Radeon PRO W7900 vs R9 390

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon R9 390 with Radeon PRO W7900, including specs and performance data.

R9 390
2015, $329
0 MB GDDR5, 275 Watt
21.07
PRO W7900
2023, $3,999
48 GB GDDR6, 295 Watt
66.49
+216%

PRO W7900 outperforms R9 390 by a whopping 216% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking30426
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation10.127.38
Power efficiency5.9017.36
ArchitectureGCN 2.0 (2013−2017)RDNA 3.0 (2022−2026)
GPU code nameGrenadaNavi 31
Market segmentDesktopWorkstation
Designreferenceno data
Release date18 June 2015 (10 years ago)13 April 2023 (3 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$329 $3,999

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

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

R9 390 has 37% better value for money than PRO W7900.

Performance to price scatter graph

Currently popular graphics cards are shown for comparison.

Detailed specifications

General parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. Real power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially if overclocked.

Pipelines / CUDA cores25606144
Core clock speedno data1855 MHz
Boost clock speed1000 MHz2495 MHz
Number of transistors6,200 million57,700 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm5 nm
Power consumption (TDP)275 Watt295 Watt
Texture fill rate160.0958.1
Floating-point processing power5.12 TFLOPS61.32 TFLOPS
ROPs64192
TMUs160384
Ray Tracing Coresno data96
L0 Cacheno data3 MB
L1 Cache640 KB3 MB
L2 Cache1024 KB6 MB
L3 Cacheno data96 MB

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 4.0 x16
Length275 mm280 mm
Width2-slot3-slot
Supplementary power connectors1 x 6-pin, 1 x 8-pin2x 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 typeGDDR5GDDR6
High bandwidth memory (HBM)-no data
Maximum RAM amount0 MB48 GB
Memory bus width512 Bit384 Bit
Memory clock speed1000 MHz2250 MHz
Memory bandwidth384 GB/s864.0 GB/s
Resizable BAR-+

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 DisplayPort3x DisplayPort 2.1, 1x mini-DisplayPort 2.1
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

API and SDK support

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

DirectXDirectX® 1212 Ultimate (12_2)
Shader Model6.36.7
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL2.02.2
Vulkan+1.3
Mantle+-

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 21.07
PRO W7900 66.49
+216%

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 8801
Samples: 3401
PRO W7900 27729
+215%
Samples: 81

Gaming performance

Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 21.07 66.49
Recency 18 June 2015 13 April 2023
Chip lithography 28 nm 5 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 275 Watt 295 Watt

R9 390 has 7% lower power consumption.

PRO W7900, on the other hand, has a 216% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 7 years, and a 460% more advanced lithography process.

The Radeon PRO W7900 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon R9 390 in performance tests.

Be aware that Radeon R9 390 is a desktop graphics card while Radeon PRO W7900 is a workstation one.

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.


4.2 675 votes

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4.1 88 votes

Rate Radeon PRO W7900 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 Radeon PRO W7900, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.