Radeon R7 350 vs R9 390X

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon R9 390X and Radeon R7 350, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.

R9 390X
2015
0 MB GDDR5, 275 Watt
24.26
+337%

R9 390X outperforms R7 350 by a whopping 337% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking234613
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation10.06no data
Power efficiency6.147.02
ArchitectureGCN 2.0 (2013−2017)GCN 1.0 (2011−2020)
GPU code nameGrenadaCape Verde
Market segmentDesktopDesktop
Designreferenceno data
Release date18 June 2015 (9 years ago)6 July 2016 (8 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$429 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 cores2816512
Core clock speedno data800 MHz
Boost clock speed1050 MHzno data
Number of transistors6,200 million1,500 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)275 Watt55 Watt
Texture fill rate184.825.60
Floating-point processing power5.914 TFLOPS0.8192 TFLOPS
ROPs6416
TMUs17632

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
Length275 mm168 mm
Width2-slot1-slot
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 typeGDDR5GDDR5
High bandwidth memory (HBM)-no data
Maximum RAM amount0 MB2 GB
Memory bus width512 Bit128 Bit
Memory clock speed1050 MHz1125 MHz
Memory bandwidth384 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+-
FreeSync+-
PowerTune+-
TrueAudio+-
VCE+-
DDMA audio+no data

API and SDK compatibility

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

DirectXDirectX® 1212 (11_1)
Shader Model6.35.1
OpenGL4.64.6
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 HD90
+400%
18−21
−400%
4K51
+410%
10−12
−410%

Cost per frame, $

1080p4.77no data
4K8.41no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2 45−50
+350%
10−11
−350%
Cyberpunk 2077 50−55
+400%
10−11
−400%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5 75−80
+369%
16−18
−369%
Counter-Strike 2 45−50
+350%
10−11
−350%
Cyberpunk 2077 50−55
+400%
10−11
−400%
Forza Horizon 4 100−110
+346%
24−27
−346%
Forza Horizon 5 65−70
+364%
14−16
−364%
Metro Exodus 60−65
+357%
14−16
−357%
Red Dead Redemption 2 50−55
+350%
12−14
−350%
Valorant 95−100
+367%
21−24
−367%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5 75−80
+369%
16−18
−369%
Counter-Strike 2 45−50
+350%
10−11
−350%
Cyberpunk 2077 50−55
+400%
10−11
−400%
Dota 2 85−90
+372%
18−20
−372%
Far Cry 5 75−80
+375%
16−18
−375%
Fortnite 120−130
+356%
27−30
−356%
Forza Horizon 4 100−110
+346%
24−27
−346%
Forza Horizon 5 65−70
+364%
14−16
−364%
Grand Theft Auto V 80−85
+367%
18−20
−367%
Metro Exodus 60−65
+357%
14−16
−357%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 150−160
+343%
35−40
−343%
Red Dead Redemption 2 50−55
+350%
12−14
−350%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 78
+388%
16−18
−388%
Valorant 95−100
+367%
21−24
−367%
World of Tanks 250−260
+365%
55−60
−365%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 75−80
+369%
16−18
−369%
Counter-Strike 2 45−50
+350%
10−11
−350%
Cyberpunk 2077 50−55
+400%
10−11
−400%
Dota 2 85−90
+372%
18−20
−372%
Far Cry 5 75−80
+375%
16−18
−375%
Forza Horizon 4 100−110
+346%
24−27
−346%
Forza Horizon 5 65−70
+364%
14−16
−364%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 150−160
+343%
35−40
−343%
Valorant 95−100
+367%
21−24
−367%

1440p
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2 24−27
+400%
5−6
−400%
Dota 2 40−45
+356%
9−10
−356%
Grand Theft Auto V 40−45
+356%
9−10
−356%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 120−130
+363%
27−30
−363%
Red Dead Redemption 2 21−24
+340%
5−6
−340%
World of Tanks 160−170
+363%
35−40
−363%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 45−50
+390%
10−11
−390%
Cyberpunk 2077 21−24
+425%
4−5
−425%
Far Cry 5 70−75
+344%
16−18
−344%
Forza Horizon 4 65−70
+364%
14−16
−364%
Forza Horizon 5 35−40
+388%
8−9
−388%
Metro Exodus 55−60
+367%
12−14
−367%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 35−40
+350%
8−9
−350%
Valorant 65−70
+371%
14−16
−371%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2 10−12
+450%
2−3
−450%
Dota 2 40−45
+367%
9−10
−367%
Grand Theft Auto V 40−45
+367%
9−10
−367%
Metro Exodus 18−20
+375%
4−5
−375%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 75−80
+369%
16−18
−369%
Red Dead Redemption 2 14−16
+400%
3−4
−400%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 40−45
+367%
9−10
−367%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 24−27
+400%
5−6
−400%
Counter-Strike 2 10−12
+450%
2−3
−450%
Cyberpunk 2077 8−9
+700%
1−2
−700%
Dota 2 40−45
+367%
9−10
−367%
Far Cry 5 30−35
+357%
7−8
−357%
Fortnite 30−33
+400%
6−7
−400%
Forza Horizon 4 35−40
+375%
8−9
−375%
Forza Horizon 5 21−24
+425%
4−5
−425%
Valorant 30−35
+357%
7−8
−357%

This is how R9 390X and R7 350 compete in popular games:

  • R9 390X is 400% faster in 1080p
  • R9 390X is 410% faster in 4K

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 24.26 5.55
Recency 18 June 2015 6 July 2016
Power consumption (TDP) 275 Watt 55 Watt

R9 390X has a 337.1% higher aggregate performance score.

R7 350, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 1 year, and 400% lower power consumption.

The Radeon R9 390X 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 390X
Radeon R9 390X
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.


4.3 267 votes

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.8 491 vote

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.