Radeon R7 384 Cores (Kaveri Desktop) vs PRO W7500
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon PRO W7500 with Radeon R7 384 Cores (Kaveri Desktop), including specs and performance data.
PRO W7500 outperforms R7 384 Cores (Kaveri Desktop) by a whopping 1154% 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 | 193 | 864 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 39.68 | no data |
| Power efficiency | 34.81 | no data |
| Architecture | RDNA 3.0 (2022−2025) | GCN (2012−2015) |
| GPU code name | Navi 33 | Kaveri Spectre |
| Market segment | Workstation | Desktop |
| Release date | 3 August 2023 (2 years ago) | 14 January 2014 (11 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $429 | no data |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
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 | 1792 | 384 |
| Core clock speed | 1500 MHz | 720 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1700 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 13,300 million | no data |
| Manufacturing process technology | 6 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 70 Watt | no data |
| Texture fill rate | 190.4 | no data |
| Floating-point processing power | 12.19 TFLOPS | no data |
| ROPs | 64 | no data |
| TMUs | 112 | no data |
| Ray Tracing Cores | 28 | no data |
| L0 Cache | 448 KB | no data |
| L1 Cache | 512 KB | no data |
| L2 Cache | 2 MB | no data |
| L3 Cache | 32 MB | 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).
| Interface | PCIe 4.0 x8 | no data |
| Length | 216 mm | no data |
| Width | 1-slot | no data |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | no 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 type | GDDR6 | no data |
| Maximum RAM amount | 8 GB | no data |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | no data |
| Memory clock speed | 1344 MHz | no data |
| Memory bandwidth | 172.0 GB/s | no data |
| Shared memory | - | + |
| Resizable BAR | + | - |
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 | 4x DisplayPort 2.1 | no data |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 Ultimate (12_2) | 12 (FL 12_0) |
| Shader Model | 6.7 | no data |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | no data |
| OpenCL | 2.2 | no data |
| Vulkan | 1.3 | - |
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 | 170−180
+1114%
| 14
−1114%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 2.52 | no data |
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%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+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%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+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%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+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%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+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 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+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 PRO W7500 and R7 384 Cores (Kaveri Desktop) compete in popular games:
- PRO W7500 is 1114% faster in 1080p
All in all, in popular games:
- there's a draw in 55 tests (100%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 31.47 | 2.51 |
| Recency | 3 August 2023 | 14 January 2014 |
| Chip lithography | 6 nm | 28 nm |
PRO W7500 has a 1153.8% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 9 years, and a 366.7% more advanced lithography process.
The Radeon PRO W7500 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon R7 384 Cores (Kaveri Desktop) in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon PRO W7500 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.
