Radeon RX Vega 5 vs R9 380X

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon R9 380X with Radeon RX Vega 5, including specs and performance data.

R9 380X
2015
4 GB GDDR5, 190 Watt
16.01
+245%

R9 380X outperforms RX Vega 5 by a whopping 245% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking348660
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation8.14no data
Power efficiency5.7821.21
ArchitectureGCN 3.0 (2014−2019)Vega (2017−2020)
GPU code nameAntiguaVega
Market segmentDesktopLaptop
Designreferenceno data
Release date19 November 2015 (9 years ago)7 January 2020 (5 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$229 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 cores2048320
Compute units32no data
Boost clock speed970 MHz1400 MHz
Number of transistors5,000 millionno data
Manufacturing process technology28 nm7 nm
Power consumption (TDP)190 Watt15 Watt
Texture fill rate124.2no data
Floating-point processing power3.973 TFLOPSno data
ROPs32no data
TMUs128no data

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 x16no data
Length221 mmno data
Width2-slotno data
Form factorfull height / full lengthno data
Supplementary power connectors​2 x 6-pinno data
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 typeGDDR5no data
High bandwidth memory (HBM)-no data
Maximum RAM amount4 GBno data
Memory bus width256 Bitno data
Memory clock speed970 MHzno data
Memory bandwidth182.4 GB/sno data
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 DisplayPortno data
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 and SDK compatibility

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

DirectXDirectX® 1212_1
Shader Model6.3no data
OpenGL4.5no data
OpenCL2.0no data
Vulkan+-
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.

R9 380X 16.01
+245%
RX Vega 5 4.64

3DMark Fire Strike Graphics

Fire Strike is a DirectX 11 benchmark for gaming PCs. It features two separate tests displaying a fight between a humanoid and a fiery creature made of lava. Using 1920x1080 resolution, Fire Strike shows off some realistic graphics and is quite taxing on hardware.

R9 380X 9510
+290%
RX Vega 5 2438

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 HD60−65
+233%
18
−233%

Cost per frame, $

1080p3.82no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Atomic Heart 14
+0%
14
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 7
+0%
7
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 9
+0%
9
+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Atomic Heart 11
+0%
11
+0%
Battlefield 5 22
+0%
22
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Far Cry 5 15
+0%
15
+0%
Fortnite 52
+0%
52
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 20−22
+0%
20−22
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 12
+0%
12
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Valorant 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%

Full HD
High Preset

Atomic Heart 7
+0%
7
+0%
Battlefield 5 18
+0%
18
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 50
+0%
50
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Dota 2 39
+0%
39
+0%
Far Cry 5 12
+0%
12
+0%
Fortnite 21
+0%
21
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 20−22
+0%
20−22
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 13
+0%
13
+0%
Metro Exodus 4
+0%
4
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 14
+0%
14
+0%
Valorant 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 16
+0%
16
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Dota 2 37
+0%
37
+0%
Far Cry 5 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 20−22
+0%
20−22
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 9
+0%
9
+0%
Valorant 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Fortnite 12
+0%
12
+0%

1440p
High Preset

Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Metro Exodus 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Valorant 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Far Cry 5 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%

1440p
Epic Preset

Fortnite 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%

4K
High Preset

Atomic Heart 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Valorant 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Dota 2 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Far Cry 5 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%

4K
Epic Preset

Fortnite 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%

This is how R9 380X and RX Vega 5 compete in popular games:

  • R9 380X is 233% faster in 1080p

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 63 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 16.01 4.64
Recency 19 November 2015 7 January 2020
Chip lithography 28 nm 7 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 190 Watt 15 Watt

R9 380X has a 245% higher aggregate performance score.

RX Vega 5, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 4 years, a 300% more advanced lithography process, and 1166.7% lower power consumption.

The Radeon R9 380X is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon RX Vega 5 in performance tests.

Be aware that Radeon R9 380X is a desktop card while Radeon RX Vega 5 is a notebook one.

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 380X
Radeon R9 380X
AMD Radeon RX Vega 5
Radeon RX Vega 5

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.


3.9 187 votes

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4 219 votes

Rate Radeon RX Vega 5 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can give us your opinion about Radeon R9 380X or Radeon RX Vega 5, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.