Radeon R9 M390X vs RX Vega M GH

Place in the ranking	320	473
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Power efficiency	11.79	8.60
Architecture	GCN 4.0 (2016−2020)	GCN 3.0 (2014−2019)
GPU code name	Polaris 22	Amethyst
Market segment	Laptop	Laptop
Release date	1 February 2018 (6 years ago)	5 May 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	1536	2048
Core clock speed	1063 MHz	723 MHz
Boost clock speed	1190 MHz	no data
Number of transistors	5,000 million	5,000 million
Manufacturing process technology	14 nm	28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	100 Watt	100 Watt
Texture fill rate	114.2	92.54
Floating-point processing power	3.656 TFLOPS	2.961 TFLOPS
ROPs	64	32
TMUs	96	128

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	medium sized	large
Bus support	no data	PCIe 3.0
Interface	IGP	PCIe 3.0 x16
Supplementary power connectors	no data	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	HBM2	GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount	4 GB	4 GB
Memory bus width	1024 Bit	256 Bit
Memory clock speed	800 MHz	no data
Memory bandwidth	204.8 GB/s	160.0 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	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	12 (12_0)	DirectX® 12
Shader Model	6.4	6.3
OpenGL	4.6	4.4
OpenCL	2.0	Not Listed
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.

RX Vega M GH 17.09
+82.8%

R9 M390X 9.35

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.

RX Vega M GH 6572
+82.7%

R9 M390X 3597

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.

RX Vega M GH 14302
+51.4%

R9 M390X 9448

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	58 +93.3%	30−35 −93.3%
1440p	44 +83.3%	24−27 −83.3%
4K	30 +87.5%	16−18 −87.5%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2	30−33 +66.7%	18−20 −66.7%
Cyberpunk 2077	39 +117%	18−20 −117%
Elden Ring	50−55 +96.3%	27−30 −96.3%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5	53 +76.7%	30−33 −76.7%
Counter-Strike 2	30−33 +66.7%	18−20 −66.7%
Cyberpunk 2077	15 −20%	18−20 +20%
Forza Horizon 4	85 +130%	35−40 −130%
Metro Exodus	55 +120%	24−27 −120%
Red Dead Redemption 2	39 +56%	24−27 −56%
Valorant	65−70 +103%	30−35 −103%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5	55−60 +83.3%	30−33 −83.3%
Counter-Strike 2	30−33 +66.7%	18−20 −66.7%
Cyberpunk 2077	12 −50%	18−20 +50%
Dota 2	76 +130%	30−35 −130%
Elden Ring	50−55 +96.3%	27−30 −96.3%
Far Cry 5	46 +17.9%	35−40 −17.9%
Fortnite	90−95 +69.1%	55−60 −69.1%
Forza Horizon 4	68 +83.8%	35−40 −83.8%
Grand Theft Auto V	60 +81.8%	30−35 −81.8%
Metro Exodus	38 +52%	24−27 −52%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	71 −2.8%	70−75 +2.8%
Red Dead Redemption 2	40−45 +64%	24−27 −64%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	50−55 +89.3%	27−30 −89.3%
Valorant	41 +20.6%	30−35 −20.6%
World of Tanks	210−220 +54%	130−140 −54%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	41 +36.7%	30−33 −36.7%
Counter-Strike 2	30−33 +66.7%	18−20 −66.7%
Cyberpunk 2077	12 −50%	18−20 +50%
Dota 2	95 +188%	30−35 −188%
Far Cry 5	63 +61.5%	35−40 −61.5%
Forza Horizon 4	57 +54.1%	35−40 −54.1%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	47 −55.3%	70−75 +55.3%
Valorant	65−70 +103%	30−35 −103%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2	24−27 +136%	10−12 −136%
Elden Ring	27−30 +108%	12−14 −108%
Grand Theft Auto V	24−27 +117%	12−14 −117%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	150−160 +253%	45−50 −253%
Red Dead Redemption 2	14−16 +87.5%	8−9 −87.5%
World of Tanks	110−120 +76.1%	65−70 −76.1%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	35−40 +94.4%	18−20 −94.4%
Counter-Strike 2	14−16 +40%	10−11 −40%
Cyberpunk 2077	2 −250%	7−8 +250%
Far Cry 5	42 +110%	20−22 −110%
Forza Horizon 4	40−45 +115%	20−22 −115%
Metro Exodus	35−40 +124%	16−18 −124%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	21−24 +100%	10−12 −100%
Valorant	40−45 +87%	21−24 −87%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2	12−14 +225%	4−5 −225%
Dota 2	27−30 +45%	20−22 −45%
Elden Ring	12−14 +100%	6−7 −100%
Grand Theft Auto V	27−30 +52.6%	18−20 −52.6%
Metro Exodus	11 +120%	5−6 −120%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	49 +81.5%	27−30 −81.5%
Red Dead Redemption 2	10−12 +83.3%	6−7 −83.3%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	27−30 +52.6%	18−20 −52.6%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	14 +75%	8−9 −75%
Counter-Strike 2	12−14 +225%	4−5 −225%
Cyberpunk 2077	5−6 +150%	2−3 −150%
Dota 2	27−30 +45%	20−22 −45%
Far Cry 5	21 +90.9%	10−12 −90.9%
Fortnite	20−22 +100%	10−11 −100%
Forza Horizon 4	24−27 +127%	10−12 −127%
Valorant	18−20 +111%	9−10 −111%

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

RX Vega M GH is 93% faster in 1080p
RX Vega M GH is 83% faster in 1440p
RX Vega M GH is 88% faster in 4K

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

in PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS, with 1440p resolution and the High Preset, the RX Vega M GH is 253% faster.
in Cyberpunk 2077, with 1440p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the R9 M390X is 250% faster.

All in all, in popular games: