Radeon Pro 5600M vs R9 380

Place in the ranking	346	239
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	8.58	no data
Power efficiency	5.75	33.02
Architecture	GCN 3.0 (2014−2019)	RDNA 1.0 (2019−2020)
GPU code name	Antigua	Navi 12
Market segment	Desktop	Mobile workstation
Design	reference	no data
Release date	18 June 2015 (9 years ago)	15 June 2020 (4 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	$199	no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.

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	1792	2560
Compute units	28	no data
Core clock speed	no data	1000 MHz
Boost clock speed	970 MHz	1030 MHz
Number of transistors	5,000 million	no data
Manufacturing process technology	28 nm	7 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	190 Watt	50 Watt
Texture fill rate	108.6	164.8
Floating-point processing power	3.476 TFLOPS	5.274 TFLOPS
ROPs	32	64
TMUs	112	160

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).

Laptop size	no data	medium sized
Bus support	PCIe 3.0	no data
Interface	PCIe 3.0 x16	PCIe 4.0 x16
Length	221 mm	no data
Width	2-slot	no data
Form factor	full height / full length / dual slot	no data
Supplementary power connectors	2 x 6-pin	None
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	HBM2
High bandwidth memory (HBM)	-	no data
Maximum RAM amount	4 GB	8 GB
Memory bus width	256 Bit	2048 Bit
Memory clock speed	970 MHz	770 MHz
Memory bandwidth	182.4 GB/s	394.2 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	No outputs
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 (12_1)
Shader Model	6.3	6.5
OpenGL	4.5	4.6
OpenCL	2.0	2.0
Vulkan	+	1.2
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.

R9 380 14.81

Pro 5600M 22.40
+51.2%

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.

R9 380 6103

Pro 5600M 9232
+51.3%

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 −46.2%	95−100 +46.2%
4K	27 −48.1%	40−45 +48.1%

Cost per frame, $

1080p	3.06	no data
4K	7.37	no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2	27−30 −63%	40−45 +63%
Cyberpunk 2077	30−35 −58.1%	45−50 +58.1%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5	50−55 −45.1%	70−75 +45.1%
Counter-Strike 2	27−30 −63%	40−45 +63%
Cyberpunk 2077	30−35 −58.1%	45−50 +58.1%
Forza Horizon 4	65−70 −61.5%	100−110 +61.5%
Forza Horizon 5	40−45 −52.4%	60−65 +52.4%
Metro Exodus	40−45 −46.5%	60−65 +46.5%
Red Dead Redemption 2	35−40 −39.5%	50−55 +39.5%
Valorant	60−65 −50%	95−100 +50%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5	50−55 −45.1%	70−75 +45.1%
Counter-Strike 2	27−30 −63%	40−45 +63%
Cyberpunk 2077	30−35 −58.1%	45−50 +58.1%
Dota 2	55−60 −45.6%	80−85 +45.6%
Far Cry 5	55−60 −32.1%	70−75 +32.1%
Fortnite	85−90 −38.6%	120−130 +38.6%
Forza Horizon 4	65−70 −61.5%	100−110 +61.5%
Forza Horizon 5	40−45 −52.4%	60−65 +52.4%
Grand Theft Auto V	55−60 −45.6%	80−85 +45.6%
Metro Exodus	40−45 −46.5%	60−65 +46.5%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	110−120 −35.4%	150−160 +35.4%
Red Dead Redemption 2	35−40 −39.5%	50−55 +39.5%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	52 −48.1%	75−80 +48.1%
Valorant	60−65 −50%	95−100 +50%
World of Tanks	200−210 −25.9%	250−260 +25.9%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	50−55 −45.1%	70−75 +45.1%
Counter-Strike 2	27−30 −63%	40−45 +63%
Cyberpunk 2077	30−35 −58.1%	45−50 +58.1%
Dota 2	55−60 −45.6%	80−85 +45.6%
Far Cry 5	55−60 −32.1%	70−75 +32.1%
Forza Horizon 4	65−70 −61.5%	100−110 +61.5%
Forza Horizon 5	40−45 −52.4%	60−65 +52.4%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	110−120 −35.4%	150−160 +35.4%
Valorant	60−65 −50%	95−100 +50%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2	24−27 −66.7%	40−45 +66.7%
Grand Theft Auto V	24−27 −66.7%	40−45 +66.7%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	140−150 −17.4%	170−180 +17.4%
Red Dead Redemption 2	14−16 −57.1%	21−24 +57.1%
World of Tanks	110−120 −45.5%	160−170 +45.5%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	30−35 −50%	45−50 +50%
Cyberpunk 2077	12−14 −66.7%	20−22 +66.7%
Far Cry 5	35−40 −76.9%	65−70 +76.9%
Forza Horizon 4	40−45 −60%	60−65 +60%
Forza Horizon 5	24−27 −52%	35−40 +52%
Metro Exodus	35−40 −57.1%	55−60 +57.1%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	21−24 −66.7%	35−40 +66.7%
Valorant	40−45 −60%	60−65 +60%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2	8−9 −50%	12−14 +50%
Dota 2	27−30 −51.9%	40−45 +51.9%
Grand Theft Auto V	27−30 −51.9%	40−45 +51.9%
Metro Exodus	10−12 −72.7%	18−20 +72.7%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	45−50 −55.3%	70−75 +55.3%
Red Dead Redemption 2	10−11 −50%	14−16 +50%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	27−30 −51.9%	40−45 +51.9%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	14−16 −66.7%	24−27 +66.7%
Counter-Strike 2	8−9 −50%	12−14 +50%
Cyberpunk 2077	5−6 −60%	8−9 +60%
Dota 2	27−30 −51.9%	40−45 +51.9%
Far Cry 5	20−22 −60%	30−35 +60%
Fortnite	18−20 −66.7%	30−33 +66.7%
Forza Horizon 4	21−24 −60.9%	35−40 +60.9%
Forza Horizon 5	12−14 −66.7%	20−22 +66.7%
Valorant	18−20 −72.2%	30−35 +72.2%

This is how R9 380 and Pro 5600M compete in popular games:

Pro 5600M is 46% faster in 1080p
Pro 5600M is 48% faster in 4K

Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:

in Far Cry 5, with 1440p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the Pro 5600M is 77% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

Without exception, Pro 5600M surpassed R9 380 in all 63 of our tests.

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	14.81	22.40
Recency	18 June 2015	15 June 2020
Maximum RAM amount	4 GB	8 GB
Chip lithography	28 nm	7 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	190 Watt	50 Watt

Pro 5600M has a 51.2% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 4 years, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 300% more advanced lithography process, and 280% lower power consumption.

The Radeon Pro 5600M 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 5600M is a mobile workstation one.

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