Radeon R9 M385 vs R9 M290X Crossfire
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon R9 M290X Crossfire and Radeon R9 M385, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
R9 M290X Crossfire outperforms R9 M385 by a whopping 256% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 303 | 624 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 6.57 | no data |
| Architecture | GCN (2012−2015) | GCN 2.0 (2013−2017) |
| GPU code name | Neptune CF | Strato |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Release date | 1 March 2014 (10 years ago) | 5 May 2015 (9 years ago) |
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 cores | 2560 | 896 |
| Core clock speed | 850 MHz | 900 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 900 MHz | 1100 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 2x 2800 Million | 2,080 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 200 Watt | no data |
| Texture fill rate | no data | 56.00 |
| Floating-point processing power | no data | 1.792 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | no data | 16 |
| TMUs | no data | 56 |
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 size | large | medium sized |
| Bus support | no data | PCIe 3.0 |
| Interface | no data | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
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 type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2x 4 GB | 4 GB |
| Memory bus width | 2x 256 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 4800 MHz | 1500 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | no data | 76.8 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 Connectors | no data | No outputs |
| Eyefinity | - | + |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| FreeSync | - | + |
| HD3D | - | + |
| PowerTune | - | + |
| DualGraphics | - | + |
| TrueAudio | - | + |
| ZeroCore | - | + |
| Switchable graphics | - | + |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (FL 11_1) | DirectX® 12 |
| Shader Model | no data | 6.3 |
| OpenGL | no data | 4.4 |
| OpenCL | no data | Not Listed |
| 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 HD | 62
+288%
| 16−18
−288%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 30−35
+200%
|
10−12
−200%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 35−40
+245%
|
10−12
−245%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 60−65
+281%
|
16−18
−281%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 30−35
+200%
|
10−12
−200%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 35−40
+245%
|
10−12
−245%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 80−85
+281%
|
21−24
−281%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 50−55
+364%
|
10−12
−364%
|
| Metro Exodus | 50−55
+300%
|
12−14
−300%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 40−45
+175%
|
16−18
−175%
|
| Valorant | 75−80
+381%
|
16−18
−381%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 60−65
+281%
|
16−18
−281%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 30−35
+200%
|
10−12
−200%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 35−40
+245%
|
10−12
−245%
|
| Dota 2 | 65−70
+300%
|
16−18
−300%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 60−65
+146%
|
24−27
−146%
|
| Fortnite | 100−110
+229%
|
30−35
−229%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 80−85
+281%
|
21−24
−281%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 50−55
+364%
|
10−12
−364%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 65−70
+294%
|
16−18
−294%
|
| Metro Exodus | 50−55
+300%
|
12−14
−300%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 130−140
+189%
|
45−50
−189%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 40−45
+175%
|
16−18
−175%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 60−65
+253%
|
16−18
−253%
|
| Valorant | 75−80
+381%
|
16−18
−381%
|
| World of Tanks | 220−230
+159%
|
85−90
−159%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 60−65
+281%
|
16−18
−281%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 30−35
+200%
|
10−12
−200%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 35−40
+245%
|
10−12
−245%
|
| Dota 2 | 65−70
+300%
|
16−18
−300%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 60−65
+146%
|
24−27
−146%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 80−85
+281%
|
21−24
−281%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 50−55
+364%
|
10−12
−364%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 130−140
+189%
|
45−50
−189%
|
| Valorant | 75−80
+381%
|
16−18
−381%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 21−24
+320%
|
5−6
−320%
|
| Dota 2 | 30−33
+500%
|
5−6
−500%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 30−33
+400%
|
6−7
−400%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180
+400%
|
30−35
−400%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 16−18
+325%
|
4−5
−325%
|
| World of Tanks | 130−140
+242%
|
35−40
−242%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 35−40
+388%
|
8−9
−388%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 14−16
+200%
|
5−6
−200%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 50−55
+364%
|
10−12
−364%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 45−50
+444%
|
9−10
−444%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 30−33
+329%
|
7−8
−329%
|
| Metro Exodus | 40−45
+760%
|
5−6
−760%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 27−30
+238%
|
8−9
−238%
|
| Valorant | 45−50
+250%
|
14−16
−250%
|
4K
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 8−9
+300%
|
2−3
−300%
|
| Dota 2 | 30−35
+88.2%
|
16−18
−88.2%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 30−35
+88.2%
|
16−18
−88.2%
|
| Metro Exodus | 14−16
+367%
|
3−4
−367%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 55−60
+280%
|
14−16
−280%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 12−14
+300%
|
3−4
−300%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 30−35
+88.2%
|
16−18
−88.2%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 18−20
+375%
|
4−5
−375%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 8−9
+300%
|
2−3
−300%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6−7
+200%
|
2−3
−200%
|
| Dota 2 | 30−35
+88.2%
|
16−18
−88.2%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 24−27
+300%
|
6−7
−300%
|
| Fortnite | 21−24
+360%
|
5−6
−360%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 27−30
+460%
|
5−6
−460%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 14−16
+400%
|
3−4
−400%
|
| Valorant | 21−24
+340%
|
5−6
−340%
|
This is how R9 M290X Crossfire and R9 M385 compete in popular games:
- R9 M290X Crossfire is 288% faster in 1080p
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Metro Exodus, with 1440p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the R9 M290X Crossfire is 760% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Without exception, R9 M290X Crossfire surpassed R9 M385 in all 60 of our tests.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 18.31 | 5.14 |
| Recency | 1 March 2014 | 5 May 2015 |
R9 M290X Crossfire has a 256.2% higher aggregate performance score.
R9 M385, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 1 year.
The Radeon R9 M290X Crossfire is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon R9 M385 in performance tests.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
