Radeon Pro 555 vs R9 M390X

Place in the ranking	476	517
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Power efficiency	8.59	7.50
Architecture	GCN 3.0 (2014−2019)	GCN 4.0 (2016−2020)
GPU code name	Amethyst	Polaris 21
Market segment	Laptop	Mobile workstation
Release date	5 May 2015 (9 years ago)	5 June 2017 (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 cores	2048	768
Core clock speed	723 MHz	850 MHz
Number of transistors	5,000 million	3,000 million
Manufacturing process technology	28 nm	14 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	100 Watt	75 Watt
Texture fill rate	92.54	40.80
Floating-point processing power	2.961 TFLOPS	1.306 TFLOPS
ROPs	32	16
TMUs	128	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	large
Bus support	PCIe 3.0	no data
Interface	PCIe 3.0 x16	PCIe 3.0 x8
Supplementary power connectors	None	None

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	128 Bit
Memory clock speed	no data	1275 MHz
Memory bandwidth	160.0 GB/s	81.6 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	No 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 compatibility

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

DirectX	DirectX® 12	12 (12_0)
Shader Model	6.3	6.4
OpenGL	4.4	4.6
OpenCL	Not Listed	2.0
Vulkan	+	1.2.131
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 M390X 9.00
+14.5%

Pro 555 7.86

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 M390X 3597
+14.6%

Pro 555 3140

3DMark 11 Performance GPU

3DMark 11 is an obsolete DirectX 11 benchmark by Futuremark. It used four tests based on two scenes, one being few submarines exploring the submerged wreck of a sunken ship, the other is an abandoned temple deep in the jungle. All the tests are heavy with volumetric lighting and tessellation, and despite being done in 1280x720 resolution, are relatively taxing. Discontinued in January 2020, 3DMark 11 is now superseded by Time Spy.

R9 M390X 9448
+82.2%

Pro 555 5185

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	35−40 +9.4%	32 −9.4%
4K	18−20 +12.5%	16 −12.5%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2	18−20 +5.9%	16−18 −5.9%
Cyberpunk 2077	18−20 +18.8%	16−18 −18.8%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5	30−33 +15.4%	24−27 −15.4%
Counter-Strike 2	18−20 +5.9%	16−18 −5.9%
Cyberpunk 2077	18−20 +18.8%	16−18 −18.8%
Forza Horizon 4	35−40 +12.1%	30−35 −12.1%
Forza Horizon 5	21−24 +15%	20−22 −15%
Metro Exodus	24−27 +13.6%	21−24 −13.6%
Red Dead Redemption 2	24−27 +8.7%	21−24 −8.7%
Valorant	35−40 +20%	30−33 −20%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5	30−33 +7.1%	28 −7.1%
Counter-Strike 2	18−20 +5.9%	16−18 −5.9%
Cyberpunk 2077	18−20 +18.8%	16−18 −18.8%
Dota 2	30−35 +78.9%	19 −78.9%
Far Cry 5	35−40 +30%	30 −30%
Fortnite	55−60 +14.6%	45−50 −14.6%
Forza Horizon 4	35−40 +12.1%	30−35 −12.1%
Forza Horizon 5	21−24 +15%	20−22 −15%
Grand Theft Auto V	30−35 +13.8%	29 −13.8%
Metro Exodus	24−27 +13.6%	21−24 −13.6%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	70−75 +121%	33 −121%
Red Dead Redemption 2	24−27 +8.7%	21−24 −8.7%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	27−30 +12%	24−27 −12%
Valorant	35−40 +20%	30−33 −20%
World of Tanks	130−140 +11.4%	120−130 −11.4%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	30−33 +15.4%	24−27 −15.4%
Counter-Strike 2	18−20 +5.9%	16−18 −5.9%
Cyberpunk 2077	18−20 +18.8%	16−18 −18.8%
Dota 2	30−35 −67.6%	57 +67.6%
Far Cry 5	35−40 +11.4%	35−40 −11.4%
Forza Horizon 4	35−40 +12.1%	30−35 −12.1%
Forza Horizon 5	21−24 +15%	20−22 −15%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	70−75 +329%	17 −329%
Valorant	35−40 +20%	30−33 −20%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2	12−14 +20%	10−11 −20%
Grand Theft Auto V	12−14 +20%	10−11 −20%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	45−50 +9.8%	40−45 −9.8%
Red Dead Redemption 2	8−9 +14.3%	7−8 −14.3%
World of Tanks	65−70 +13.6%	55−60 −13.6%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	18−20 +20%	14−16 −20%
Counter-Strike 2	8−9 +14.3%	7−8 −14.3%
Cyberpunk 2077	7−8 +0%	7−8 +0%
Far Cry 5	20−22 +17.6%	16−18 −17.6%
Forza Horizon 4	21−24 +23.5%	16−18 −23.5%
Forza Horizon 5	14−16 +16.7%	12−14 −16.7%
Metro Exodus	16−18 +21.4%	14−16 −21.4%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	12−14 +18.2%	10−12 −18.2%
Valorant	21−24 +9.5%	21−24 −9.5%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2	12−14 +0%	12−14 +0%
Dota 2	20−22 +5.3%	18−20 −5.3%
Grand Theft Auto V	18−20 +5.6%	18−20 −5.6%
Metro Exodus	5−6 +25%	4−5 −25%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	27−30 +12.5%	24−27 −12.5%
Red Dead Redemption 2	6−7 +20%	5−6 −20%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	18−20 +5.6%	18−20 −5.6%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	8−9 +14.3%	7−8 −14.3%
Counter-Strike 2	12−14 +0%	12−14 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	3−4 +0%	3−4 +0%
Dota 2	20−22 +5.3%	18−20 −5.3%
Far Cry 5	10−12 +10%	10−11 −10%
Fortnite	10−11 +25%	8−9 −25%
Forza Horizon 4	12−14 +20%	10−11 −20%
Forza Horizon 5	6−7 +20%	5−6 −20%
Valorant	9−10 +12.5%	8−9 −12.5%

This is how R9 M390X and Pro 555 compete in popular games:

R9 M390X is 9% faster in 1080p
R9 M390X is 13% faster in 4K

Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:

in PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS, with 1080p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the R9 M390X is 329% faster.
in Dota 2, with 1080p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the Pro 555 is 68% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

R9 M390X is ahead in 59 tests (92%)
Pro 555 is ahead in 1 test (2%)
there's a draw in 4 tests (6%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	9.00	7.86
Recency	5 May 2015	5 June 2017
Maximum RAM amount	4 GB	2 GB
Chip lithography	28 nm	14 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	100 Watt	75 Watt