Radeon HD 6380G vs RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 4000/5000)
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 4000/5000) and Radeon HD 6380G, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
8 (Ryzen 4000/5000) outperforms HD 6380G by a whopping 1621% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Contents
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 544 | 1295 |
| Place by popularity | 28 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 42.47 | 1.06 |
| Architecture | Vega (2017−2020) | TeraScale 2 (2009−2015) |
| GPU code name | Vega | SuperSumo |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Release date | 7 January 2020 (5 years ago) | 14 June 2011 (14 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $399.99 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
Performance to price scatter graph
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 | 512 | 160 |
| Core clock speed | no data | 400 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 2100 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | no data | 1,178 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 7 nm | 32 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 15 Watt | 35 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | no data | 3.200 |
| Floating-point processing power | no data | 0.128 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | no data | 4 |
| TMUs | no data | 8 |
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).
| Interface | no data | IGP |
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 | System Shared |
| Maximum RAM amount | no data | System Shared |
| Memory bus width | no data | System Shared |
| Memory clock speed | no data | System Shared |
| 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 Connectors | no data | No outputs |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12_1 | 11.2 (11_0) |
| Shader Model | no data | 5.0 |
| OpenGL | no data | 4.4 |
| OpenCL | no data | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | - | N/A |
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 | 22
+2100%
| 1−2
−2100%
|
| 1440p | 16 | 0−1 |
| 4K | 10 | 0−1 |
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | no data | 399.99 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 63
+2000%
|
3−4
−2000%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 18
+1700%
|
1−2
−1700%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 39
+1850%
|
2−3
−1850%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 43
+2050%
|
2−3
−2050%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 13
+1200%
|
1−2
−1200%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 30−35
+3300%
|
1−2
−3300%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 21
+2000%
|
1−2
−2000%
|
| Fortnite | 47
+2250%
|
2−3
−2250%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 35−40
+825%
|
4−5
−825%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 33
+3200%
|
1−2
−3200%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 30−33
+275%
|
8−9
−275%
|
| Valorant | 85−90
+215%
|
27−30
−215%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 33
+3200%
|
1−2
−3200%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 19
+1800%
|
1−2
−1800%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 48
+200%
|
16−18
−200%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 9
+800%
|
1−2
−800%
|
| Dota 2 | 51
+364%
|
10−12
−364%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 30−35
+3300%
|
1−2
−3300%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 20
+1900%
|
1−2
−1900%
|
| Fortnite | 31
+3000%
|
1−2
−3000%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 35−40
+825%
|
4−5
−825%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 28
+2700%
|
1−2
−2700%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 18
+1700%
|
1−2
−1700%
|
| Metro Exodus | 16 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 30−33
+275%
|
8−9
−275%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 21
+320%
|
5−6
−320%
|
| Valorant | 85−90
+215%
|
27−30
−215%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 30
+2900%
|
1−2
−2900%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 9
+800%
|
1−2
−800%
|
| Dota 2 | 48
+336%
|
10−12
−336%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 30−35
+3300%
|
1−2
−3300%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 19
+1800%
|
1−2
−1800%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 35−40
+825%
|
4−5
−825%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 30−33
+275%
|
8−9
−275%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 14
+180%
|
5−6
−180%
|
| Valorant | 37
+37%
|
27−30
−37%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 18
+1700%
|
1−2
−1700%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 16−18
+433%
|
3−4
−433%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 21
+950%
|
2−3
−950%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 9 | 0−1 |
| Metro Exodus | 10 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 22
+340%
|
5−6
−340%
|
| Valorant | 90−95
+1780%
|
5−6
−1780%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 21
+2000%
|
1−2
−2000%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5 | 0−1 |
| Escape from Tarkov | 16−18
+700%
|
2−3
−700%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 16 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 20−22
+900%
|
2−3
−900%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 12−14
+500%
|
2−3
−500%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 16−18 | 0−1 |
4K
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 10
−40%
|
14−16
+40%
|
| Metro Exodus | 6 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 8−9 | 0−1 |
| Valorant | 40−45
+1367%
|
3−4
−1367%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 9−10 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 18
+1700%
|
1−2
−1700%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 7−8 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 8 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 14−16 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 8−9
+300%
|
2−3
−300%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 8−9
+300%
|
2−3
−300%
|
This is how RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 4000/5000) and HD 6380G compete in popular games:
- RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 4000/5000) is 2100% faster in 1080p
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Cyberpunk 2077, with 1080p resolution and the Low Preset, the RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 4000/5000) is 1700% faster.
- in Grand Theft Auto V, with 4K resolution and the High Preset, the HD 6380G is 40% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 4000/5000) performs better in 27 tests (96%)
- HD 6380G performs better in 1 test (4%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 8.26 | 0.48 |
| Recency | 7 January 2020 | 14 June 2011 |
| Chip lithography | 7 nm | 32 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 15 Watt | 35 Watt |
RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 4000/5000) has a 1620.8% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 8 years, a 357.1% more advanced lithography process, and 133.3% lower power consumption.
The Radeon RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 4000/5000) is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon HD 6380G in performance tests.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
