FirePro D300 vs Radeon R9 M390X
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon R9 M390X with FirePro D300, including specs and performance data.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 457 | 456 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 9.20 | 4.61 |
| Architecture | GCN 3.0 (2014−2019) | GCN 1.0 (2011−2020) |
| GPU code name | Amethyst | Pitcairn |
| Market segment | Laptop | Workstation |
| Release date | 5 May 2015 (9 years ago) | 18 January 2014 (11 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 | 2048 | 1280 |
| Core clock speed | 723 MHz | 850 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 5,000 million | 2,800 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 100 Watt | 150 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 92.54 | 68.00 |
| Floating-point processing power | 2.961 TFLOPS | 2.176 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 32 | 32 |
| TMUs | 128 | 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 | large | no data |
| Bus support | PCIe 3.0 | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Length | no data | 242 mm |
| Width | no data | 1-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | no data |
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 | 4 GB | 2 GB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | no data | 1270 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 160.0 GB/s | 162.6 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 |
| 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 compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | DirectX® 12 | 12 (11_1) |
| Shader Model | 6.3 | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.4 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | Not Listed | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | + | 1.2.131 |
| Mantle | + | - |
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 Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 18−20
+5.6%
|
18−20
−5.6%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 30−33
+0%
|
30−33
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 18−20
+5.6%
|
18−20
−5.6%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 35−40
+2.9%
|
35−40
−2.9%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 21−24
+9.5%
|
21−24
−9.5%
|
| Metro Exodus | 24−27
+4.2%
|
24−27
−4.2%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 24−27
+4.2%
|
24−27
−4.2%
|
| Valorant | 35−40
+2.9%
|
35−40
−2.9%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 30−33
+0%
|
30−33
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 18−20
+5.6%
|
18−20
−5.6%
|
| Dota 2 | 30−35
+10%
|
30−33
−10%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 35−40
+8.6%
|
35−40
−8.6%
|
| Fortnite | 55−60
+0%
|
55−60
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 35−40
+2.9%
|
35−40
−2.9%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 21−24
+9.5%
|
21−24
−9.5%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 30−35
+10%
|
30−33
−10%
|
| Metro Exodus | 24−27
+4.2%
|
24−27
−4.2%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 70−75
+4.3%
|
70−75
−4.3%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 24−27
+4.2%
|
24−27
−4.2%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 27−30
+3.7%
|
27−30
−3.7%
|
| Valorant | 35−40
+2.9%
|
35−40
−2.9%
|
| World of Tanks | 130−140
+5.4%
|
130−140
−5.4%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 30−33
+0%
|
30−33
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 18−20
+5.6%
|
18−20
−5.6%
|
| Dota 2 | 30−35
+10%
|
30−33
−10%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 35−40
+8.6%
|
35−40
−8.6%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 35−40
+2.9%
|
35−40
−2.9%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 21−24
+9.5%
|
21−24
−9.5%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 70−75
+4.3%
|
70−75
−4.3%
|
| Valorant | 35−40
+2.9%
|
35−40
−2.9%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 40−45
+10%
|
40−45
−10%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| World of Tanks | 65−70
+3.1%
|
65−70
−3.1%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 18−20
+0%
|
18−20
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 20−22
+11.1%
|
18−20
−11.1%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 16−18
+6.3%
|
16−18
−6.3%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 12−14
+8.3%
|
12−14
−8.3%
|
| Valorant | 21−24
+9.5%
|
21−24
−9.5%
|
4K
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 20−22
+11.1%
|
18−20
−11.1%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 18−20
+5.6%
|
18−20
−5.6%
|
| Metro Exodus | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 27−30
+0%
|
27−30
+0%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 18−20
+5.6%
|
18−20
−5.6%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 20−22
+11.1%
|
18−20
−11.1%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 10−12
+10%
|
10−11
−10%
|
| Fortnite | 10−11
+0%
|
10−11
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
| Valorant | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 9.61 | 9.64 |
| Recency | 5 May 2015 | 18 January 2014 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 2 GB |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 100 Watt | 150 Watt |
R9 M390X has an age advantage of 1 year, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, and 50% lower power consumption.
FirePro D300, on the other hand, has a 0.3% higher aggregate performance score.
Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between Radeon R9 M390X and FirePro D300.
Be aware that Radeon R9 M390X is a notebook card while FirePro D300 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.
