale 2 (2009−2015)TeraScale (2005−2013)
GPU code nameSuperSumoRV770
Market segmentLaptopWorkstation
Release date14 June 2011 (14 years ago)16 June 2008 (17 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$399.99 no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.

no data

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 cores160800
Core clock speed400 MHz625 MHz
Number of transistors1,178 million956 million
Manufacturing process technology32 nm55 nm
Power consumption (TDP)35 Watt150 Watt
Texture fill rate3.20025.00
Floating-point processing power0.128 TFLOPS1 TFLOPS
ROPs416
TMUs840
L1 Cacheno data160 KB
L2 Cacheno data256 KB

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).

InterfaceIGPPCIe 2.0 x16
Widthno data1-slot
Supplementary power connectorsno data1x 6-pin

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 typeSystem SharedGDDR3
Maximum RAM amountSystem Shared1 GB
Memory bus widthSystem Shared256 Bit
Memory clock speedSystem Shared993 MHz
Memory bandwidthno data63.55 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 ConnectorsNo outputs1x DVI

API and SDK support

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

DirectX11.2 (11_0)10.1 (10_1)
Shader Model5.04.1
OpenGL4.43.3
OpenCL1.21.1
VulkanN/AN/A

Synthetic benchmarks

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.

HD 6380G 0.48
FireStream 9250 2.78
+479%

Passmark

This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark. It gives the graphics card a thorough evaluation under various types of load, providing four separate benchmarks for Direct3D versions 9, 10, 11 and 12 (the last being done in 4K resolution if possible), and few more tests engaging DirectCompute capabilities.

HD 6380G 200
Samples: 111
FireStream 9250 1164
+482%
Samples: 2

Gaming performance

Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low

Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
−400%
5−6
+400%

Full HD
Medium

Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
−400%
5−6
+400%
Forza Horizon 4 4−5
−425%
21−24
+425%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 7−8
−471%
40−45
+471%
Valorant 27−30
−456%
150−160
+456%

Full HD
High

Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 16−18
−459%
95−100
+459%
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
−400%
5−6
+400%
Dota 2 10−12
−445%
60−65
+445%
Forza Horizon 4 4−5
−425%
21−24
+425%
Metro Exodus 0−1 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 7−8
−471%
40−45
+471%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 5−6
−440%
27−30
+440%
Valorant 27−30
−456%
150−160
+456%

Full HD
Ultra

Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
−400%
5−6
+400%
Dota 2 10−12
−445%
60−65
+445%
Forza Horizon 4 4−5
−425%
21−24
+425%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 7−8
−471%
40−45
+471%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 5−6
−440%
27−30
+440%
Valorant 27−30
−456%
150−160
+456%

1440p
High

Counter-Strike 2 3−4
−433%
16−18
+433%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 2−3
−400%
10−11
+400%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 5−6
−440%
27−30
+440%

1440p
Ultra

Forza Horizon 4 2−3
−400%
10−11
+400%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 1−2
−400%
5−6
+400%

1440p
Epic

Fortnite 0−1 0−1

4K
High

Grand Theft Auto V 14−16
−471%
80−85
+471%
Valorant 2−3
−400%
10−11
+400%

4K
Ultra

PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 2−3
−400%
10−11
+400%

4K
Epic

Fortnite 2−3
−400%
10−11
+400%

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 0.48 2.78
Recency 14 June 2011 16 June 2008
Chip lithography 32 nm 55 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 35 Watt 150 Watt

HD 6380G has an age advantage of 2 years, a 72% more advanced lithography process, and 329% lower power consumption.

FireStream 9250, on the other hand, has a 479% higher aggregate performance score.

The FireStream 9250 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon HD 6380G in performance tests.

Be aware that Radeon HD 6380G is a notebook graphics card while FireStream 9250 is a workstation one.

Other comparisons

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

Community ratings

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


2.5 39 votes

Rate Radeon HD 6380G on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.3 6 votes

Rate FireStream 9250 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about Radeon HD 6380G or FireStream 9250, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.