Radeon RX 7900M vs R9 M390X

Place in the ranking	473	33
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Power efficiency	8.60	23.04
Architecture	GCN 3.0 (2014−2019)	RDNA 3.0 (2022−2024)
GPU code name	Amethyst	Navi 31
Market segment	Laptop	Laptop
Release date	5 May 2015 (9 years ago)	19 October 2023 (1 year 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	4608
Core clock speed	723 MHz	1825 MHz
Boost clock speed	no data	2090 MHz
Number of transistors	5,000 million	57,700 million
Manufacturing process technology	28 nm	5 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	100 Watt	180 Watt
Texture fill rate	92.54	601.9
Floating-point processing power	2.961 TFLOPS	38.52 TFLOPS
ROPs	32	192
TMUs	128	288
Ray Tracing Cores	no data	72

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 4.0 x16
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	GDDR6
Maximum RAM amount	4 GB	16 GB
Memory bus width	256 Bit	256 Bit
Memory clock speed	no data	2250 MHz
Memory bandwidth	160.0 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	Portable Device Dependent
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	6.8
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 M390X 9.35

RX 7900M 60.11
+543%

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

RX 7900M 23115
+543%

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

RX 7900M 59943
+534%

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	24−27 −558%	158 +558%
1440p	18−20 −544%	116 +544%
4K	14−16 −557%	92 +557%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2	18−20 −678%	140−150 +678%
Cyberpunk 2077	18−20 −511%	110−120 +511%
Elden Ring	27−30 −737%	220−230 +737%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5	30−33 −290%	110−120 +290%
Counter-Strike 2	18−20 −678%	140−150 +678%
Cyberpunk 2077	18−20 −511%	110−120 +511%
Forza Horizon 4	35−40 −778%	300−350 +778%
Metro Exodus	24−27 −408%	120−130 +408%
Red Dead Redemption 2	24−27 −336%	100−110 +336%
Valorant	30−35 −700%	270−280 +700%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5	30−33 −290%	110−120 +290%
Counter-Strike 2	18−20 −628%	131 +628%
Cyberpunk 2077	18−20 −511%	110−120 +511%
Dota 2	30−35 −321%	139 +321%
Elden Ring	27−30 −737%	220−230 +737%
Far Cry 5	35−40 −115%	84 +115%
Fortnite	55−60 −329%	230−240 +329%
Forza Horizon 4	35−40 −778%	300−350 +778%
Grand Theft Auto V	30−35 −321%	139 +321%
Metro Exodus	24−27 −408%	120−130 +408%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	70−75 −195%	210−220 +195%
Red Dead Redemption 2	24−27 −336%	100−110 +336%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	27−30 −521%	170−180 +521%
Valorant	30−35 −700%	270−280 +700%
World of Tanks	130−140 −104%	270−280 +104%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	30−33 −290%	110−120 +290%
Counter-Strike 2	18−20 −622%	130 +622%
Cyberpunk 2077	18−20 −511%	110−120 +511%
Dota 2	30−35 −536%	210−220 +536%
Far Cry 5	35−40 −205%	110−120 +205%
Forza Horizon 4	35−40 −830%	344 +830%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	70−75 −195%	210−220 +195%
Valorant	30−35 −700%	270−280 +700%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2	10−12 −864%	106 +864%
Elden Ring	12−14 −1031%	140−150 +1031%
Grand Theft Auto V	12−14 −783%	106 +783%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	45−50 −289%	170−180 +289%
Red Dead Redemption 2	8−9 −775%	70−75 +775%
World of Tanks	65−70 −493%	350−400 +493%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	18−20 −383%	85−90 +383%
Counter-Strike 2	10−11 −750%	85 +750%
Cyberpunk 2077	7−8 −543%	45−50 +543%
Far Cry 5	20−22 −700%	160−170 +700%
Forza Horizon 4	20−22 −1145%	249 +1145%
Metro Exodus	16−18 −582%	110−120 +582%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	10−12 −1036%	120−130 +1036%
Valorant	21−24 −926%	230−240 +926%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2	4−5 −1675%	70−75 +1675%
Dota 2	20−22 −630%	146 +630%
Elden Ring	6−7 −1150%	75−80 +1150%
Grand Theft Auto V	18−20 −668%	146 +668%
Metro Exodus	5−6 −1040%	55−60 +1040%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	27−30 −674%	200−210 +674%
Red Dead Redemption 2	6−7 −667%	45−50 +667%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	18−20 −668%	146 +668%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	8−9 −863%	75−80 +863%
Counter-Strike 2	4−5 −1675%	70−75 +1675%
Cyberpunk 2077	2−3 −500%	12−14 +500%
Dota 2	20−22 −500%	120−130 +500%
Far Cry 5	10−12 −855%	100−110 +855%
Fortnite	10−11 −860%	95−100 +860%
Forza Horizon 4	10−12 −1091%	131 +1091%
Valorant	9−10 −1378%	130−140 +1378%

This is how R9 M390X and RX 7900M compete in popular games:

RX 7900M is 558% faster in 1080p
RX 7900M is 544% faster in 1440p
RX 7900M is 557% 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 7900M is 1675% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

Without exception, RX 7900M surpassed R9 M390X in all 55 of our tests.

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	9.35	60.11
Recency	5 May 2015	19 October 2023
Maximum RAM amount	4 GB	16 GB
Chip lithography	28 nm	5 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	100 Watt	180 Watt

R9 M390X has 80% lower power consumption.

RX 7900M, on the other hand, has a 542.9% 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 RX 7900M is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon R9 M390X in performance tests.

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