Radeon R7 384 Cores (Kaveri Desktop) vs Pro W5500M

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
Pro 5300M Pro 5500M Pro 5600M Pro W5300M Pro W5500M
VS
#ad 
Buy on Amazon
340 OEM 350 350 640SP 350 Fake Card 350 OEM 350X OEM 360 360 896SP 360E 370 384 Cores (Kaveri Desktop)

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon Pro W5500M with Radeon R7 384 Cores (Kaveri Desktop), including specs and performance data.

Pro W5500M
2020
4 GB GDDR6, 85 Watt
8.29
+226%

Pro W5500M outperforms R7 384 Cores (Kaveri Desktop) by a whopping 226% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Contents

Share:
Pro W5500M Pro W5500M
R7 384 Cores (Kaveri Desktop) R7 384 Cores (Kaveri Desktop)

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking545865
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiency7.49no data
ArchitectureRDNA 1.0 (2019−2020)GCN (2012−2015)
GPU code nameNavi 14Kaveri Spectre
Market segmentMobile workstationDesktop
Release date10 February 2020 (5 years ago)14 January 2014 (11 years ago)

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 cores1408384
Core clock speed1000 MHz720 MHz
Boost clock speed1450 MHzno data
Number of transistors6,400 millionno data
Manufacturing process technology7 nm28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)85 Wattno data
Texture fill rate127.6no data
Floating-point processing power4.083 TFLOPSno data
ROPs32no data
TMUs88no data
L2 Cache2 MBno 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).

InterfacePCIe 4.0 x8no data
Supplementary power connectorsNoneno 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 typeGDDR6no data
Maximum RAM amount4 GBno data
Memory bus width128 Bitno data
Memory clock speed1500 MHzno data
Memory bandwidth192.0 GB/sno 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 ConnectorsNo outputsno data

API and SDK support

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

DirectX12 (12_1)12 (FL 12_0)
Shader Model6.5no data
OpenGL4.6no data
OpenCL2.0no data
Vulkan1.2.131-

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 HD45−50
+221%
14
−221%

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%

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%
Escape from Tarkov 9−10
+0%
9−10
+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%
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%
Escape from Tarkov 9−10
+0%
9−10
+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%
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%
Escape from Tarkov 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Far Cry 5 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 12−14
+0%
12−14
+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%
Escape from Tarkov 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Far Cry 5 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 6−7
+0%
6−7
+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%
Escape from Tarkov 1−2
+0%
1−2
+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 W5500M and R7 384 Cores (Kaveri Desktop) compete in popular games:

  • Pro W5500M is 221% faster in 1080p

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 55 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score 8.29 2.54
Recency 10 February 2020 14 January 2014
Chip lithography 7 nm 28 nm

Pro W5500M has a 226.4% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 6 years, and a 300% more advanced lithography process.

The Radeon Pro W5500M is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon R7 384 Cores (Kaveri Desktop) in performance tests.

Be aware that Radeon Pro W5500M is a mobile workstation graphics card while Radeon R7 384 Cores (Kaveri Desktop) is a desktop one.

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite graphics card.

AMD Radeon Pro W5500M
Radeon Pro W5500M
AMD Radeon R7 384 Cores (Kaveri Desktop)
Radeon R7 384 Cores (Kaveri Desktop)
Like
Like

Other comparisons

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

Pro W5500M Radeon Pro W5500M
vs
T500 Mobile Quadro T500 Mobile
R7 384 Cores (Kaveri Desktop) Radeon R7 384 Cores (Kaveri Desktop)
vs
UHD Graphics 710 UHD Graphics 710
Pro W5500M Radeon Pro W5500M
vs
M2000M Quadro M2000M
RX 5600 XT AMD Radeon RX 5600 XT
vs
RTX A5000 Max-Q RTX A5000 Max-Q
RX 5900 XT Radeon RX 5900 XT
vs
RTX 2050 Mobile 2050 Mobile
RX 7600 XT AMD RX 7600 XT
vs
RX 5900 XT RX 5900 XT
Xbox Series X GPU AMD Xbox Series X GPU
vs
Arc A770 Arc A770
Pro W5300M AMD Radeon Pro W5300M
vs
RTX PRO 5000 Blackwell PRO 5000 Blackwell
Pro W5500M AMD Radeon Pro W5500M
vs
R7 360E R7 360E
Pro W5500M AMD Radeon Pro W5500M
vs
R7 350 R7 350
RX 5800 XT AMD Radeon RX 5800 XT
vs
520 OEM Radeon 520 OEM
RX 5900 AMD Radeon RX 5900
vs
Graphics 512SP Graphics 512SP
RX 5900 AMD Radeon RX 5900
vs
A800 PCIe 40 GB PCIe 40 GB

Community ratings

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

2.3 4 votes

Rate Radeon Pro W5500M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.9 21 votes

Rate Radeon R7 384 Cores (Kaveri Desktop) on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about Radeon Pro W5500M or Radeon R7 384 Cores (Kaveri Desktop), agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.