Quadro FX 380 LP vs Radeon R9 M365X

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon R9 M365X with Quadro FX 380 LP, including specs and performance data.

R9 M365X
2015
4 GB GDDR5
3.54
+941%

R9 M365X outperforms 380 LP by a whopping 941% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking7761355
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiencyno data0.94
ArchitectureGCN 1.0 (2012−2020)Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013)
GPU code nameTropoGT218
Market segmentLaptopWorkstation
Release date5 May 2015 (10 years ago)1 December 2009 (16 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)no data$169

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 cores64016
Compute units10no data
Core clock speed900 MHz550 MHz
Boost clock speed925 MHzno data
Number of transistors1,500 million260 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)no data28 Watt
Texture fill rate37.004.400
Floating-point processing power1.184 TFLOPS0.044 TFLOPS
ROPs164
TMUs408
L1 Cache160 KBno data
L2 Cache256 KB32 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 sizemedium sizedno data
Bus supportPCIe 3.0no data
InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16PCIe 2.0 x16
Lengthno data168 mm
Widthno data1-slot
Supplementary power connectorsno dataNone

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 typeGDDR5GDDR3
Maximum RAM amount4 GB512 MB
Memory bus width128 Bit64 Bit
Memory clock speed1125 MHz800 MHz
Memory bandwidth72 GB/s12.8 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 ConnectorsNo outputs1x DVI, 1x DisplayPort
Eyefinity+-

Supported technologies

Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.

FreeSync+-
HD3D+-
PowerTune+-
DualGraphics+-
ZeroCore+-
Switchable graphics+-

API and SDK support

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

DirectXDirectX® 1211.1 (10_1)
Shader Model5.14.1
OpenGL4.43.3
OpenCLNot Listed1.1
Vulkan-N/A
Mantle+-
CUDA-1.2

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 M365X 3.54
+941%
FX 380 LP 0.34

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 M365X 1481
+928%
Samples: 1
FX 380 LP 144
Samples: 60

Gaming performance

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

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low

Counter-Strike 2 12−14
+1200%
1−2
−1200%
Cyberpunk 2077 7−8 0−1
Resident Evil 4 Remake 5−6 0−1

Full HD
Medium

Battlefield 5 12−14
+1200%
1−2
−1200%
Counter-Strike 2 12−14
+1200%
1−2
−1200%
Cyberpunk 2077 7−8 0−1
Far Cry 5 10−11 0−1
Fortnite 20−22
+1900%
1−2
−1900%
Forza Horizon 4 16−18
+1600%
1−2
−1600%
Forza Horizon 5 9−10 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 14−16
+1400%
1−2
−1400%
Valorant 50−55
+1175%
4−5
−1175%

Full HD
High

Battlefield 5 12−14
+1200%
1−2
−1200%
Counter-Strike 2 12−14
+1200%
1−2
−1200%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 65−70
+983%
6−7
−983%
Cyberpunk 2077 7−8 0−1
Dota 2 30−35
+1000%
3−4
−1000%
Far Cry 5 10−11 0−1
Fortnite 20−22
+1900%
1−2
−1900%
Forza Horizon 4 16−18
+1600%
1−2
−1600%
Forza Horizon 5 9−10 0−1
Grand Theft Auto V 10−11 0−1
Metro Exodus 6−7 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 14−16
+1400%
1−2
−1400%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 10−12
+1000%
1−2
−1000%
Valorant 50−55
+1175%
4−5
−1175%

Full HD
Ultra

Battlefield 5 12−14
+1200%
1−2
−1200%
Cyberpunk 2077 7−8 0−1
Dota 2 30−35
+1000%
3−4
−1000%
Far Cry 5 10−11 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 16−18
+1600%
1−2
−1600%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 14−16
+1400%
1−2
−1400%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 10−12
+1000%
1−2
−1000%
Valorant 50−55
+1175%
4−5
−1175%

Full HD
Epic

Fortnite 20−22
+1900%
1−2
−1900%

1440p
High

Counter-Strike 2 8−9 0−1
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 27−30
+1250%
2−3
−1250%
Grand Theft Auto V 1−2 0−1
Metro Exodus 2−3 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 30−33
+1400%
2−3
−1400%
Valorant 35−40
+1100%
3−4
−1100%

1440p
Ultra

Cyberpunk 2077 2−3 0−1
Far Cry 5 6−7 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 9−10 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 5−6 0−1

1440p
Epic

Fortnite 7−8 0−1

4K
High

Grand Theft Auto V 14−16
+1400%
1−2
−1400%
Valorant 18−20
+1700%
1−2
−1700%

4K
Ultra

Cyberpunk 2077 1−2 0−1
Dota 2 10−12
+1000%
1−2
−1000%
Far Cry 5 2−3 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 4−5 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 4−5 0−1

4K
Epic

Fortnite 4−5 0−1

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 3.54 0.34
Recency 5 May 2015 1 December 2009
Maximum RAM amount 4 GB 512 MB
Chip lithography 28 nm 40 nm

R9 M365X has a 941% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 5 years, a 700% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 43% more advanced lithography process.

The Radeon R9 M365X is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro FX 380 LP in performance tests.

Be aware that Radeon R9 M365X is a notebook graphics card while Quadro FX 380 LP 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.


1 2 votes

Rate Radeon R9 M365X on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.1 7 votes

Rate Quadro FX 380 LP on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about Radeon R9 M365X or Quadro FX 380 LP, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.