Radeon R9 M390 vs RX Vega 6 (Ryzen 4000/5000)
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon RX Vega 6 (Ryzen 4000/5000) and Radeon R9 M390, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
R9 M390 outperforms RX Vega 6 (Ryzen 4000/5000) by an impressive 63% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 589 | 459 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 27.91 | no data |
| Architecture | Vega (2017−2020) | GCN (2012−2015) |
| GPU code name | Vega Renoir | Pitcairn |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Release date | 7 January 2020 (5 years ago) | 9 June 2015 (9 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 | 384 | 1024 |
| Core clock speed | 400 MHz | no data |
| Boost clock speed | 1500 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | no data | 5000 Million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 7 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 15 Watt | no data |
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 | no data | large |
| Bus support | no data | PCIe 3.0 |
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 | no data | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | no data | 2 GB |
| Memory bus width | no data | 256 Bit |
| 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.
| 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 | 12_1 | DirectX® 12 |
| OpenGL | no data | 4.4 |
| OpenCL | no data | Not Listed |
| 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.
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.
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 | 20
−120%
| 44
+120%
|
| 1440p | 22
−59.1%
| 35−40
+59.1%
|
| 4K | 17
−23.5%
| 21
+23.5%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 12−14
−41.7%
|
16−18
+41.7%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 11
−81.8%
|
20−22
+81.8%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 18−20
−68.4%
|
30−35
+68.4%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 9
−88.9%
|
16−18
+88.9%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 9
−122%
|
20−22
+122%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 26
−53.8%
|
40−45
+53.8%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 16
−56.3%
|
24−27
+56.3%
|
| Metro Exodus | 14
−92.9%
|
27−30
+92.9%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 22
−18.2%
|
24−27
+18.2%
|
| Valorant | 25
−52%
|
35−40
+52%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 18−20
−68.4%
|
30−35
+68.4%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 8
−113%
|
16−18
+113%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3
−567%
|
20−22
+567%
|
| Dota 2 | 24
+9.1%
|
22
−9.1%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 26
−57.7%
|
40−45
+57.7%
|
| Fortnite | 35−40
−61.1%
|
55−60
+61.1%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 21
−90.5%
|
40−45
+90.5%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 12−14
−92.3%
|
24−27
+92.3%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 15
−127%
|
34
+127%
|
| Metro Exodus | 14−16
−80%
|
27−30
+80%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 39
−97.4%
|
75−80
+97.4%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 18−20
−44.4%
|
24−27
+44.4%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 18−20
−73.7%
|
33
+73.7%
|
| Valorant | 12
−217%
|
35−40
+217%
|
| World of Tanks | 56
−155%
|
140−150
+155%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 18−20
−68.4%
|
30−35
+68.4%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7
−143%
|
16−18
+143%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 12−14
−53.8%
|
20−22
+53.8%
|
| Dota 2 | 40
+11.1%
|
35−40
−11.1%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 27−30
−46.4%
|
40−45
+46.4%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 18
−122%
|
40−45
+122%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 12−14
−92.3%
|
24−27
+92.3%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 50−55
−54%
|
75−80
+54%
|
| Valorant | 19
−100%
|
35−40
+100%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Dota 2 | 6−7
−117%
|
12−14
+117%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 7−8
−85.7%
|
12−14
+85.7%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 35−40
−27%
|
45−50
+27%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 5−6
−60%
|
8−9
+60%
|
| World of Tanks | 40−45
−61.4%
|
70−75
+61.4%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 10−11
−90%
|
18−20
+90%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 30−35
+0%
|
30−35
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
−60%
|
8−9
+60%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 12−14
−61.5%
|
21−24
+61.5%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 10−12
−100%
|
21−24
+100%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 9−10
−66.7%
|
14−16
+66.7%
|
| Metro Exodus | 7−8
−171%
|
18−20
+171%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 9−10
−44.4%
|
12−14
+44.4%
|
| Valorant | 16−18
−56.3%
|
24−27
+56.3%
|
4K
High Preset
| Dota 2 | 16−18
−17.6%
|
20−22
+17.6%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 16−18
−17.6%
|
20−22
+17.6%
|
| Metro Exodus | 2−3
−150%
|
5−6
+150%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 16−18
−70.6%
|
27−30
+70.6%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 4−5
−50%
|
6−7
+50%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 16−18
−17.6%
|
20−22
+17.6%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 5−6
−80%
|
9−10
+80%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−50%
|
3−4
+50%
|
| Dota 2 | 19
−5.3%
|
20−22
+5.3%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 7−8
−71.4%
|
12−14
+71.4%
|
| Fortnite | 5−6
−100%
|
10−11
+100%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 6−7
−117%
|
12−14
+117%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 4−5
−75%
|
7−8
+75%
|
| Valorant | 6−7
−66.7%
|
10−11
+66.7%
|
4K
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
This is how RX Vega 6 (Ryzen 4000/5000) and R9 M390 compete in popular games:
- R9 M390 is 120% faster in 1080p
- R9 M390 is 59% faster in 1440p
- R9 M390 is 24% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Dota 2, with 1080p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the RX Vega 6 (Ryzen 4000/5000) is 11% faster.
- in Cyberpunk 2077, with 1080p resolution and the High Preset, the R9 M390 is 567% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- RX Vega 6 (Ryzen 4000/5000) is ahead in 2 tests (3%)
- R9 M390 is ahead in 59 tests (92%)
- there's a draw in 3 tests (5%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 6.07 | 9.91 |
| Recency | 7 January 2020 | 9 June 2015 |
| Chip lithography | 7 nm | 28 nm |
RX Vega 6 (Ryzen 4000/5000) has an age advantage of 4 years, and a 300% more advanced lithography process.
R9 M390, on the other hand, has a 63.3% higher aggregate performance score.
The Radeon R9 M390 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon RX Vega 6 (Ryzen 4000/5000) in performance tests.
Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
