Radeon PRO W7800 vs R9 380
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon R9 380 with Radeon PRO W7800, including specs and performance data.
PRO W7800 outperforms R9 380 by a whopping 366% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 348 | 16 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 8.99 | 32.15 |
| Power efficiency | 5.77 | 19.63 |
| Architecture | GCN 3.0 (2014−2019) | RDNA 3.0 (2022−2024) |
| GPU code name | Antigua | Navi 31 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Workstation |
| Design | reference | no data |
| Release date | 18 June 2015 (9 years ago) | 13 April 2023 (1 year ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $199 | $2,499 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.
PRO W7800 has 258% better value for money than R9 380.
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 | 4480 |
| Compute units | 28 | no data |
| Core clock speed | no data | 1895 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 970 MHz | 2525 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 5,000 million | 57,700 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 5 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 190 Watt | 260 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 108.6 | 707.0 |
| Floating-point processing power | 3.476 TFLOPS | 45.25 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 32 | 128 |
| TMUs | 112 | 280 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | no data | 70 |
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 | PCIe 3.0 | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 4.0 x16 |
| Length | 221 mm | 280 mm |
| Width | 2-slot | 2-slot |
| Form factor | full height / full length / dual slot | no data |
| Supplementary power connectors | 2 x 6-pin | 2x 8-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 | GDDR5 | GDDR6 |
| High bandwidth memory (HBM) | - | no data |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 32 GB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 970 MHz | 2250 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 182.4 GB/s | 576.0 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 | 2x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort | 3x DisplayPort 2.1, 1x mini-DisplayPort 2.1 |
| Eyefinity | + | - |
| Number of Eyefinity displays | 6 | no data |
| 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 and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | DirectX® 12 | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |
| Shader Model | 6.3 | 6.8 |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 2.0 | 2.2 |
| Vulkan | + | 1.3 |
| 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.
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.
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 | 65
−362%
| 300−350
+362%
|
| 4K | 27
−344%
| 120−130
+344%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 3.06
+172%
| 8.33
−172%
|
| 4K | 7.37
+183%
| 20.83
−183%
|
- R9 380 has 172% lower cost per frame in 1080p
- R9 380 has 183% lower cost per frame in 4K
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 27−30
−364%
|
130−140
+364%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 30−35
−352%
|
140−150
+352%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 50−55
−351%
|
230−240
+351%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 27−30
−364%
|
130−140
+364%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 30−35
−352%
|
140−150
+352%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 65−70
−362%
|
300−310
+362%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 40−45
−352%
|
190−200
+352%
|
| Metro Exodus | 40−45
−365%
|
200−210
+365%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 35−40
−347%
|
170−180
+347%
|
| Valorant | 60−65
−353%
|
290−300
+353%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 50−55
−351%
|
230−240
+351%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 27−30
−364%
|
130−140
+364%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 30−35
−352%
|
140−150
+352%
|
| Dota 2 | 55−60
−356%
|
260−270
+356%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 55−60
−356%
|
260−270
+356%
|
| Fortnite | 85−90
−355%
|
400−450
+355%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 65−70
−362%
|
300−310
+362%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 40−45
−352%
|
190−200
+352%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 55−60
−356%
|
260−270
+356%
|
| Metro Exodus | 40−45
−365%
|
200−210
+365%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 110−120
−342%
|
500−550
+342%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 35−40
−347%
|
170−180
+347%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 52
−362%
|
240−250
+362%
|
| Valorant | 60−65
−353%
|
290−300
+353%
|
| World of Tanks | 200−210
−348%
|
900−950
+348%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 50−55
−351%
|
230−240
+351%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 27−30
−364%
|
130−140
+364%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 30−35
−352%
|
140−150
+352%
|
| Dota 2 | 55−60
−356%
|
260−270
+356%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 55−60
−356%
|
260−270
+356%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 65−70
−362%
|
300−310
+362%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 40−45
−352%
|
190−200
+352%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 110−120
−342%
|
500−550
+342%
|
| Valorant | 60−65
−353%
|
290−300
+353%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 20−22
−350%
|
90−95
+350%
|
| Dota 2 | 24−27
−358%
|
110−120
+358%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 24−27
−358%
|
110−120
+358%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 150−160
−364%
|
700−750
+364%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 14−16
−364%
|
65−70
+364%
|
| World of Tanks | 110−120
−355%
|
500−550
+355%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 30−35
−338%
|
140−150
+338%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 12−14
−358%
|
55−60
+358%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 35−40
−362%
|
180−190
+362%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 40−45
−350%
|
180−190
+350%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 24−27
−340%
|
110−120
+340%
|
| Metro Exodus | 35−40
−357%
|
160−170
+357%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 21−24
−352%
|
95−100
+352%
|
| Valorant | 40−45
−350%
|
180−190
+350%
|
4K
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 6−7
−350%
|
27−30
+350%
|
| Dota 2 | 27−30
−344%
|
120−130
+344%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 27−30
−344%
|
120−130
+344%
|
| Metro Exodus | 10−12
−355%
|
50−55
+355%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 45−50
−347%
|
210−220
+347%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 10−11
−350%
|
45−50
+350%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 27−30
−344%
|
120−130
+344%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 14−16
−333%
|
65−70
+333%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 6−7
−350%
|
27−30
+350%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
−320%
|
21−24
+320%
|
| Dota 2 | 27−30
−344%
|
120−130
+344%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 20−22
−350%
|
90−95
+350%
|
| Fortnite | 18−20
−344%
|
80−85
+344%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 21−24
−335%
|
100−105
+335%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 12−14
−358%
|
55−60
+358%
|
| Valorant | 18−20
−344%
|
80−85
+344%
|
This is how R9 380 and PRO W7800 compete in popular games:
- PRO W7800 is 362% faster in 1080p
- PRO W7800 is 344% faster in 4K
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 15.52 | 72.31 |
| Recency | 18 June 2015 | 13 April 2023 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 32 GB |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 5 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 190 Watt | 260 Watt |
R9 380 has 36.8% lower power consumption.
PRO W7800, on the other hand, has a 365.9% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 7 years, a 700% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 460% more advanced lithography process.
The Radeon PRO W7800 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon R9 380 in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon R9 380 is a desktop card while Radeon PRO W7800 is a workstation one.
Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
