Radeon RX 6950 XT vs R9 M380
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon R9 M380 with Radeon RX 6950 XT, including specs and performance data.
RX 6950 XT outperforms R9 M380 by a whopping 916% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 552 | 20 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 27.26 |
| Power efficiency | no data | 14.99 |
| Architecture | GCN 2.0 (2013−2017) | RDNA 2.0 (2020−2024) |
| GPU code name | Strato | Navi 21 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop |
| Release date | 5 May 2015 (9 years ago) | 10 May 2022 (2 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $1,099 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices 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. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 768 | 5120 |
| Core clock speed | 900 MHz | 1925 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1000 MHz | 2324 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 2,080 million | 26,800 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 7 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | no data | 335 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 48.00 | 743.7 |
| Floating-point processing power | 1.536 TFLOPS | 23.8 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 16 | 128 |
| TMUs | 48 | 320 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | no data | 80 |
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 | medium sized | no data |
| Bus support | PCIe 3.0 | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 4.0 x16 |
| Length | no data | 267 mm |
| Width | no data | 3-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | 2x 8-pin |
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 | GDDR6 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 16 GB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1500 MHz | 2250 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 96 GB/s | 576.0 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 outputs | 1x HDMI 2.1, 2x DisplayPort 1.4a |
| Eyefinity | + | - |
| HDMI | - | + |
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 | DirectX® 12 | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |
| Shader Model | 6.3 | 6.5 |
| OpenGL | 4.4 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | Not Listed | 2.1 |
| Vulkan | - | 1.3 |
| Mantle | + | - |
Synthetic benchmark performance
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.
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.
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 | 21−24
−948%
| 220
+948%
|
| 1440p | 12−14
−1025%
| 135
+1025%
|
| 4K | 8−9
−950%
| 84
+950%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | no data | 5.00 |
| 1440p | no data | 8.14 |
| 4K | no data | 13.08 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Atomic Heart | 16−18
−2069%
|
347
+2069%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 14−16
−1357%
|
204
+1357%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 14−16
−1050%
|
161
+1050%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Atomic Heart | 16−18
−1506%
|
257
+1506%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 27−30
−517%
|
170−180
+517%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 14−16
−1314%
|
198
+1314%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 14−16
−921%
|
143
+921%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 21−24
−762%
|
181
+762%
|
| Fortnite | 40−45
−637%
|
300−350
+637%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 30−33
−800%
|
270−280
+800%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 16−18
−1381%
|
237
+1381%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 24−27
−608%
|
170−180
+608%
|
| Valorant | 70−75
−432%
|
350−400
+432%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 16−18
−894%
|
159
+894%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 27−30
−517%
|
170−180
+517%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 14−16
−1100%
|
168
+1100%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 110−120
−153%
|
270−280
+153%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 14−16
−814%
|
128
+814%
|
| Dota 2 | 50−55
−275%
|
199
+275%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 21−24
−724%
|
173
+724%
|
| Fortnite | 40−45
−637%
|
300−350
+637%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 30−33
−800%
|
270−280
+800%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 16−18
−1331%
|
229
+1331%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 24−27
−588%
|
172
+588%
|
| Metro Exodus | 12−14
−1354%
|
189
+1354%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 24−27
−608%
|
170−180
+608%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 18−20
−1989%
|
376
+1989%
|
| Valorant | 70−75
−432%
|
350−400
+432%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 27−30
−517%
|
170−180
+517%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 14−16
−993%
|
153
+993%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 14−16
−771%
|
122
+771%
|
| Dota 2 | 50−55
−215%
|
167
+215%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 21−24
−681%
|
164
+681%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 30−33
−800%
|
270−280
+800%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 16−18
−900%
|
160−170
+900%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 24−27
−608%
|
170−180
+608%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 18−20
−1100%
|
216
+1100%
|
| Valorant | 70−75
−432%
|
350−400
+432%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 40−45
−637%
|
300−350
+637%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 9−10
−689%
|
70−75
+689%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 50−55
−892%
|
500−550
+892%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 8−9
−1813%
|
153
+1813%
|
| Metro Exodus | 6−7
−1900%
|
120
+1900%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 35−40
−349%
|
170−180
+349%
|
| Valorant | 75−80
−526%
|
450−500
+526%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 12−14
−1342%
|
170−180
+1342%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
−1760%
|
93
+1760%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 14−16
−1064%
|
163
+1064%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 16−18
−1369%
|
230−240
+1369%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 10−12
−900%
|
110−120
+900%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 10−11
−1530%
|
160−170
+1530%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 14−16
−979%
|
150−160
+979%
|
4K
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 6−7
−967%
|
60−65
+967%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 1−2
−4900%
|
50−55
+4900%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 18−20
−867%
|
174
+867%
|
| Metro Exodus | 2−3
−3750%
|
77
+3750%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 5−6
−2780%
|
144
+2780%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
−876%
|
300−350
+876%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 6−7
−2033%
|
120−130
+2033%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 1−2
−1900%
|
20
+1900%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−2200%
|
46
+2200%
|
| Dota 2 | 24−27
−488%
|
141
+488%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 7−8
−1671%
|
124
+1671%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 10−11
−1790%
|
180−190
+1790%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 4−5
−900%
|
40−45
+900%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 7−8
−1271%
|
95−100
+1271%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 7−8
−1029%
|
75−80
+1029%
|
This is how R9 M380 and RX 6950 XT compete in popular games:
- RX 6950 XT is 948% faster in 1080p
- RX 6950 XT is 1025% faster in 1440p
- RX 6950 XT is 950% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Counter-Strike 2, with 4K resolution and the High Preset, the RX 6950 XT is 4900% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Without exception, RX 6950 XT surpassed R9 M380 in all 64 of our tests.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 7.04 | 71.50 |
| Recency | 5 May 2015 | 10 May 2022 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 16 GB |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 7 nm |
RX 6950 XT has a 915.6% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 7 years, a 300% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 300% more advanced lithography process.
The Radeon RX 6950 XT is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon R9 M380 in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon R9 M380 is a notebook card while Radeon RX 6950 XT is a desktop one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
