ATI Radeon 9800 PRO vs R7 384 Cores (Kaveri Desktop)

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon R7 384 Cores (Kaveri Desktop) and Radeon 9800 PRO, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.


R7 384 Cores (Kaveri Desktop)
2014
2.54
+1714%

R7 384 Cores (Kaveri Desktop) outperforms 9800 PRO by a whopping 1714% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking8721492
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiencyno data0.23
ArchitectureGCN (2012−2015)Rage 8 (2002−2007)
GPU code nameKaveri SpectreR350
Market segmentDesktopDesktop
Release date14 January 2014 (12 years ago)1 March 2003 (23 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)no data$399

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 cores384no data
Core clock speed720 MHz380 MHz
Number of transistorsno data117 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm150 nm
Power consumption (TDP)no data47 Watt
Texture fill rateno data3.040
ROPsno data8
TMUsno data8

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).

Interfaceno dataAGP 8x
Widthno data1-slot
Supplementary power connectorsno data1x Molex

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 typeno dataDDR
Maximum RAM amountno data128 MB
Memory bus widthno data256 Bit
Memory clock speedno data340 MHz
Memory bandwidthno data21.76 GB/s
Shared memory+no data

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 data1x DVI, 1x VGA, 1x S-Video

API and SDK support

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

DirectX12 (FL 12_0)9.0 (9_0)
OpenGLno data2.0
OpenCLno dataN/A
Vulkan-N/A

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 HD140−1

Cost per frame, $

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low

Counter-Strike 2 7−8 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 5−6 0−1
Resident Evil 4 Remake 3−4 0−1

Full HD
Medium

Battlefield 5 8−9 0−1
Counter-Strike 2 7−8 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 5−6 0−1
Far Cry 5 7−8 0−1
Fortnite 12−14 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 12−14 0−1
Forza Horizon 5 6−7 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 12−14 0−1
Valorant 40−45
+2050%
2−3
−2050%

Full HD
High

Battlefield 5 8−9 0−1
Counter-Strike 2 7−8 0−1
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 50−55
+2400%
2−3
−2400%
Cyberpunk 2077 5−6 0−1
Dota 2 24−27
+2500%
1−2
−2500%
Far Cry 5 7−8 0−1
Fortnite 12−14 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 12−14 0−1
Forza Horizon 5 6−7 0−1
Grand Theft Auto V 9 0−1
Metro Exodus 4−5 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 12−14 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 9−10 0−1
Valorant 40−45
+2050%
2−3
−2050%

Full HD
Ultra

Battlefield 5 8−9 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 5−6 0−1
Dota 2 24−27
+2500%
1−2
−2500%
Far Cry 5 7−8 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 12−14 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 12−14 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 9−10 0−1
Valorant 40−45
+2050%
2−3
−2050%

Full HD
Epic

Fortnite 12−14 0−1

1440p
High

Counter-Strike 2 6−7 0−1
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 18−20
+1800%
1−2
−1800%
Metro Exodus 0−1 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 24−27
+2300%
1−2
−2300%
Valorant 21−24
+2100%
1−2
−2100%

1440p
Ultra

Cyberpunk 2077 1−2 0−1
Far Cry 5 4−5 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 6−7 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 4−5 0−1

1440p
Epic

Fortnite 5−6 0−1

4K
High

Grand Theft Auto V 14−16 0−1
Valorant 12−14 0−1

4K
Ultra

Cyberpunk 2077 0−1 0−1
Dota 2 7−8 0−1
Far Cry 5 1−2 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 2−3 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 3−4 0−1

4K
Epic

Fortnite 3−4 0−1

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 2.54 0.14
Recency 14 January 2014 1 March 2003
Chip lithography 28 nm 150 nm

R7 384 Cores (Kaveri Desktop) has a 1714% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 10 years, and a 436% more advanced lithography process.

The Radeon R7 384 Cores (Kaveri Desktop) is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon 9800 PRO in performance tests.

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.


3.8 23 votes

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.6 59 votes

Rate Radeon 9800 PRO on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about Radeon R7 384 Cores (Kaveri Desktop) or Radeon 9800 PRO, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.