Radeon R9 M390 vs Quadro M1200

Place in the ranking	504	457
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Power efficiency	12.89	no data
Architecture	Maxwell (2014−2017)	GCN (2012−2015)
GPU code name	GM107	Pitcairn
Market segment	Mobile workstation	Laptop
Release date	11 January 2017 (8 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	640	1024
Core clock speed	1093 MHz	no data
Boost clock speed	1150 MHz	no data
Number of transistors	1,870 million	5000 Million
Manufacturing process technology	28 nm	28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	45 Watt	no data
Texture fill rate	43.72	no data
Floating-point processing power	1.399 TFLOPS	no data
ROPs	16	no data
TMUs	40	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	large	large
Bus support	no data	PCIe 3.0
Interface	MXM-A (3.0)	no data
Supplementary power connectors	None	no data

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	128 Bit	256 Bit
Memory clock speed	1253 MHz	no data
Memory bandwidth	80 GB/s	no data
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 data
Eyefinity	-	+
Display Port	1.2	no data

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	-	+
Optimus	+	-
3D Stereo	+	no data
Mosaic	+	no data
nView Display Management	+	no data
Optimus	+	no data

API compatibility

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

DirectX	12	DirectX® 12
Shader Model	5.1	no data
OpenGL	4.5	4.4
OpenCL	1.2	Not Listed
Vulkan	1.1.126	-
Mantle	-	+
CUDA	5.0	-

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.

Quadro M1200 8.41

R9 M390 9.91
+17.8%

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.

Quadro M1200 5310

R9 M390 6819
+28.4%

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	32 −37.5%	44 +37.5%
4K	11 −90.9%	21 +90.9%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2	16−18 −12.5%	18−20 +12.5%
Cyberpunk 2077	16−18 −18.8%	18−20 +18.8%
Elden Ring	21−24 −21.7%	27−30 +21.7%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5	27−30 −18.5%	30−35 +18.5%
Counter-Strike 2	16−18 −12.5%	18−20 +12.5%
Cyberpunk 2077	16−18 −18.8%	18−20 +18.8%
Forza Horizon 4	30−35 −14.7%	35−40 +14.7%
Metro Exodus	21−24 −22.7%	27−30 +22.7%
Red Dead Redemption 2	21−24 −13%	24−27 +13%
Valorant	30−33 −23.3%	35−40 +23.3%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5	27−30 −18.5%	30−35 +18.5%
Counter-Strike 2	16−18 −12.5%	18−20 +12.5%
Cyberpunk 2077	16−18 −18.8%	18−20 +18.8%
Dota 2	30−33 +36.4%	22 −36.4%
Elden Ring	21−24 −21.7%	27−30 +21.7%
Far Cry 5	35−40 −13.9%	40−45 +13.9%
Fortnite	50−55 −16%	55−60 +16%
Forza Horizon 4	30−35 −14.7%	35−40 +14.7%
Grand Theft Auto V	30−33 −13.3%	34 +13.3%
Metro Exodus	21−24 −22.7%	27−30 +22.7%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	65−70 −14.9%	75−80 +14.9%
Red Dead Redemption 2	21−24 −13%	24−27 +13%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	24−27 −26.9%	33 +26.9%
Valorant	30−33 −23.3%	35−40 +23.3%
World of Tanks	120−130 −13.5%	140−150 +13.5%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	27−30 −18.5%	30−35 +18.5%
Counter-Strike 2	16−18 −12.5%	18−20 +12.5%
Cyberpunk 2077	16−18 −18.8%	18−20 +18.8%
Dota 2	30−33 −16.7%	35−40 +16.7%
Far Cry 5	35−40 −13.9%	40−45 +13.9%
Forza Horizon 4	30−35 −14.7%	35−40 +14.7%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	65−70 −14.9%	75−80 +14.9%
Valorant	30−33 −23.3%	35−40 +23.3%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2	10−11 −20%	12−14 +20%
Elden Ring	10−12 −27.3%	14−16 +27.3%
Grand Theft Auto V	10−11 −30%	12−14 +30%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	40−45 −11.9%	45−50 +11.9%
Red Dead Redemption 2	7−8 −14.3%	8−9 +14.3%
World of Tanks	60−65 −16.4%	70−75 +16.4%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	16−18 −18.8%	18−20 +18.8%
Counter-Strike 2	10−11 +0%	10−11 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	6−7 −16.7%	7−8 +16.7%
Far Cry 5	18−20 −16.7%	21−24 +16.7%
Forza Horizon 4	16−18 −29.4%	21−24 +29.4%
Metro Exodus	14−16 −35.7%	18−20 +35.7%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	10−11 −20%	12−14 +20%
Valorant	21−24 −19%	24−27 +19%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2	2−3 −100%	4−5 +100%
Dota 2	18−20 −5.3%	20−22 +5.3%
Elden Ring	5−6 −20%	6−7 +20%
Grand Theft Auto V	18−20 −5.3%	20−22 +5.3%
Metro Exodus	4−5 −25%	5−6 +25%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	24−27 −20.8%	27−30 +20.8%
Red Dead Redemption 2	5−6 −20%	6−7 +20%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	18−20 −5.3%	20−22 +5.3%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	7−8 −28.6%	9−10 +28.6%
Counter-Strike 2	2−3 −100%	4−5 +100%
Cyberpunk 2077	2−3 −50%	3−4 +50%
Dota 2	18−20 −5.3%	20−22 +5.3%
Far Cry 5	10−11 −20%	12−14 +20%
Fortnite	8−9 −25%	10−11 +25%
Forza Horizon 4	10−11 −20%	12−14 +20%
Valorant	8−9 −25%	10−11 +25%

This is how Quadro M1200 and R9 M390 compete in popular games:

R9 M390 is 38% faster in 1080p
R9 M390 is 91% faster in 4K

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

in Dota 2, with 1080p resolution and the High Preset, the Quadro M1200 is 36% faster.
in Counter-Strike 2, with 4K resolution and the High Preset, the R9 M390 is 100% faster.

All in all, in popular games: