Radeon R7 350 vs R9 380

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon R9 380 and Radeon R7 350, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.

R9 380
2015
4 GB GDDR5, 190 Watt
15.89
+184%

R9 380 outperforms R7 350 by a whopping 184% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking341605
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation9.20no data
Power efficiency5.777.03
ArchitectureGCN 3.0 (2014−2019)GCN 1.0 (2011−2020)
GPU code nameAntiguaCape Verde
Market segmentDesktopDesktop
Designreferenceno data
Release date18 June 2015 (9 years ago)6 July 2016 (8 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$199 no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

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 cores1792512
Compute units28no data
Core clock speedno data800 MHz
Boost clock speed970 MHzno data
Number of transistors5,000 million1,500 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)190 Watt55 Watt
Texture fill rate108.625.60
Floating-point processing power3.476 TFLOPS0.8192 TFLOPS
ROPs3216
TMUs11232

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 supportPCIe 3.0no data
InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16PCIe 3.0 x16
Length221 mm168 mm
Width2-slot1-slot
Form factorfull height / full length / dual slotno data
Supplementary power connectors2 x 6-pinNone
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 typeGDDR5GDDR5
High bandwidth memory (HBM)-no data
Maximum RAM amount4 GB2 GB
Memory bus width256 Bit128 Bit
Memory clock speed970 MHz1125 MHz
Memory bandwidth182.4 GB/s72 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 Connectors2x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort
Eyefinity+-
Number of Eyefinity displays6no 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 compatibility

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

DirectXDirectX® 1212 (11_1)
Shader Model6.35.1
OpenGL4.54.6
OpenCL2.01.2
Vulkan+1.2.131
Mantle+-

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 HD65
+210%
21−24
−210%
4K27
+200%
9−10
−200%

Cost per frame, $

1080p3.06no data
4K7.37no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2 27−30
+211%
9−10
−211%
Cyberpunk 2077 30−35
+210%
10−11
−210%
Elden Ring 45−50
+206%
16−18
−206%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5 50−55
+219%
16−18
−219%
Counter-Strike 2 27−30
+211%
9−10
−211%
Cyberpunk 2077 30−35
+210%
10−11
−210%
Forza Horizon 4 65−70
+210%
21−24
−210%
Metro Exodus 40−45
+207%
14−16
−207%
Red Dead Redemption 2 35−40
+217%
12−14
−217%
Valorant 60−65
+205%
21−24
−205%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5 50−55
+219%
16−18
−219%
Counter-Strike 2 27−30
+211%
9−10
−211%
Cyberpunk 2077 30−35
+210%
10−11
−210%
Dota 2 55−60
+217%
18−20
−217%
Elden Ring 45−50
+206%
16−18
−206%
Far Cry 5 55−60
+217%
18−20
−217%
Fortnite 85−90
+193%
30−33
−193%
Forza Horizon 4 65−70
+210%
21−24
−210%
Grand Theft Auto V 55−60
+217%
18−20
−217%
Metro Exodus 40−45
+207%
14−16
−207%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 110−120
+223%
35−40
−223%
Red Dead Redemption 2 35−40
+217%
12−14
−217%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 52
+189%
18−20
−189%
Valorant 60−65
+205%
21−24
−205%
World of Tanks 200−210
+189%
70−75
−189%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 50−55
+219%
16−18
−219%
Counter-Strike 2 27−30
+211%
9−10
−211%
Cyberpunk 2077 30−35
+210%
10−11
−210%
Dota 2 55−60
+217%
18−20
−217%
Far Cry 5 55−60
+217%
18−20
−217%
Forza Horizon 4 65−70
+210%
21−24
−210%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 110−120
+223%
35−40
−223%
Valorant 60−65
+205%
21−24
−205%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2 21−24
+188%
8−9
−188%
Elden Ring 24−27
+213%
8−9
−213%
Grand Theft Auto V 24−27
+200%
8−9
−200%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 140−150
+194%
50−55
−194%
Red Dead Redemption 2 14−16
+250%
4−5
−250%
World of Tanks 110−120
+217%
35−40
−217%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 30−35
+220%
10−11
−220%
Counter-Strike 2 14−16
+250%
4−5
−250%
Cyberpunk 2077 12−14
+200%
4−5
−200%
Far Cry 5 35−40
+225%
12−14
−225%
Forza Horizon 4 35−40
+225%
12−14
−225%
Metro Exodus 35−40
+192%
12−14
−192%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 20−22
+186%
7−8
−186%
Valorant 40−45
+186%
14−16
−186%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2 10−12
+267%
3−4
−267%
Dota 2 27−30
+200%
9−10
−200%
Elden Ring 10−12
+267%
3−4
−267%
Grand Theft Auto V 27−30
+200%
9−10
−200%
Metro Exodus 10−12
+267%
3−4
−267%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 45−50
+194%
16−18
−194%
Red Dead Redemption 2 10−11
+233%
3−4
−233%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 27−30
+200%
9−10
−200%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 14−16
+200%
5−6
−200%
Counter-Strike 2 10−12
+267%
3−4
−267%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
+300%
1−2
−300%
Dota 2 27−30
+200%
9−10
−200%
Far Cry 5 20−22
+186%
7−8
−186%
Fortnite 18−20
+200%
6−7
−200%
Forza Horizon 4 21−24
+188%
8−9
−188%
Valorant 18−20
+200%
6−7
−200%

This is how R9 380 and R7 350 compete in popular games:

  • R9 380 is 210% faster in 1080p
  • R9 380 is 200% faster in 4K

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 15.89 5.60
Recency 18 June 2015 6 July 2016
Maximum RAM amount 4 GB 2 GB
Power consumption (TDP) 190 Watt 55 Watt

R9 380 has a 183.8% higher aggregate performance score, and a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount.

R7 350, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 1 year, and 245.5% lower power consumption.

The Radeon R9 380 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon R7 350 in performance tests.


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

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 R9 380
Radeon R9 380
AMD Radeon R7 350
Radeon R7 350

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.


4.1 821 vote

Rate Radeon R9 380 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.8 487 votes

Rate Radeon R7 350 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about this comparison, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.