Radeon Pro V320 MxGPU vs R9 285
Contents
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 367 | not rated |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 7.67 | no data |
| Power efficiency | 6.47 | no data |
| Architecture | GCN 3.0 (2014−2019) | GCN 5.0 (2017−2020) |
| GPU code name | Tonga | Vega 10 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Workstation |
| Release date | 2 September 2014 (11 years ago) | 29 June 2017 (8 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $249 | 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 | 3584 ×2 |
| Core clock speed | 918 MHz | 852 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 1000 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 5,000 million | 12,500 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 190 Watt | 230 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 102.8 | 224.0 ×2 |
| Floating-point processing power | 3.29 TFLOPS | 7.168 TFLOPS ×2 |
| ROPs | 32 | 64 ×2 |
| TMUs | 112 | 224 ×2 |
| L1 Cache | 448 KB | 896 KB |
| L2 Cache | 512 KB | 4 MB |
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 3.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Length | 221 mm | 267 mm |
| Width | 2-slot | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | 2x 6-pin | 2x 8-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 type | GDDR5 | HBM2 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 16 GB ×2 |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 2048 Bit ×2 |
| Memory clock speed | 1375 MHz | 945 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 176.0 GB/s | 483.8 GB/s ×2 |
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 | 2x DVI, 1x HDMI 1.4a, 1x DisplayPort 1.2 | No outputs |
| HDMI | + | - |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (12_0) | 12 (12_1) |
| Shader Model | 6.5 | 6.4 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 2.1 | 2.0 |
| Vulkan | 1.2.170 | 1.1.125 |
Pros & cons summary
| Recency | 2 September 2014 | 29 June 2017 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 16 GB |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 190 Watt | 230 Watt |
R9 285 has 21.1% lower power consumption.
Pro V320 MxGPU, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 2 years, a 700% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 100% more advanced lithography process.
We couldn't decide between Radeon R9 285 and Radeon Pro V320 MxGPU. We've got no test results to judge.
Be aware that Radeon R9 285 is a desktop graphics card while Radeon Pro V320 MxGPU 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.
