Radeon R9 380 vs Pro Vega 64

Place in the ranking	160	343
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	no data	9.20
Power efficiency	9.27	5.77
Architecture	GCN 5.0 (2017−2020)	GCN 3.0 (2014−2019)
GPU code name	Vega 10	Antigua
Market segment	Workstation	Desktop
Design	no data	reference
Release date	27 June 2017 (7 years ago)	18 June 2015 (9 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	no data	$199

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

no data

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	4096	1792
Compute units	no data	28
Core clock speed	1250 MHz	no data
Boost clock speed	1350 MHz	970 MHz
Number of transistors	12,500 million	5,000 million
Manufacturing process technology	14 nm	28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	250 Watt	190 Watt
Texture fill rate	345.6	108.6
Floating-point processing power	11.06 TFLOPS	3.476 TFLOPS
ROPs	64	32
TMUs	256	112

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 support	no data	PCIe 3.0
Interface	PCIe 3.0 x16	PCIe 3.0 x16
Length	267 mm	221 mm
Width	IGP	2-slot
Form factor	no data	full height / full length / dual slot
Supplementary power connectors	None	2 x 6-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	HBM2	GDDR5
High bandwidth memory (HBM)	no data	-
Maximum RAM amount	16 GB	4 GB
Memory bus width	2048 Bit	256 Bit
Memory clock speed	786 MHz	970 MHz
Memory bandwidth	402.4 GB/s	182.4 GB/s
Shared memory	-	-

Connectivity and outputs

Types and number of video connectors present on the reviewed GPUs. As a rule, data in this section is precise only for desktop reference ones (so-called Founders Edition for NVIDIA chips). OEM manufacturers may change the number and type of output ports, while for notebook cards availability of certain video outputs ports depends on the laptop model rather than on the card itself.

Display Connectors	No outputs	2x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort
Eyefinity	-	+
Number of Eyefinity displays	no data	6
HDMI	-	+
DisplayPort support	-	+

Supported technologies

Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.

CrossFire	-	+
FRTC	-	+
FreeSync	-	+
HD3D	-	+
LiquidVR	-	+
PowerTune	-	+
TrueAudio	-	+
ZeroCore	-	+
VCE	-	+
DDMA audio	no data	+

API compatibility

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

DirectX	12 (12_1)	DirectX® 12
Shader Model	6.4	6.3
OpenGL	4.6	4.5
OpenCL	2.0	2.0
Vulkan	1.1.125	+
Mantle	-	+

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. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.

Pro Vega 64 33.61
+112%

R9 380 15.89

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.

Pro Vega 64 12920
+112%

R9 380 6108

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	130−140 +100%	65 −100%
4K	55−60 +104%	27 −104%

Cost per frame, $

1080p	no data	3.06
4K	no data	7.37

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2	27−30 +0%	27−30 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	30−35 +0%	30−35 +0%
Elden Ring	45−50 +0%	45−50 +0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5	50−55 +0%	50−55 +0%
Counter-Strike 2	27−30 +0%	27−30 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	30−35 +0%	30−35 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	65−70 +0%	65−70 +0%
Metro Exodus	40−45 +0%	40−45 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	35−40 +0%	35−40 +0%
Valorant	60−65 +0%	60−65 +0%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5	50−55 +0%	50−55 +0%
Counter-Strike 2	27−30 +0%	27−30 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	30−35 +0%	30−35 +0%
Dota 2	55−60 +0%	55−60 +0%
Elden Ring	45−50 +0%	45−50 +0%
Far Cry 5	55−60 +0%	55−60 +0%
Fortnite	85−90 +0%	85−90 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	65−70 +0%	65−70 +0%
Grand Theft Auto V	55−60 +0%	55−60 +0%
Metro Exodus	40−45 +0%	40−45 +0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	110−120 +0%	110−120 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	35−40 +0%	35−40 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	52 +0%	52 +0%
Valorant	60−65 +0%	60−65 +0%
World of Tanks	200−210 +0%	200−210 +0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	50−55 +0%	50−55 +0%
Counter-Strike 2	27−30 +0%	27−30 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	30−35 +0%	30−35 +0%
Dota 2	55−60 +0%	55−60 +0%
Far Cry 5	55−60 +0%	55−60 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	65−70 +0%	65−70 +0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	110−120 +0%	110−120 +0%
Valorant	60−65 +0%	60−65 +0%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2	24−27 +0%	24−27 +0%
Elden Ring	24−27 +0%	24−27 +0%
Grand Theft Auto V	24−27 +0%	24−27 +0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	140−150 +0%	140−150 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	14−16 +0%	14−16 +0%
World of Tanks	110−120 +0%	110−120 +0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	30−35 +0%	30−35 +0%
Counter-Strike 2	30−35 +0%	30−35 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	12−14 +0%	12−14 +0%
Far Cry 5	35−40 +0%	35−40 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	40−45 +0%	40−45 +0%
Metro Exodus	35−40 +0%	35−40 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	21−24 +0%	21−24 +0%
Valorant	40−45 +0%	40−45 +0%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2	10−12 +0%	10−12 +0%
Dota 2	27−30 +0%	27−30 +0%
Elden Ring	10−12 +0%	10−12 +0%
Grand Theft Auto V	27−30 +0%	27−30 +0%
Metro Exodus	10−12 +0%	10−12 +0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	45−50 +0%	45−50 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	10−11 +0%	10−11 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	27−30 +0%	27−30 +0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	14−16 +0%	14−16 +0%
Counter-Strike 2	10−12 +0%	10−12 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	5−6 +0%	5−6 +0%
Dota 2	27−30 +0%	27−30 +0%
Far Cry 5	20−22 +0%	20−22 +0%
Fortnite	18−20 +0%	18−20 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	21−24 +0%	21−24 +0%
Valorant	18−20 +0%	18−20 +0%

This is how Pro Vega 64 and R9 380 compete in popular games:

Pro Vega 64 is 100% faster in 1080p
Pro Vega 64 is 104% faster in 4K

All in all, in popular games:

there's a draw in 63 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	33.61	15.89
Recency	27 June 2017	18 June 2015
Maximum RAM amount	16 GB	4 GB
Chip lithography	14 nm	28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	250 Watt	190 Watt

Pro Vega 64 has a 111.5% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 2 years, a 300% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 100% more advanced lithography process.

R9 380, on the other hand, has 31.6% lower power consumption.

The Radeon Pro Vega 64 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon R9 380 in performance tests.

Be aware that Radeon Pro Vega 64 is a workstation graphics card while Radeon R9 380 is a desktop one.

Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.