Quadro P3200 Max-Q vs Radeon R9 M390

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon R9 M390 with Quadro P3200 Max-Q, including specs and performance data.

R9 M390
2015
2 GB GDDR5
8.91

P3200 Max-Q outperforms R9 M390 by a whopping 141% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking522292
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiencyno data22.22
ArchitectureGCN (2012−2015)Pascal (2016−2021)
GPU code namePitcairnGP104
Market segmentLaptopMobile workstation
Release date9 June 2015 (10 years ago)21 February 2018 (7 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 cores10241792
Core clock speedno data1139 MHz
Boost clock speedno data1404 MHz
Number of transistors5000 Million7,200 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm16 nm
Power consumption (TDP)no data75 Watt
Texture fill rateno data157.2
Floating-point processing powerno data5.032 TFLOPS
ROPsno data64
TMUsno data112
L1 Cacheno data672 KB
L2 Cacheno data1536 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 sizelargeno data
Bus supportPCIe 3.0no data
Interfaceno dataMXM-B (3.0)
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 typeGDDR5GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount2 GB6 GB
Memory bus width256 Bit192 Bit
Memory clock speedno data1753 MHz
Memory bandwidthno data168.3 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 dataNo 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+-
ZeroCore+-
Switchable graphics+-

API and SDK support

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

DirectXDirectX® 1212 (12_1)
Shader Modelno data6.4
OpenGL4.44.6
OpenCLNot Listed1.2
Vulkan-1.2.131
Mantle+-
CUDA-6.1

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 HD43
−133%
100−110
+133%
4K20
−125%
45−50
+125%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low

Counter-Strike 2 45−50
−124%
110−120
+124%
Cyberpunk 2077 18−20
−137%
45−50
+137%

Full HD
Medium

Battlefield 5 40−45
−138%
95−100
+138%
Counter-Strike 2 45−50
−124%
110−120
+124%
Cyberpunk 2077 18−20
−137%
45−50
+137%
Escape from Tarkov 35−40
−130%
85−90
+130%
Far Cry 5 27−30
−141%
70−75
+141%
Fortnite 55−60
−136%
130−140
+136%
Forza Horizon 4 40−45
−138%
95−100
+138%
Forza Horizon 5 27−30
−132%
65−70
+132%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 30−35
−127%
75−80
+127%
Valorant 85−90
−136%
210−220
+136%

Full HD
High

Battlefield 5 40−45
−138%
95−100
+138%
Counter-Strike 2 45−50
−124%
110−120
+124%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 140−150
−114%
300−310
+114%
Cyberpunk 2077 18−20
−137%
45−50
+137%
Dota 2 65−70
−139%
160−170
+139%
Escape from Tarkov 35−40
−130%
85−90
+130%
Far Cry 5 27−30
−141%
70−75
+141%
Fortnite 55−60
−136%
130−140
+136%
Forza Horizon 4 40−45
−138%
95−100
+138%
Forza Horizon 5 27−30
−132%
65−70
+132%
Grand Theft Auto V 34
−135%
80−85
+135%
Metro Exodus 18−20
−122%
40−45
+122%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 30−35
−127%
75−80
+127%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 31
−126%
70−75
+126%
Valorant 85−90
−136%
210−220
+136%

Full HD
Ultra

Battlefield 5 40−45
−138%
95−100
+138%
Cyberpunk 2077 18−20
−137%
45−50
+137%
Dota 2 65−70
−139%
160−170
+139%
Escape from Tarkov 35−40
−130%
85−90
+130%
Far Cry 5 27−30
−141%
70−75
+141%
Forza Horizon 4 40−45
−138%
95−100
+138%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 30−35
−127%
75−80
+127%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 18
−122%
40−45
+122%
Valorant 85−90
−136%
210−220
+136%

Full HD
Epic

Fortnite 55−60
−136%
130−140
+136%

1440p
High

Counter-Strike 2 16−18
−135%
40−45
+135%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 70−75
−129%
160−170
+129%
Grand Theft Auto V 12−14
−125%
27−30
+125%
Metro Exodus 10−11
−140%
24−27
+140%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 45−50
−134%
110−120
+134%
Valorant 100−110
−138%
240−250
+138%

1440p
Ultra

Battlefield 5 21−24
−127%
50−55
+127%
Cyberpunk 2077 7−8
−129%
16−18
+129%
Escape from Tarkov 16−18
−135%
40−45
+135%
Far Cry 5 18−20
−137%
45−50
+137%
Forza Horizon 4 21−24
−127%
50−55
+127%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 12−14
−131%
30−33
+131%

1440p
Epic

Fortnite 18−20
−137%
45−50
+137%

4K
High

Counter-Strike 2 3−4
−133%
7−8
+133%
Grand Theft Auto V 20−22
−125%
45−50
+125%
Metro Exodus 5−6
−140%
12−14
+140%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 12
−125%
27−30
+125%
Valorant 45−50
−129%
110−120
+129%

4K
Ultra

Battlefield 5 10−12
−118%
24−27
+118%
Counter-Strike 2 3−4
−133%
7−8
+133%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
−133%
7−8
+133%
Dota 2 30−35
−127%
75−80
+127%
Escape from Tarkov 8−9
−125%
18−20
+125%
Far Cry 5 9−10
−133%
21−24
+133%
Forza Horizon 4 14−16
−133%
35−40
+133%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 9−10
−133%
21−24
+133%

4K
Epic

Fortnite 9−10
−133%
21−24
+133%

This is how R9 M390 and P3200 Max-Q compete in popular games:

  • P3200 Max-Q is 133% faster in 1080p
  • P3200 Max-Q is 125% faster in 4K

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 8.91 21.51
Recency 9 June 2015 21 February 2018
Maximum RAM amount 2 GB 6 GB
Chip lithography 28 nm 16 nm

P3200 Max-Q has a 141.4% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 2 years, a 200% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 75% more advanced lithography process.

The Quadro P3200 Max-Q is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon R9 M390 in performance tests.

Be aware that Radeon R9 M390 is a notebook graphics card while Quadro P3200 Max-Q is a mobile workstation one.

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 M390
Radeon R9 M390
NVIDIA Quadro P3200 Max-Q
Quadro P3200 Max-Q

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.


3.4 14 votes

Rate Radeon R9 M390 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4.7 26 votes

Rate Quadro P3200 Max-Q on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about Radeon R9 M390 or Quadro P3200 Max-Q, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.