Radeon PRO W7700 vs R9 M385X

Place in the ranking	618	61
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	no data	56.21
Power efficiency	no data	18.29
Architecture	GCN 2.0 (2013−2017)	RDNA 3.0 (2022−2024)
GPU code name	Strato	Navi 32
Market segment	Laptop	Workstation
Release date	5 May 2015 (9 years ago)	13 November 2023 (1 year ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	no data	$999

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

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 cores	896	3072
Core clock speed	1000 MHz	1900 MHz
Boost clock speed	1100 MHz	2600 MHz
Number of transistors	2,080 million	28,100 million
Manufacturing process technology	28 nm	5 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	no data	190 Watt
Texture fill rate	61.60	499.2
Floating-point processing power	1.971 TFLOPS	31.95 TFLOPS
ROPs	16	96
TMUs	56	192
Ray Tracing Cores	no data	48

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	no data
Bus support	PCIe 3.0	no data
Interface	PCIe 3.0 x16	PCIe 4.0 x16
Length	no data	241 mm
Width	no data	2-slot
Supplementary power connectors	no data	1x 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	76.8 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	4x DisplayPort 2.1
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 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	6.7
OpenGL	4.4	4.6
OpenCL	Not Listed	2.2
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. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.

R9 M385X 5.17

PRO W7700 49.85
+864%

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 M385X 1993

PRO W7700 19227
+865%

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

−863%

260−270
+863%

Cost per frame, $

1080p

no data

3.84

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

9−10
−844%

85−90

+844%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	14−16 −829%	130−140 +829%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	5−6 −800%	45−50 +800%
Battlefield 5	12−14 −823%	120−130 +823%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	10−12 −809%	100−105 +809%
Cyberpunk 2077	9−10 −844%	85−90 +844%
Far Cry 5	10−12 −809%	100−105 +809%
Far Cry New Dawn	14−16 −829%	130−140 +829%
Forza Horizon 4	30−35 −809%	300−310 +809%
Hitman 3	10−12 −809%	100−105 +809%
Horizon Zero Dawn	30−35 −809%	300−310 +809%
Metro Exodus	12−14 −817%	110−120 +817%
Red Dead Redemption 2	14−16 −829%	130−140 +829%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	18−20 −844%	170−180 +844%
Watch Dogs: Legion	45−50 −857%	450−500 +857%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	14−16 −829%	130−140 +829%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	5−6 −800%	45−50 +800%
Battlefield 5	12−14 −823%	120−130 +823%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	10−12 −809%	100−105 +809%
Cyberpunk 2077	9−10 −844%	85−90 +844%
Far Cry 5	10−12 −809%	100−105 +809%
Far Cry New Dawn	14−16 −829%	130−140 +829%
Forza Horizon 4	30−35 −809%	300−310 +809%
Hitman 3	10−12 −809%	100−105 +809%
Horizon Zero Dawn	30−35 −809%	300−310 +809%
Metro Exodus	12−14 −817%	110−120 +817%
Red Dead Redemption 2	14−16 −829%	130−140 +829%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	18−20 −844%	170−180 +844%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	41 −754%	350−400 +754%
Watch Dogs: Legion	45−50 −857%	450−500 +857%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	14−16 −829%	130−140 +829%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	5−6 −800%	45−50 +800%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	10−12 −809%	100−105 +809%
Cyberpunk 2077	9−10 −844%	85−90 +844%
Far Cry 5	10−12 −809%	100−105 +809%
Forza Horizon 4	30−35 −809%	300−310 +809%
Hitman 3	10−12 −809%	100−105 +809%
Horizon Zero Dawn	30−35 −809%	300−310 +809%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	18−20 −844%	170−180 +844%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	18−20 −844%	170−180 +844%
Watch Dogs: Legion	45−50 −857%	450−500 +857%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

14−16
−829%

130−140

+829%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5	10−11 −850%	95−100 +850%
Far Cry New Dawn	8−9 −838%	75−80 +838%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	5−6 −800%	45−50 +800%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	0−1	0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	5−6 −800%	45−50 +800%
Cyberpunk 2077	2−3 −800%	18−20 +800%
Far Cry 5	6−7 −817%	55−60 +817%
Forza Horizon 4	12−14 −817%	110−120 +817%
Hitman 3	9−10 −844%	85−90 +844%
Horizon Zero Dawn	12−14 −817%	110−120 +817%
Metro Exodus	3−4 −800%	27−30 +800%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	4−5 −775%	35−40 +775%
Watch Dogs: Legion	30−35 −809%	300−310 +809%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

9−10
−844%

85−90

+844%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5	4−5 −775%	35−40 +775%
Far Cry New Dawn	3−4 −800%	27−30 +800%
Hitman 3	1−2 −800%	9−10 +800%
Horizon Zero Dawn	8−9 −838%	75−80 +838%
Metro Exodus	2−3 −800%	18−20 +800%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	1−2 −800%	9−10 +800%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	3−4 −800%	27−30 +800%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	2−3 −800%	18−20 +800%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	2−3 −800%	18−20 +800%
Cyberpunk 2077	0−1	0−1
Far Cry 5	3−4 −800%	27−30 +800%
Forza Horizon 4	4−5 −775%	35−40 +775%
Watch Dogs: Legion	1−2 −800%	9−10 +800%

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

6−7
−817%

55−60

+817%

This is how R9 M385X and PRO W7700 compete in popular games:

PRO W7700 is 863% faster in 1080p

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	5.17	49.85
Recency	5 May 2015	13 November 2023
Maximum RAM amount	4 GB	16 GB
Chip lithography	28 nm	5 nm

PRO W7700 has a 864.2% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 8 years, a 300% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 460% more advanced lithography process.

The Radeon PRO W7700 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon R9 M385X in performance tests.

Be aware that Radeon R9 M385X is a notebook card while Radeon PRO W7700 is a workstation one.

Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.