GeForce 825M vs Radeon R9 390

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon R9 390 with GeForce 825M, including specs and performance data.

R9 390
2015, $329
0 MB GDDR5, 275 Watt
21.15
+1062%

R9 390 outperforms 825M by a whopping 1062% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking297964
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation10.20no data
Power efficiency5.914.24
ArchitectureGCN 2.0 (2013−2017)Kepler 2.0 (2013−2015)
GPU code nameGrenadaGK208
Market segmentDesktopLaptop
Designreferenceno data
Release date18 June 2015 (10 years ago)27 January 2014 (11 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$329 no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.

no data

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 cores2560384
Core clock speedno data850 MHz
Boost clock speed1000 MHz941 MHz
Number of transistors6,200 million915 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)275 Watt33 Watt
Texture fill rate160.030.11
Floating-point processing power5.12 TFLOPS0.7227 TFLOPS
ROPs648
TMUs16032
L1 Cache640 KB32 KB
L2 Cache1024 KB128 KB

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 sizeno datamedium sized
Bus supportPCIe 3.0no data
InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16PCIe 3.0 x8
Length275 mmno data
Width2-slotno data
Supplementary power connectors1 x 6-pin, 1 x 8-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 typeGDDR5DDR3
High bandwidth memory (HBM)-no data
Maximum RAM amount0 MB1 GB
Memory bus width512 Bit64 Bit
Memory clock speed1000 MHz900 MHz
Memory bandwidth384 GB/s14.4 GB/s
Shared memory--

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 Connectors2x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPortNo outputs
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+-
FreeSync+-
PowerTune+-
TrueAudio+-
VCE+-
DDMA audio+no data
Optimus-+

API and SDK support

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

DirectXDirectX® 1212 (11_0)
Shader Model6.35.1
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL2.01.2
Vulkan+1.1.126
Mantle+-
CUDA-+

Synthetic benchmarks

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 390 21.15
+1062%
GeForce 825M 1.82

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 390 8846
+1064%
Samples: 3344
GeForce 825M 760
Samples: 41

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 390 12730
+1007%
GeForce 825M 1150

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 HD400−450
+1043%
35
−1043%

Cost per frame, $

1080p0.82no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low

Counter-Strike 2 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Hogwarts Legacy 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%

Full HD
Medium

Battlefield 5 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Far Cry 5 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Fortnite 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Hogwarts Legacy 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
Valorant 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%

Full HD
High

Battlefield 5 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Dota 2 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Far Cry 5 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Fortnite 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Hogwarts Legacy 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Metro Exodus 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Valorant 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%

Full HD
Ultra

Battlefield 5 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Dota 2 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Far Cry 5 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Hogwarts Legacy 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Valorant 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%

Full HD
Epic

Fortnite 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%

1440p
High

Counter-Strike 2 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Valorant 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%

1440p
Ultra

Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Far Cry 5 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Hogwarts Legacy 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%

1440p
Epic

Fortnite 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%

4K
High

Grand Theft Auto V 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Valorant 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%

4K
Ultra

Dota 2 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Far Cry 5 0−1 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 0−1 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%

4K
Epic

Fortnite 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%

This is how R9 390 and GeForce 825M compete in popular games:

  • R9 390 is 1043% faster in 1080p

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 53 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 21.15 1.82
Recency 18 June 2015 27 January 2014
Power consumption (TDP) 275 Watt 33 Watt

R9 390 has a 1062.1% higher aggregate performance score, and an age advantage of 1 year.

GeForce 825M, on the other hand, has 733.3% lower power consumption.

The Radeon R9 390 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce 825M in performance tests.

Be aware that Radeon R9 390 is a desktop graphics card while GeForce 825M 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 390
Radeon R9 390
NVIDIA GeForce 825M
GeForce 825M

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.


4.2 645 votes

Rate Radeon R9 390 on a scale of 1 to 5:

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

Rate GeForce 825M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about Radeon R9 390 or GeForce 825M, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.